Introduction

Homelessness and housing stress among young people is a pervasive social issue that has garnered considerable attention within the Australian policy landscape over recent decades (Leebeek 2019; Pawson et al. 2023; Warren & Barnes 2021). Despite the implementation of numerous targeted policies at national, state, and local levels, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2023a) has measured an overall increase in the number of young people experiencing homelessness in numerous Australian states, including the state of Queensland.

Analysis of youth homelessness in Queensland is timely due to increased internal and external, migration which has occurred post Covid-19 and decades long under investment in social and affordable housing (Cournede & Plouin 2022). These issues mirror many parts of the western world who are continuing to grapple with the neoliberal legacies of underinvestment in housing and social changes brought about since the pandemic (Flanagan 2020). Queensland is the only jurisdiction in Australia with a specific youth housing policy however to the 2021 Census of Population and Housing (ABS 2023a); 4833 young people aged between 12 and 24 were homeless in Queensland on census night, accounting for 22% of the state’s total homeless population. This estimate relies on the ABS (2012, p. 11) definition of homelessness, which considers a person to be homeless if their current residential arrangement is ‘in a dwelling that is inadequate; has no tenure, or [tenure that is short and non-extendable]; or does not allow them to have control of and access to space for social relations’. Whilst census data indicates that young people are over-represented in the homeless population, it is expected that youth homelessness estimates are underestimated. This is because Census data is unable to discern between those visiting another household and those ‘couch surfing’ on census night (ABS 2018). It is also generally acknowledged that the census category ‘no usual address’ is under-reported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who may not identify with this term (ABS 2018).

In highlighting that young people are over-represented within the homeless population, it is important to acknowledge the high incidence of housing stress among young people (QCOSS 2022). According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2022a, b), housing stress occurs when the cost of housing, including rent payments, is beyond 30% of a household’s disposable income. Existing as the main reason young people seek assistance from Specialist Homelessness Services (AIHW, 2024). Queensland is currently facing a housing crisis, with the states most recent Rental Affordability Snapshot (QCOSS 2022) showing there to be zero affordable housing options available to students living in share-house accommodation receiving Youth Allowance (AIHW 2022a; Anglicare 2024; Pawson et al. 2023). In addition to the increasing unaffordability of housing, residential vacancy information reveals a state-wide vacancy rate of 0.9%, with vacancy rates of 0.1% in some areas of Queensland (Ryan 2023). This deviates significantly from a ‘healthy’ rental market wherein vacancy rates range between 2.6% and 3.5% (Ryan 2023). For young people, issues of housing affordability and availability are compounded in that they often experience ageism when attempting to access the private rental market (Boyett et al. 2021, Maalsen et al. 2021; Mayock & Parker 2020).

Targeted to assist those who are unable to access the private rental market, social housing is defined by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (2023) as ‘government subsidised short and long-term rental accommodation’. To be eligible for social housing in Queensland, applicants must be experiencing at least 2 non-financial ‘complex wellbeing factors’ and meet a range of eligibility criteria (Queensland Government 2022a). Despite growing need for affordable housing options, social housing in Queensland is in short supply, with a current waitlist of over 27,400 applications (Cournede & Plouin 2022; Pawson et al. 2023; Queensland Government 2022b; Warren & Barnes 2021). In addition to the undersupply of social housing in Queensland, the current model of social housing often disqualifies young people due to their low and insecure incomes (Mackenzie et al. 2020). The adult-centric nature of the existing social housing system can be seen in that despite young people being a ‘priority need’ cohort, young people make up just 2.7% of principal social housing tenants across Australia (AIHW 2022b; Powell et al. 2019).

Coupled with the lack of affordable housing options in Queensland, high inflation has seen an increase in the cost of electricity, food, fuel, and other household expenses, making it even harder for households to stay afloat (ABS 2023b; Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), 2022; QCOSS, 2022; Sample & Ferguson 2020; Stanford 2019). The impacts of increasing cost-of-living pressures are particularly pronounced for young people, who are more likely than other cohorts to occupy part-time and casual employment and to be underemployed (ABS, 2023b; Gilgillan 2018; Littleton & Campbell 2022). Cost of living pressures also impact young people’s ability to engage in higher education, which is often seen as a way of gaining employment and limiting the prospect of homelessness and housing stress (Cooper & Brooker 2020).

Existing as the second most common reason young people seek assistance from Specialist Homelessness Services, Domestic and Family Violence is a key driver of homelessness among young people (AIHW, 2024). Validation for this assertion is provided by a longitudinal study conducted by MacKenzie and colleagues (2016). Of the young people experiencing homelessness surveyed as part of the study (298), nine out of ten reported having witnessed Domestic and Family Violence in the home (MacKenzie et al. 2016). Of the young people experiencing homelessness surveyed as part of the study (298), more than half (56%) left home on at least one occasion because of Domestic and Family Violence, with one in five sleeping rough (MacKenzie et al. 2016). Further to this, findings indicate that 63% of the young people experiencing homelessness surveyed had been placed in some form of out-of-home care, a significantly higher proportion than that of the comparison group of young jobseekers (18%) (MacKenzie et al. 2016).

Despite widespread recognition of the structural underpinnings of youth homelessness and housing stress, responding to homelessness and housing stress among young people has been complicated by the infiltration of neoliberal modes of governance and ideology within society (Flanagan 2020; Giroux 2015). Existing as the dominant discourse of capitalism, neoliberalism foregrounds the importance of deregulation, privatisation, capital accumulation, and individualism (Giroux 2009; Giroux 2015). In a neoliberal society, young people are framed primarily as self-reliant, entrepreneurial individuals whose value is measured by their potential to contribute economically and adapt to market demands (Brown 2015). As a result, there has been a growing disinvestment in young people and rise in the idea that young people are incapable, irresponsible, and immature (Farrugia 2016; Giroux 2009). According to Giroux (2015, p. 223), youth ‘are no longer the place where society reveals its dreams but increasingly hides its nightmares. Within neoliberal narratives, youth are either defined as consumer market or stand for trouble’. In addition to the prominence of neoliberal narratives, White and colleagues (2017) draw attention to the dominant construction of young people as ‘not yet complete’. Jones (2009, p. 167) summarises this by saying, ‘youth has been seen as a period during which young people are neither children (deserving care and compassion) nor adults (worthy of respect for their self-sufficiency and responsibility), but “unfinished” individuals’. These narratives give rise to the assumption that young people ideas are not as worthy as adults, leading to their exclusion within policy and debate in areas such as housing (White et al. 2017).

Kuskoff (2018) draws attention to the exclusion of young people’s voices within the Australian housing policy landscape. In applying Bacchi’s (2009) ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’ approach to Australia’s Homeless Youth (National Youth Commission 2008), the study highlights that decisions regarding the needs of young people were given to sector professionals and other adults rather than to young people themselves (Kuskoff 2018). The idea that sector professionals and other adults are equipped to make decisions on behalf of young people is driven by adultism, ‘a belief system based on the idea that the adult human being is superior to the child [or young person]’ (Shier, 2012, p. 9, as cited in Corney et al. 2022). Although commonplace, the exclusion of young people’s voices is inconsistent with best practice, which instead emphasises the importance of engaging young people as equitable partners in the policy making process (Althaus et al. 2018; CREATE 2020; Horwath et al. 2012; Macauley et al. 2022; Patton et al. 2016). In better understanding the consequences of contemporary constructions, it is necessary to consider how young people experiencing homelessness are constructed within the contemporary landscape.

To date, numerous authors have examined the discourse underpinning Australian housing-related policy, revealing that dominant perceptions of homelessness remain fixed in neoliberal discourses that promote individual responsibility (Farrugia 2016; Gerrard 2015; Stonehouse et al. 2015). For example, Kuskoff (2018) draws attention to the use of the term ‘personal substance use’, implying that homelessness stems from poor, individual choices as opposed to structural inequality experienced by young people. Gerrard (2015) highlights that Australia’s guiding homelessness framework, The Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness (FaHCSIA, 2008), harnesses individuals’ access to ‘education, training, and employment’ as a key policy response. In critically analysing two policy texts informing Victoria’s response to homelessness, Stonehouse and colleagues (2015) also expose the assumption that education and training occasion secure employment, subsequently enabling autonomy in the private rental market.

To complete this project, a systemic review of existing literature was conducted and all Queensland Government housing and homeless policies published between 2010 and 2024 were reviewed; ultimately, the following three were identified as relevant:

  • Towards ending homelessness for young Queenslanders 2022-2027, referred to hereafter as Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a)

  • The Queensland Housing Strategy 2017-2027, referred to hereafter as the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works 2017)

  • The Queensland Youth Strategy (DCCSDS 2017)

Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a, p. 4) was selected as it sets out the Queensland governments approach to ‘improving housing outcomes for young people’, the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017) as it governs the way housing is approached within the Queensland context more broadly, and the Queensland Youth Strategy (DCCSDS, 2017) due to its focus on young people. By utilising Bacchi’s (2009) ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’ approach to policy analysis to examine the policies selected, this study contributes to addressing a current gap in knowledge, namely, how young people are represented within existing housing-related policy in Queensland. As youth homelessness continues to rise across Australia and especially in Queensland, analysing youth housing policies reveals missed opportunities to change the harmful discourses surrounding the drivers and potential solutions to this pressing social issue, due to the sudden growth in Queensland’s population.

Methodology

In analysing how young people are represented within existing housing-related policy in Queensland, this research draws on Bacchi’s (2009) ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’ (WPR) approach to policy analysis. Offering a practical guide to analyse social policies, Bacchi’s (2009) model challenges the mainstream view of policies as ‘problem-solving’, where policymakers are seen to be responding to fixed problems that are independent of the policy process (Bacchi 2012; Bacchi & Goodwin 2016). Instead, Bacchi’s (2009) model foregrounds the importance of problematisations, that is, how something is represented as a problem. Attention must therefore be paid to interrogating problematisations (Bacchi & Goodwin 2016).

To achieve this interrogative process, Bacchi (2009, p. xii) puts forward six key questions to apply to each policy selected for analysis:

  • (1) ‘What’s the problem represented to be?

  • (2) What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation?

  • (3) How has this representation… come about?

  • (4) What is left unproblematic/ where are the silences?

  • (5) What effects are produced by this representation?

  • (6) How/where has this representation… been produced, disseminated, and defended?’

Due to this publication being part of an Honours research process and there being significant time constraints, an abridged version of Bacchi’s (2009) WPR approach was used, answering questions one through to four. In Bacchi’s (2009) explanation of the model, she states that it is not necessarily to explicitly address each question, but rather the analysis should be guided by the research questions and aims. Given the first four questions focus on identifying and interrogating problematisations, an abridged version of Bacchi’s (2009) model is well-positioned to examine how young people are represented within existing housing-related policy in Queensland. Bacchi’s (2009) model has also been successfully used to examine the representation of young people experiencing homelessness at an Australian level, illustrating its utility in this area of research (Kuskoff 2018).

The policy analysis conducted as part of this research began by the first author reading each of the three policies in their entirety. Common themes in each of the policies were then extracted and grouped according to their relevance to young people and housing. Aligning with Bacchi’s (2009) model, the analysis sought to understand not only what is included but what is excluded within the policy. Rather than assuming policies can address problems, the WPR analysis examines how the policy frames the problematic situation of homelessness and housing stress among young people. Following this process of extraction, the policies were re-read and interpreted in relation to the first four questions in Bacchi’s (2009) model. The first author conducted most of the data analysis, with further discussion, exploration and nuance occurring in consultation with author two. A limitation of the analysis is the exclusion of questions five and six, relating to the broader impacts of the representation and the mechanisms perpetuating the representation. The exclusion of these questions means a deeper social and cultural understanding of the impact of these policies is yet to be fully explored.

The authors of this paper identify as critical social workers, both with professional experience working in supported housing services and lived experience of housing insecurity. Like all qualitative research, our findings are subjective, and therefore, the use of reflexivity was important to maintain the rigour of this research (Padgett 2012). These lived experiences as ‘insiders’ of this social phenomena could, without the use of reflexivity, lead to potential bias in our findings (Padgett 2012; Shaw 2023). To ensure this did not occur, the authors regularly engaged in a process of critical reflection regarding the findings (White, Fook, & Gardner 2006). As this project was part of an Honour’s research process, further reflexivity occurred in the process of presenting the thesis findings, and the examination of the thesis by wider faculty. This process allowed for an interrogative process which provides a deep and nuanced understanding of how young people are represented within existing housing-related policy in Queensland.

Results

In analysing the policy solutions and broader discourse used within the policies, this analysis found that young people are problematised in three ways. Firstly, the policies position young people’s experience of homelessness and housing stress as stemming from their lack of knowledge, resources, and skills. Secondly, the policies showed a belief that education, training, and employment lead to housing stability for young people, and that thirdly, that limited a genuine focus on empowering young people needs to occur within the policy making process. The problem of homelessness and housing distress is therefore represented as a by-product of young people’s incompetence, disengagement from education, training, and employment, and lack of insight into their own needs. The findings of this research reveal multiple failures in addressing the growing issue of youth homelessness and housing insecurity in Queensland.

Discourse One: Young People’s Experience of Homelessness and Housing Stress Is Driven by Their Lack of Knowledge, Resources, and Skills

A prevailing discourse within the three policies is the idea that young people’s experience of homelessness and housing stress is driven by their lack of knowledge, resources, and skills. This is revealed by a statement made within Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a, p. 1) that ‘support services will be better integrated with housing assistance, giving young people the skills and resources they need to live independently, find work, and sustain housing’. It is also revealed by the commitments made within Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a) to ‘deliver new and improved digital resources for young people and their support networks to... learn how to secure and maintain tenancies in the private rental market’ (p. 20) and ‘recruit new specialist housing workers who will help young people obtain and sustain safe, secure, and affordable housing’ (p. 21). Whilst the provision of help, support and information is not inherently problematic, the policies’ failure to acknowledge the structural underpinnings of homelessness and housing stress among young people lends the provision of support to be individualised, giving rise to the assumption that it is young people’s individual inadequacies that lead them to experience homelessness and housing stress. It also gives rise to the assumption that ‘safe, secure, and affordable housing’ is readily available to young people.

Like Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a), the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017, p. 13) suggests that young people need ‘assistance to become confident, strong and self-supporting’. The Queensland Youth Strategy (DCCSDS, 2017, p. 21) similarly puts forward that specific programs and resources are needed to ‘assist our young people to maintain housing security’. At no time do any of the policies acknowledge the increasing unaffordability of housing, low vacancy rates, the adult-centric nature of the existing social housing system, or the increasing cost-of-living pressures confronting young Queenslanders. These omissions position young people as somehow responsible for their own experience of homelessness or housing stress due to their lack of confidence or life skills, common tropes levelled at young people.

Notions of young people as lacking or being ‘incomplete’ adults are further alluded to within Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a) through suggestions that young people require ‘financial literacy services’ (p. 20), ‘parenting skills services’ (p. 20), and ‘life skill development’ (p.15). The onus on young people to build financial literacy is also revealed by the commitment made within the Queensland Youth Strategy (DCCSDS, 2017, p. 21) to provide young people with ‘access to... financial products and services to improve financial stability and increase capacity to access stable accommodation.’ These statements give rise to the assumption that available housing stock exists and that the problem lies with young people who need to be somehow educated on how to obtain a tenancy. Analysis of the policies further reveal the policies’ onus on young people to engage in education, training, and employment to avoid homelessness and housing stress.

Discourse Two: The Uptake of Education, Training, and Employment Will Lead to Housing Stability for Young People

A second prevailing discourse is the idea that the uptake of education, training, and employment will lead to housing stability for young people. In Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a, p. 15), ‘success’ is said to occur when young people achieve ‘economic independence and improved long-term housing... including through education, training and employment opportunities’. Therefore, a key objective of the policy is to ‘help young people connect to education, training, and employment’ (Queensland Government 2022a, p. 20). The Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017, p. 2) similarly foregrounds the importance of linking housing with ‘skills, training and education, especially for young people’. The link between housing and skills, training, and education is considered so vital; the policy advises that young people in some social housing settings will be supported to engage in training and employment opportunities ‘without their income impacting on family rental obligations’ (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017, p. 2, p. 9). Whilst the policies’ engagement with strategies to increase the uptake of education, training, and employment is positive, the policy fails to acknowledge that engagement is such activities does not increase the supply and availability of housing. Further to this, whilst engagement in education, training, and employment can bolster an individual’s income, it does not necessitate the ability to gain or afford housing or achieve ‘economic independence’. This is particularly relevant in the current climate as housing stress is commonplace among young people regardless of their employment status (Cook et al 2020; QCOSS, 2022).

The Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017, p. 10) further positions education, training, and employment as solutions to housing inequality. For example, a key principle of the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017, p. 10) relates to the idea that ‘socio-economic advancement is available through maximising employment, training, and business opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities’. Additionally, the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017, p. 10) suggests that ‘outright mortgage free home ownership’ can be achieved by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders through ‘access to secure and safe housing as well as engage in education, training and employment.’ By omitting explicit reference to colonisation or racism, these policies do not align with culturally safe practice and policy (Tually et al 2022). A lack of cultural safety can have a silencing effect, placing responsibility back on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people and families to achieve “socio-economic advancement” (p.10) to ease any potential housing stress. Whilst education, training, and employment undoubtedly provide economic and social benefits to many, individual or group involvement in such activities is not enough to ensure housing stability for all.

Discourse Three: Consultation Without Opportunities for Youth Empowerment or Participation

A third discourse found within these policies is the idea that a solution can be found via consultation with the service sector and its clients, without truly engaging young people in processes of empowerment or participation. The consultation process informing Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a, p. 2) involved hearing from ‘over 80’ young people and the Queensland Youth Strategy (DCCSDS 2017, p. 5) ‘more than 1200’ (2022); no specific information related to the number of young people consulted as part of the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017) is available. However, it is unclear how this consultation was used within policy creation or the impacts this consultation had on young people. Brown (2020) suggests that youth engagement in policy formation should position young people at the centre of the process, influencing the weight and credibility given to the voices of adults. Whilst consultation is an important part of youth policy development, processes which do not empower young people and link their contributions to policy can be seen as tokenistic and do not always lead to real or practical social change.

This is demonstrated by Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a) and the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017) being heavily informed by input from service providers. For example, consultation for the Towards ending homelessness policy (Queensland Government 2022a) involved hearing from peak industry bodies and government agencies including the Queensland Youth Housing Coalition, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Health Service, and the CREATE foundation (Queensland Government 2022a). In much the same way, consultation for the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017, p. 2) involved ‘[hearing] from the many dedicated people who work in homelessness, housing, community, and health services who offer support to those in need’. This consultation is vital to producing relevant policy, however, due to the selective voice given to young people could be construed as adult centric.

Where young people were consulted, priority was given to current or former service users or those who may experience disadvantage. This can be seen in an excerpt derived from Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a, p. 2) which reads, ‘we heard from… young people with lived experience of homelessness, experience with the youth justice and child protection systems, First Nations young people, and LGBTIQA+ young people’. A similar approach was taken in the Queensland Youth Strategy (DCCSDS, 2017) in that forums were held to hear from ‘Queensland’s more vulnerable young people who are: of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin; from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; from rural and remote areas; living with disability; carers; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex’ (DCCSDS, 2017, p. 5). In addition to the prioritisation of particular cohorts of young people, it is unclear in either policy how many or to what extent these varied cohorts of young people were consulted. Further to this, specific information related to the number of young people consulted as part of the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017) is not publicly available. As collecting data from those experiencing homelessness can be difficult due to the complexities they are facing (Tyler & Schmitz 2017), consultation with a range of young people accessing services may not have occurred.

Although consulting young people who experience multiple forms of disadvantage is of crucial importance, limiting consultation to these cohorts assumes difficulty in accessing housing to be an issue impacting a small number of young people in Queensland. Wider consultation with a range of young people may have illustrated a wider problem caused by ageist systems of economic inequality within Queensland. Consultation with a broader range of young people, such as those actively experiencing homelessness to those who have never accessed a service may have led to suggestions for more large-scale structural change. The absence of a more representative youth voice alongside the reliance on adult service providers for consultation and solution means that the problem of youth homelessness and housing stress can be constructed as one impacting only a small number of unfortunate young people in Queensland.

In undertaking an abridged WPR analysis of Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a), the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017), and the Queensland Youth Strategy (DCCSDS, 2017), it is clear that young people are represented as lacking the knowledge, resources, or skills to obtain and maintain housing without the assistance of an adult. Analysis of the policy documents similarly shows a belief that education, training, and employment lead to housing stability for young people, and that young people’s needs are best determined by adults employed in the service sector. Without further contextual interrogation of these policies, the state of Queensland risks disadvantaging young people in seeking their basic right to housing.

Discussion

The findings of this research demonstrate that the problem of youth homelessness is represented as a by-product of young people’s incompetence, disengagement from education, training, and employment, and lack of insight into their own needs. In representing youth homelessness as stemming from individual inadequacy, the policies position young people as needing help, assistance, support, and information to obtain and maintain housing. Alongside help, assistance, support, and information, young people are represented as needing to engage in education, training, and employment to achieve housing stability. The use of Bacchi’s (2009) WPR approach similarly revealed that this representation has come about through the service sector. Given this, three key discourses will be expanded upon: (1) young people lack the competence to obtain and maintain housing without the assistance of an adult; (2) education, training, and employment guarantee housing stability for young people; and (3) that policy consultation should occur without genuine opportunities for youth empowerment or participation.

The first discourse that emerged from these policies is the idea that young people’s experience of homelessness and housing stress is driven by their lack of knowledge, resources, and skills. The idea that young people lack the necessary knowledge, resources, and skills to obtain and maintain housing, as put forward by these policies, succeeds in placing the responsibility on young people rather than focusing on structural barriers. Instead, existing research points to the structural barriers facing young people in the pursuit of safe and accessible housing (Anglicare 2024; QCOSS, 2022; Boyett et al. 2021; Maalsen et al. 2021; Mayock & Parker 2020). Of particular significance within the contemporary landscape is the increasing unaffordability of housing for all people in Queensland (Anglicare 2024; Pawson et al. 2023; QCOSS, 2022). In questioning why young people may struggle to find and maintain housing, attention should also be paid to low vacancy rates, discrimination by landlords, increasing cost-of-living pressures, and the lack and unsuitability of social housing in Queensland (Boyett et al. 2021; Cournede & Plouin 2022; (Hand & MacKenzie 2023).

Whilst existing research indicates that some cohorts of young people may benefit from specialist housing and social support, for example young people experiencing homelessness or young people leaving out-of-home care, there is an overreach within these policies in assuming all young people in Queensland need assistance to obtain and maintain housing (AIHW, 2022a; Campo & Commerford 2016; Crane et al. 2013; Mackenzie et al. 2016., Mackenzie et al. 2020; Martin et al. 2021). This discourse can be seen as infantilising and reinforces ageist ideas about young people as incapable, irresponsible, and immature (Farrugia 2016; Giroux 2009; White et al. 2017). The discourse held within these policies also undermines the high level of education and digital literacy that young people hold (Brooks 2017; Tilleczek and Srigley 2017). By not examining and recognising the strengths young people as a cohort, little understanding of what does work in relation to youth housing is explored within these policies. Further examination of how young people from low socio-economic and Indigenous backgrounds can seek and retain housing could have great impact in the development of policies which have real-world impact (Tually et al. 2022).

The second discourse found within this analysis is that the uptake of education, training, and employment will lead to housing stability for young people. This aligns closely with existing policy discourse, with Gerrard (2015) describing Australia’s guiding homelessness policy, ‘The Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness’, as propagating ‘education, training, and employment’ as activities people experiencing homelessness must ‘participate in’ to achieve economic security. In analysing the policies of another Australian state, Stonehouse and colleagues (2015) reveal a discourse that education and training occasion secure employment, subsequently enabling autonomy in the private rental market. Whilst the idea that education, training, and employment ensure housing stability aligns with existing policy discourse, it fails to recognise the structural barriers many young people face in gaining housing (Cooper & Brooker 2020). A lack of rental history, lower wages, and a lack of affordable housing are all barriers which cannot be overcome by education, employment, and training for young people. Within Queensland, existing evidence suggests housing is often unattainable for young Queenslanders regardless of their education or employment status (Pawson et al. 2023; QCOSS, 2022).

Whilst acknowledging the value of engaging in education and employment opportunities for young people’s growth and advancement, positioning ‘education, training and employment’ as an appropriate response to homelessness circumvents consideration of the structural environment impacting young people (Gerrard 2015; Johnson & Jacobs 2015). In failing to acknowledge the structural environment impacting young people, this discourse individualises the problem of youth homelessness, perpetuating the idea that if young people bothered to study or work, they could secure safe and secure long-term housing. Within this discourse, the ‘Great Australian Dream’ of home ownership is possible if young people simply choose to work harder. Such neoliberal thinking ignores the increasing cost of vocational and higher education in Australia which may impact those from disadvantaged backgrounds from studying (Gair et. al., 2018). It also ignores the greater chance of underemployment and unemployment of young people in certain parts of the country (ABS, 2023d; Denny & Churchill 2016; Littleton & Campbell 2022). In making this issue a problem centred around young people as an entity, this discourse perpetuates ageist ideas about young people as idle and unmotivated (Boyett et al. 2021; Mayock & Parker 2020)). As stated by Cooper and Brooker (2020), policy responses in Australia to youth homelessness continue to situate young people as lacking relevant knowledge or experience to truly contribute, leaving little room for emancipation or empowerment.

The third discourse concerns the idea that young people’s needs are best determined by adults employed in the service sector, within limited focus on genuine efforts to empower young people. This study reflects Kuskoff’s (2018) work which also applied Bacchi’s (2009) WPR approach to ‘Australia’s Homeless Youth’, revealing how the needs of young homeless people were determined by sector professionals and other adults. Whilst industry engagement is considered good practice in policy making, the policies analysed do not show how young people’s views guided the development of policies. In developing a Child and Youth Well Being Strategy in New Zealand, Brown (2020) documents a process whereby youth people’s voices were prioritised within the policy. Ensuring their voices were prioritised in the New Zealand strategy allowed for changes to language, revised areas of policy focus, leading to young people feeling valued and listened to, with some continuing to engage in further advocacy for young people. This critical discourse analysis revealed a focus on adult voices rather than young people which risks producing policy which may benefit youth organisations rather than the young people accessing them for support. It may also fuel ageist ideas about young people as poor decision makers and contradicts best practice which suggests that young people should be equal actors in the policy making process (Corney et al. 2022; Macauley et al. 2022; White et al. 2017).

There is increasing recognition within the contemporary landscape of the need to include young people as equitable partners in policy making (Macauley et al. 2022). Validation for this assertion is provided by the CREATE foundation (2020), who foreground the importance of collaboration, power-sharing, and stakeholders working together as ‘differently equal partners’ (Bjerke 2011, p. 93). Involving young people in policy making enables more appropriate solutions to be prioritised, strengthening efficacy and bolstering cohesion (Horwath et al. 2012; Macauley et al 2022; Patton et al. 2016). Where young people are not adequately consulted, true solutions to wicked problems such as youth homelessness often prove elusive (Althaus et al. 2018).

Youth Housing Policy Discourse: A Way Forward

With these discourses in mind, it is necessary to consider how housing policy in Queensland could better meet the needs of young people. Firstly, there needs to be clear recognition at a policy level that housing is unaffordable. This means a clear recognition that housing is unaffordable for many sections of society, especially underemployed young people. Clear strategies for how issues of youth housing affordability are going to be addressed also need to be proposed within the Queensland policy landscape. When considering the increasing unaffordability of housing, low vacancy rates, and the lack and unsuitability of social housing in Queensland, widespread investment in youth-specific social and affordable housing is imperative (Alves & Roggenbuck 2021; Mackenzie et al. 2020, Pawson et al. 2023; QCOSS, 2022). Further research must be undertaken to determine what this would practically look like, beyond the use of youth foyers (Mackenzie et al. 2020). Arguably, the most important way forward is to enhance wide range youth participation in the policy-making process (CREATE, 2020; Horwath et al. 2012; Macauley et al 2022). Consulting young people on the issues that affect them will provoke the development of practical solutions to address youth homelessness and housing stress in Queensland. It will also enable the creation of policies that capture the complexity of some young people’s experiences, whilst also treating young people as the intelligent, knowledgeable, and resourceful cohort that they are.

Conclusion

In undertaking an abridged WPR analysis of Towards ending homelessness (Queensland Government 2022a), the Queensland Housing Strategy (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2017), and the Queensland Youth Strategy (DCCSDS, 2017), this study revealed that young people are problematised in three significant ways. Firstly, young people are represented as lacking the competence to obtain and maintain housing without the assistance of an adult. Secondly, analysis of the documents showed a belief that education, training, and employment enable housing stability for young people. Lastly, a discourse emerged which shows a belief that young people’s needs are best determined by adults employed in the service sector. This study has ramifications for how youth housing stress and homelessness is framed both in Australian and internationally via the discourses embedded in public policy. It is paramount that young people be actively involved and drive the policy making process in issues which directly impact them. Failure to do so will result in the continued implementation of policies that paralyse young people from finding the home that they deserve.