Introduction

This chapter examines the politics of diversity in Australia and critically reflects on the ambivalent legacy of community practice. Following Banks and Butcher (2013: 11), we use the term ‘community practice’ to refer to engagement in the community which is more inclusive of a variety of professionals than that traditionally associated with community development or community work. With that, we accept that different disciplines and forms of intervention inform community practice itself. Our chapter starts from the recognition that, while the broad commitment to welfare or development articulated by diverse community practitioners may have progressive potential, their work practices have often been experienced as controlling and politically regressive. In fact, we would suggest that, in the contemporary context, community practice may be driven more by neoliberal and market considerations than by commitments to social justice and social change. Rhetorically at least, ‘community’ places particular emphasis on collectivism, and the value base of much community practice – community development in particular – has advocated greater redistribution of wealth, power and resources. We would contend, however, that this egalitarian promise has already been seriously undermined by the Australian state and its (reversals of) welfare and social policies: while the rhetoric of partnership and social inclusion is adopted at institutional and policy level, the reality has been a transformation of community practice itself. This chapter focuses on the politics of diversity from a disability and social housing perspective, drawing insights from historical and contemporary developments, and using case studies to suggest some grounds for hope in what often appears to be a hostile and reactionary political landscape.

Challenges to a progressive politics of identity

Some recent developments in Australia illustrate the structural and ideological challenges now facing a progressive politics of diversity. In late 2013 the federal government made an extraordinary appointment – at least to those involved in community practice with people who inhabit the margins of society: immigrants, refugees, disabled and homeless people, Aboriginal peoples, and a multitude of other groups. The appointment of Tim Wilson, from the conservative think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) as a Human Rights Commissioner with responsibility for freedom of speech, came at a time when the human rights of the marginalised were being systematically curtailed.