creating ourfuture - Settlement Council of Australia

Settlement Council of Australia Second National Settlement Conference 2012

CREATING OUR FUTURE conference REPORT JUNE 2012

hosted by the Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia

Settlement Council of Australia 333/410 Elizabeth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 Phone: 02 8065 5225 Fax: 02 8080 4330 email: [email protected] / [email protected] www.scoa.org.au The views expressed by speakers in this report are not necessarily the views of SCoA. | 2 | Creating our Future REPORT

CONTENTS

Foreword 4

Michael Martinez

54

Recommendations 5

Alison Sinclair

56

Prime minister’s message

6

Alan Tidswell

58

Deputy Lord Mayor, ADELAIDE – Welcome

7

Sky de Jersey

59

Mr Hieu Van Le, AO – Welcome

8

Farida Fozdar

62

The Hon. Jennifer Rankine MP

10

Dr Tahereh Ziaian

64

Senator the Hon. Kate Lundy

12

Erika Vickery

66

The Hon. Kate Ellis MP

14

Nadine Liddy

68

Richard Spurrell

70

Keynote Speakers Professor Graeme Hugo

16

Lis de Vries

72

Professor Andrew Jakubowicz

24

Dr Sev Ozdowski

74

Pro-Vice Chancellor Pal Ahluwalia

26

Mark Cully

76

Dr Helen Szoke

28

Pino Migliorino

78

Felicity-ann Lewis

31

David Keegan

79

The Hon. Robyn Layton AO, QC

34

Teresa Carney

81

Kiros Hiruy

37

John Beever

82

Dr Xavier Csar

41

Roxanne Ramsey

84

Simon Schrapel

43

Conference Summary - Maria Dimopoulos

86

Judge Rauf Soulio

46

Conference Program

87

Plenary Speakers

Acknowledgements 91

Garry Fleming

48

Conference Participants

93

Mark Roddam

50

Participant Feedback

97

Margaret Piper

52

Plenary Session Outcomes

98

foreword

Three years after the first SCoA national conference, more than 400 stakeholders came together in Adelaide to participate in the ongoing and critical dialogue for creating a future for all Australians. Australia’s development, both social and economic, is underpinned by ongoing migration and the effective settlement of new arrivals – especially those of humanitarian background who are the most vulnerable. Effective settlement is a process of engagement and continual improvement in which Australia is actively engaged. It is for the settlement of its new and most vulnerable members that Australia is acclaimed as the best humanitarian settlement country in the world. Government and the settlement sector can be proud of their achievements to date. The diverse participation of sponsors, cross-sector and government partners, community groups, service agencies, policy makers and academics in this second SCoA conference is an indication of the commitment of the sector to assist with the creation of Australia’s multicultural future.

Presentations and roundtable discussion between community members, practitioners, researchers and policy makers focused on the priorities for settlement and participation and developed a number of strategies and key recommendations documented in this report that will serve to focus SCoA’s future agenda. The need for cross-agency, cross-government and cross-sector collaboration, especially with the employment sector, is essential if we are to produce outcomes that will enhance the participation of new Australians to build Australia’s productive diversity. SCoA is confident that by working together cooperatively to deliver the recommendations arising from the conference, we can achieve real outcomes for the people and their communities who are served by our membership. SCoA thanks all contributors to this ongoing dialogue and looks forward to your participation in this challenging and rewarding process.

Cedric Manen Chairperson, SCoA Eugenia Tsoulis OAM Conference Convenor, Secretary, SCoA

| 4 | Creating our Future REPORT

REcommendations Facilitated Plenary Forum Outcomes BUILDING SERVICE CAPACITY and EMPLOYMENT PARTICIPATION

Employment participation

Conference delegates participating in three plenary forums held throughout the conference discussed the two themes: building service capacity and employment participation.

Recommendation 3 It is recommended that a specialised employment pathways program for new settlers be developed and established, including the settlement sector as a key stakeholder. The first stage would operate within settlement agencies and the Australian English Migrant English Program (AMEP) and would cover education around:

The first theme, building service capacity centred around the National Compact: working together, an agreement between the Australian Government and the not-for-profit sector to find new and better ways of working together based on mutual trust, respect and collaboration. The second theme focused on employment as part of the settlement context, the role of settlement service providers in facilitating employment pathways, client expectations, the reality of the labour market and the intersections between employment and affordable housing. Delegates focused on identifying practical approaches for improving the way stakeholders work together and highlighted good-practice models and strategies for strengthening collaboration, as well as strategies for strengthening employment opportunities. Below are the key recommendations. A summary of the issues and strategies discussed is documented as an attachment to this report. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

• employment rights and responsibilities • Australian workplace culture • occupational health and safety issues • workplace communication • taxation and superannuation laws • refugee advocacy role Humanitarian entrant clients should also have access to funded childcare that enables them to participate in this training. The second stage would operate within the Job Services Australia (JSA) setting and include: • individualised employment support/mentoring

Building service capacity

• employer awareness programs

Recommendation 1 That a responsive and flexible settlement framework be developed and implemented as soon as possible, to encompass the following:

• employer–worker mediation

• sustainable industry standards and professional development strategies for the settlement sector workforce and options of how investment funds can be found for those activities • a requirement for locally based strategic plans that engage all stakeholders (including all tiers of government, service providers and community representatives) to achieve collaborative, meaningful and streamlined service provision • ongoing monitoring and evaluation of government policy in relation to evidence-based outcomes around settlement support in line with access and equity principles • direct settlement sector and community participation in policy development • a commitment to revisiting all visa category entitlements using a human rights lens, particularly in relation to pre-settlement and settlement pathways, accessing health services, English language and pre-employment-training and accommodation • a commitment to ongoing settlement research that offers an evidence base for continuous improvement and identifies innovative approaches to improving critical needs such as housing, economic empowerment, education • establishment of a national clearing house that enables direct access to consistent, reliable and accurate information, as well as best practice examples.

Recommendation 4 It is recommended that SCoA immediately progress and convene an employment think tank including Job Services Australia, DEEWR, Regional Development Australia and other relevant government, research and corporate stakeholders. This initiative to be jointly funded by DEEWR and DIAC. The think tank’s terms of reference would be to build pathways that enable meaningful collaboration and partnerships aimed at improving employment participation outcomes for new settlers, matching employment skills and aspirations to employment opportunities, and to removing discriminatory practices. Recommendation 5 It is recommended that DEEWR and Regional Development Australia work in collaboration with the settlement sector to fund social enterprise and social procurement initiatives within local communities. Recommendation 6 It is recommended that key stakeholders from government, the settlement sector, and education and employment sectors come together to develop direct responses to the specific vulnerabilities faced by humanitarian entrant youth in metropolitan and regional areas. Responses would address transition from school to the workplace and include pathways that enable competency development and sustainable employment participation, for example, apprenticeship programs.

Recommendation 2 It is recommended that SCoA advocates for evidence-based practice and accountability of all players in the settlement sector, underpinned by the principles of access, equity and human rights for all visa holders with a requirement of frequent reviews by an independent body.

Creating our Future REPORT | 5 |

prime minister’s message


DEPUTY LORD MAYOR, ADELAIDE – WELCOME Lord Mayoral Reception to welcome participants to the Second National Settlement Conference Wednesday 27 June 2012

I am pleased to welcome delegates to the historic Queen Adelaide Room of the Adelaide Town Hall for the Second National Settlement Conference, ‘Creating our Future’. The Settlement Council advocates for human rights, access and equity for all new settlers and especially refugees. As we meet, the fate of asylum seekers is being debated in Canberra – let us hope and pray that there will be a successful outcome. Adelaide City Council is very grateful for the assistance that settlement organisations provide to new arrivals who live, work or spend time in the city. Many people settle in South Australia and sooner or later they will gravitate to the city, and we very much appreciate the help of your organisations in making them welcome in our rich and diverse community. Council enjoys a close relationship with the Migrant Resource Centre of SA and several other organisations involved in settlement. The city ever since white settlement has been diverse and multicultural. Early settlers were mainly from Britain, but we had early Chinese and even Afghan camel drivers who are commemorated in the south-west corner of our city. They were followed by Greeks and Italians in large numbers and more recently by Asians, Africans and Indians. We also have welcomed many refugees. The City of Adelaide is pleased to be a

multicultural city. I am proud of the city’s reputation for hosting a large number of high-quality ethnic and cultural festivals. During my time on council, I’ve also had the opportunity to MC many citizenship ceremonies in the Adelaide City Council Chamber. In an earlier life, I was a member of the Salisbury Council, and during my term as mayor, I conducted monthly citizenship ceremonies, and I was privileged to see many people from all parts of the world become citizens and make a great contribution to the fabric of our community. Receiving citizenship is an important milestone on the settlement journey and I am honoured to take part in these happy occasions. Now, if the Lord Mayor were here, he would be telling you what a wonderful city Adelaide is, and I would be failing in my duty if I did not do the same. The city has so much to offer in North Terrace, with its museums and galleries, Rundle Mall with its unique shopping experience and, of course, our wonderful Central Market. Thank you for coming tonight and I hope you enjoy our city and your conference. I look forward to seeing the relationship between local government and the settlement sector continue to grow.


MR HIEU VAN LE, AO – WELCOME Hieu Van Le is lieutenant governor of South Australia and the chair of the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission. Hieu Van Le was one of the first of the ‘boat people’ refugees from Vietnam. He went on to gain a bachelor’s degree in economics and an MBA from Adelaide University. Mr Le is a member of South Australia’s Community Engagement Board; of the Research Centre for Languages and Cultures, University of South Australia; of the Alumni Advisory Committee of Adelaide University; and of the Education Adelaide Board. He is a patron, honorary member or ambassador of many organisations. Mr Le was awarded the Australia Day Medal for outstanding service to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Centenary Medal in 2001 ‘for service to the advancement of multiculturalism and the Vietnamese Community’, and the Golden Achiever of the Year by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce SA Inc. in 2008. He was appointed as an Officer in the Order of Australia in January 2010. He has an honorary doctorate for service to the society from the University of Adelaide and an honorary doctorate for significant contribution to the society from Flinders University. He received the Paul Harris Fellowship (2009) inducted by the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International.

It’s an honour to speak with you this evening. History is what we make it, in the sense of the meaning we give to events and how we learn and apply that meaning. This is perhaps best illustrated in legend. I’d like to start by telling you a story. It’s a Vietnamese fable – a legend – that’s almost 2,000 years old. As you may know, Vietnam was under the occupation of Chinese rulers for over 1,000 years and the French colonisation for nearly 100 years. These have always been considered as the most unfortunate events in our history. Yet, paradoxically, the Chinese and French cultures have played a major part in enriching our culture. These periods of darkness in our history also highlight the ability of the Vietnamese people, their resilience and creativity in turning such tragedies into a lasting legacy. I think it’s also relevant to the challenges that all of us in this room are contending with – here in Australia – in 2012. The story is about two sisters, Trung Trac and Trung Nhi, the first heroines in our history. The two sisters led an uprising against the Chinese rule of the Han Dynasty in the year 40 AD brought a following legend. At first, the uprising spread, succeeded, but two years later was crushed by an army commanded by the Emperor’s most trusted general, Ma Yuan. The sisters, rather than be captured, jumped into the Hat River and drowned. But, like the story familiar to Australians about the swagman, their spirit lived on. To teach the Vietnamese people a lesson and reimpose discipline, Ma Yuan sought to destroy all evidence of the Vietnamese history and culture. As part of that campaign, his forces collected from households every single copper drum – a replica of an ancient copper drum discovered nearly 5,000 years ago as the symbol of the early Vietnamese civilisation. An item that Vietnamese families cherished and considered sacred. These coppers drums were melted down and forged into a giant copper pillar. This giant shining copper pillar was placed prominently in the middle of the town square of the occupied territory. Carving on it in Chinese characters the words Đồng Trụ Chiết Giao Chỉ Diệt (‘If this pillar collapses, the entire Vietnamese race will be exterminated.’). A few years later, Ma Yuan came back to this place. To his shock and anger, the copper pillar was nowhere to be seen. All that was there was a large pile of pebbles. He demanded to know what had happened to it. But the Vietnamese locals were too scared to speak up. Finally, an old man, one of the elders in the village, stepped forward and humbly addressed Ma Yuan. ‘Your Excellency, we have not destroyed your copper pillar,’ the old man said. ‘It is still there. For many years now, not wishing it to fall down, we gathered pebbles one by one and placed them at the foot of the pillar as a mark of respect every time we passed it. We were so determined to strengthen the pillar that it’s now been completely covered over. In fact, Your


Excellency, you’re standing on top of it right now!’ I think that story says a great deal about resilience and indomitable spirit. In its irony and paradox, this story creates a picture of and a metaphor for the Vietnamese characteristics of resilience in the face of adversity and the ability to turn tragedy into a powerful symbol of hope. It provides an insight into how they deal with conflict, how they make the best of a difficult situation, and how they’re willing to let time and persistence bring about profound change. When the early Vietnamese people arrived in South Australia in the late 1970s, we basically adopted the same attitude as our forefathers. By and large, we were welcomed to this state and treated pretty well by people. But we were also aware that not everybody was happy to see us. Near the Pennington migrant hostel in which we stayed when we first arrived, the graffiti Asians Out and other derogatory writings painted on fences and walls everywhere. Some of our people were spat upon. Many callers to talkback radio programs falsely claimed that we had received special assistance to buy cars and other luxuries. The record of debate in state and federal parliament gives us a hint of the unease felt by some towards ‘boat people’. In the Senate, a minister was forced to reject claims by members of some powerful lobbying organisations that refugees were ‘former pimps, brothel keepers and other undesirable people’. In the South Australian lower house, one MP raised the belief among farmers that the boats posed a ‘catastrophic disease threat to Australia’s sheep and cattle population’. It was claimed that foot-and-mouth disease, anthrax, tuberculosis and brucellosis were all in danger of being introduced into Australia by ‘boat people’. One incident I’ll never forget is the day an extreme right-wing racist group called National Action decided to hold a protest against us. They convened – on a Sunday morning – in the car park of the Finsbury Hotel in the western suburbs. This was a part of the city populated by Vietnamese. And so those National Action members claimed they were taking their protest into what they called ‘the heart of the enclave’. The planned protest received a lot of attention from the public and the media, and we in the Vietnamese community were worried about what might happen. After I was made the community spokesman and – after consultation with the police – we decided on a strategy. About 500 of us turned up at the place of the rally dressed up in our best clothes. We all stood on the other side of the road from the hotel and simply looked over towards the protest. Our demeanour was characterised, not by resentment or aggression, but by curiosity about what all the fuss was about. For quite some time, the two groups simply stared at one another across the road. About only 25 National Action members

turned up. Some held signs and the Eureka flag, but they couldn’t manage even to get a chant going. Our group just stood there very politely and quietly – giving the other side nothing at all to get angry or excited about. After about an hour of this, the protestors – one by one – started to retreat to their motor bicycles and leave altogether. Within a short period of time, the whole protest became a non-event. But, in the long term, I think it became a turning point in the gradual acceptance of the Vietnamese in this state. Recently, I spoke to a former state MP from Mount Gambier, who told me about the impact of the Vietnamese in that city. When the first group of Vietnamese refugees settled in Mount Gambier in the early 1980s, he said, some parents refused to send their children to schools where Vietnamese kids were attending. They claimed that Vietnamese kids could bring diseases and disrupt the classes. They also said that Vietnamese students would lower the academic standard in the class. After a while – when parents saw how well those Vietnamese were behaving at school and were doing very well academically in the class – attitudes completely turned around quickly. Parents were asking the schools to have more Vietnamese students so that overall academic standards would rise and their own children would rise with them. Many people have observed that the Vietnamese have so fully integrated into the life of the state that our presence nowadays has become unremarkable. The rise of Pauline Hanson and One Nation in the 1990s led to renewed discussion of the ethnic make-up of Australia, but that faded pretty quickly. Incidentally, when Pauline came to Adelaide and went on the radio, I took the opportunity to call the station and have a chat with her. I told her, on air, that Adelaide was home to thousands of Vietnamese people and that they – like her – were keen to make the most of their lives. I said I would volunteer to be her tour guide, taking her to a place in Adelaide that would make her feel very, very proud! I told her that I would lead her on a tour of a street that bears her name, the Hanson Road – I offered to introduce her to the many hard-working small-business owners of Vietnamese origin. ‘You never know,’ I said, ‘we might even bump into a Vietnamese fish-and-chip shop owner.’ Sadly, Pauline Hanson was not willing to take up my offer. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m reluctant to draw direct comparisons between what we Vietnamese experienced in the 1970s and what current refugee communities are going through. Our histories and cultures are different, and both the world and Australia are very different places from what they were 35 years ago. I strongly believe, however, that racism and discrimination have no place in Australia and that they must be strongly addressed at every turn. Every person

born here or who comes to this country deserves to be accorded the traditional Australian ‘fair go’, and be encouraged to ‘have a go’. The history of Australia is the history of immigration and – with that – the history of successive communities gradually integrating into society. However, when we look back at our immigration history, we can see that virtually every new community has been discriminated against or – at the very least – frowned upon when they first come to this country. The post– World War II arrivals from Europe were derided as ‘reffos’, ‘wogs’, ‘Bolt’, etc., and their food and customs were seen as alien. But their existence soon became unremarkable, and the baton was passed on to groups such as the Vietnamese and other Asians. In South Australia today, the newcomers are from India, China, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Korea, Iran, Sri Lanka, Burma, Bhutan and many countries of the African continent, to name just a few. The recently released Census data reminds us that of the 22.3 million Australians, almost 25% – or about 5.5 million – were born overseas, and more than 43% or more than 9.5 million Australians – have at least one parent born overseas. While I am optimistic about our state of multiculturalism, it will contend with its share of challenges. From time to time, it will become the subject of debate – not all of that debate being terribly well informed, unfortunately! From my experience addressing a United Nations conference in Geneva last year and my regular contact with diplomats and representatives of many countries, I believe that cultural diversity is clearly much better understood, valued and embraced here than it is in Europe or any other part of the world. Ladies and gentlemen, as I suggested, none of us here tonight – and none of us taking part in the Second National Settlement Conference – should be complacent about what we’ve achieved in Australia. Like anything of real value in this world, multiculturalism must be properly maintained and kept in good working order. We need to continue to defend and protect it, to update and improve it. And we must be prepared to keep making the case in favour of it – not just once, but over and over again. We should accept, however, that time and perseverance are perhaps the most powerful force – the best reckoner of what is right. In light of this, I urge you to reflect on the approach of the ancient Vietnamese in the story that I’ve just told. Whenever we see racism, ignorance, prejudice and discrimination against a person on the ground of ethnicity or race, at the very least, let’s each of us throw a pebble. Through time and persistence, let’s eclipse ignorance and prejudice. And let’s together build a hill full of pebbles – a new vantage point – from which to view an even better, fairer, more harmonious and brighter future for Australia. Thank you.


THE HON. JENNIFER RANKINE MP

REPRESENTING THE HON. JAY WEATHERILL, PREMIER OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Jennifer Rankine is the Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety and Minister for Multicultural Affairs. When Jennifer was accepted into Adelaide University to undertake a bachelor’s degree in labour studies in 1991, she was the first of her family to undertake tertiary studies. She has an extensive and varied political experience and has worked with a range of diverse political groups in both metropolitan and rural South Australia. In May 2002, Jennifer was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier where she successfully negotiated a partnership agreement between the state government and the volunteer sector in South Australia. She also worked with the Minister for Health in devising and implementing the universal home-visiting program ‘Every Chance for Every Child’ for all newborn babies in South Australia. Jennifer has held a number of ministerial portfolios, including for Consumer Affairs, Local Government, Volunteers, Status of Women, Assisting in Early Childhood Development, Families and Communities, Housing, Ageing, Disability and Northern Suburbs.

We would like to acknowledge that this land we meet on today is the traditional lands for the Kaurna people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with the country. We also acknowledge the Kaurna people as the custodians of the Adelaide region and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still as important to the living Kaurna people today. Mr Cedric Manen, Chairperson of the Settlement Council of Australia; His Honour Judge Rauf Soulio, Chairperson of the Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia and Chair of the Australian Multicultural Council; Ms Eugenia Tsoulis, Conference Convenor, speakers and delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. On behalf of the Premier, Jay Weatherill, I welcome interstate and overseas delegates to South Australia. The Premier has asked me to pass on his best wishes to all delegates taking part in ‘Creating Our Future’. Right at the start – and before I address the substantive topic of settlement – I want to touch on a matter that I know is of deep concern to all of us. And that matter, of course, is the appalling loss of life we’re continuing to see – off Australia’s coastlines – as a result of the capsizing of boats carrying asylum seekers. I was shocked by the incident – last week – that saw 17 bodies recovered from the ocean, and many more people being officially listed as missing. Just yesterday, we received news of another capsizing, off Christmas Island. I commend all those who helped pluck people from the waters yesterday. And – more important than that – I extend my heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of those who have died or who are still lost at sea. These incidents are truly dreadful, and we must redouble our efforts to stop them being repeated. The extremely dangerous nature of the voyages gives us an insight into the plight of these people. Quite clearly, they consider their day-to-day existence so miserable and hopeless that they’re willing to risk everything – including their lives – to find a new home and make a fresh start. No matter what policy and political debate occurs about these incidents, we must never forget the profound human tragedy that is at the heart of these failed attempts at freedom. Indeed, the events of recent days also highlight the importance of our coming together for this kind of national conference. We need to develop, maintain and build on our collective capacity to assist refugees – whether they come to our shores by small boat or some other means. In most cases, I suspect, nothing will make their physical and emotional scars disappear. But their speedy and effective settlement in Australia can certainly go some way towards putting them on a bright new path – a path of their own making. Before leaving the topic of asylum seekers, I’d


like to mention that a multifaith service to honour those recently lost at sea will be held in Adelaide this coming weekend. The event has been organised by local members of the Christian, Jewish, Baha’i and Muslim faiths. And it’ll be held at the Pilgrim Church, in Flinders Street, Adelaide, at 4 pm on Sunday. Ladies and gentlemen, against the backdrop of current events, I’m pleased that this Second National Settlement Conference is being held in Adelaide. I’m pleased because helping newcomers to find their feet in this state – in this country – is my highest priority as the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. And I know that my determination is shared by everyone in this room. I understand the challenges facing refugees because I talk to them frequently at forums and other events, and I listen to their personal stories. My desire to improve the day-to-day aspects of life has also been shaped by what I saw and did in two of my previous ministerial portfolios – and they were Families and Communities, and Housing. I’d like to commend Eugenia Tsoulis and her colleagues for putting together an excellent conference program. The calibre of speakers is outstanding. And the dual focus on employment pathways and building service capacity means that matters of practical import will be foremost in our minds. I look forward to delegates sharing ideas, coming up with better ways of doing things, and enhancing national teamwork in a way that translates into more effective services for refugees. My talks with refugees in the past few days – as part of SA Refugee Week – have only increased my desire to join you in seeking to make a difference. Woman or man, girl or boy – the refugees I’ve spoken with nearly always exude a remarkable level of optimism and energy. Many of them have gone through experiences that few of us could even comprehend, let alone contend with. As such, I think they require and deserve every bit of attention we can provide. Australia has been profoundly and positively shaped by the arrival of millions of newcomers during the short history of this Europeansettled nation. We’ve been enriched by migrants – who are carefully chosen nowadays for their skills and capacity for enterprise. But we’ve also been made a better and stronger country by the settlement of refugees – especially after the end of World War II. About 1,500 refugees have arrived in South Australia, alone, in the past year or so, and their stories are inspiring and compelling. Our state is today home, in particular, to a large number of Afghans, Burmese, Bhutanese and Sudanese. They’re achieving a great deal for themselves. But they’re also contributing a huge amount – not least to our successful and much-valued model of multiculturalism.

Settlement is a pretty challenging field, and the situation on the ground is changing and will continue to change. Nevertheless, we here in this state have been doing a lot of useful work in recent years – work that’s generating dividends. Indeed, I’d like to think that our efforts have made South Australia a genuine leader.

catch a bus, get a driver’s licence or make sure that their overseas qualifications are properly recognised. Settlement isn’t the easiest area of public policy in which to work. If it were simple, we would have sorted it out a long time ago, and everything would be working seamlessly.

In late 2010, the government embarked on a program designed ultimately to improve settlement services in this state. By talking to every major group within what we might call the ‘settlement community’, we looked at what was working and what wasn’t. Our basic finding was that there was not a major shortage of settlement services but that there was certainly scope to improve their coordination. As a result of bringing people together, fostering communication and drawing up detailed action plans, together we initiated a series of practical measures. And we’ll see the fruits of that work in the years to come.

For example, there’s a long-running debate about the relative merits of using ‘mainstream’ or ‘specialist’ service providers. The key, I believe, is for those delivering settlement services to earn the trust of client communities and, so, find out exactly what they require. Providers need to avoid become the ongoing or sole contact for settlers. I commend those settlement organisations which do their job so well that their clients quickly become independent of them. These organisations manage to achieve the critical outcome of ensuring refugees move on from being refugees. On the one hand, this frees-up the settlement service providers to help the next group of needy clients coming through. More importantly, it frees-up their clients because they have been equipped with the knowledge, skills and connections so they no longer rely on the settlement service providers.

I’m pleased with what we’ve achieved in South Australia in the past 18 months when it comes to coordination. And I know that much of that success is the result of the state government working constructively with the local team at the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. But I’m well aware, too, that we’ll need to work on this continuously in the years ahead if we want to lock in the gains we’ve made and have the capability to respond to changing needs. Ladies and gentlemen, given this is a national conference, I’d like to touch on some valuable work being done under the aegis of CoAG – or the Council of Australian Governments. The Select Council on Immigration and Settlement, which is made up of all the Ministers for Multicultural Affairs from all jurisdictions in Australia, is currently drawing up a national settlement framework. Akin to the South Australian work I just mentioned, the framework aims to improve coordination, collaboration and the effective use of existing resources. At a meeting in Sydney in March of this year, I joined other Ministers from across the country in setting directions for the framework. A lot of detailed work on the document is now being carried out. And we hope to see it finalised and launched next year. I want to emphasise that the framework is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Its ultimate purpose is to help new arrivals settle, to become part of the community, and to have all the things they need to fulfil their potential and achieve their goals. Our collective work must ultimately help new arrivals to find accommodation, for example, or to get a job.

I believe that, overall, coordination and communication is getting better, but there’s still some way to go yet. The more we cooperate, and the more we come together for events such as this conference, the better placed we’ll be to make a tangible and lasting difference to people’s lives. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s been a privilege to take part in what promises to be a very rewarding conference – an event that we in the state government are pleased to be supporting. I hope that you have a terrific stay in Adelaide and that you find the time to discover the many charms of this city and this state. Most of all, I hope the coming two days of discussion do, indeed, help us to create our future. On behalf of the Premier of South Australia, I’m pleased to declare the Second National Settlement Conference officially open. Thank you.

It must smooth the path to their enrolling children in school, to knowing where to find a doctor or hospital, to learning English. Our efforts should help people – in the end – do things such as


Guest speaker SENATOR THE HON. KATE LUNDY Kate Lundy is the Minister for Sport, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation. First elected to the Senate for the ACT in 1996, Kate began full-time work at the age of sixteen as a labourer removing asbestos from building sites. Her political awareness grew on the job and she became a workplace delegate. Kate began work as a full-time union organiser in 1986. The following year she was elected as vice-president of the ACT branch of the Building Workers Industrial Union, the first woman to hold an executive position in the traditionally male-dominated union. In 1988 she joined the ACT Trades and Labour Council Executive and in 1993 became the youngest person and first woman elected as president of the council. In Opposition she held many portfolios, including Information Technology, Sport and Recreation, Manufacturing, Consumer Affairs, Local Government and Health Promotion. She is an active sportswoman and enjoys participating in hockey, soccer and rowing when time permits.

Acknowledgements I pay my respects to the traditional owners of this land on which we meet today, the Kaurna people, and I thank them for their continuing contribution to the Australian community. I would also like to acknowledge Cedric Manen, Chair of the Settlement Council of Australia and Ms Eugenia Tsoulis OAM, Conference Convener. Also, session chairs: Ms Violet Roumeliotis, CEO Settlement Services International; Mr Simon Schrapel, President, Australian Council of Social Services; and Judge Rauf Soulio, Chair, Australian Multicultural Council. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen … Introduction Thank you to the Settlement Council of Australia (SCoA) for convening this conference. I would like to begin by thanking all of you for the work you undertake in our communities. Your dedication and commitment to helping new migrants and refugees settle in Australia is commendable. New migrants and refugees embarking on a new life in Australia are confronted with the many new challenges associated with settling in a new and unfamiliar society and culture. The grassroots support you provide individuals and families when they arrive in Australia is invaluable, and on behalf of the government, I would like to thank you for your dedication and all of the good work you undertake in our community. Today I would like to begin by reflecting on the initial results of the 2011 Census data released last week. The results confirm the diverse social fabric of our Australian community. According to the Census data, Australia’s resident population is now at 21.5 million, and, of this, 5.3 million people are first-generation migrants and 4.1 million are second-generation migrants. The groups in Australia that recorded the largest increases in migrants born overseas between the 2001 and 2011 Census were: • India with an increase of 200,000 from 95,452 in 2001 to 295,362 in 2011 • China, which saw a rise of 172,200 from 142,780 in 2001 to 318,969 in 2011 • New Zealand, with a jump of 127,700 from 355,765 in 2001 to 483,398 in 2011. The 2011 Census results reinforce two things. Firstly, Australia’s multicultural composition and character and the cultural and linguistic diversity of our nation, which is continuing to take shape and will be a defining feature into the future. Secondly, the results confirm that, as a country, we need a government that recognises we need a whole of government approach to policy that positively anticipates our


changing landscape and can respond to challenges and opportunities to enable all Australians to enjoy the economic, cultural and social benefits that diversity brings. Australia’s multicultural policy, the People of Australia, is a whole of government policy that goes someway towards this vision. I would like to take a moment to give you a quick update on its implementation. As you know, we’ve established the Australian Multicultural Council (AMC) to act as a champion for multiculturalism in the community. One of their first initiatives was to establish the People of Australia Ambassadors Program, launched earlier this year by the Prime Minister. Forty ambassadors were appointed for 12 months to promote harmony through their ongoing good work and share their ideas and initiatives to help inspire others. I would like to acknowledge the South Australian People of Australia Ambassadors, Ms Dorinda Hafner, Ms Claudia Cream, Ms Denise McEvoy, Ms Elizabeth Ho OAM and Pastor Brad Chilcott. Last weekend I attended the Walk Together event in Melbourne, which Brad organised. The AMC is also involved in the development and implementation of the anti-racism partnership strategy. Helen Szoke, Australia’s first fulltime race discrimination commissioner since 1999 is leading this work, and I’m looking forward to its launch soon. Both the Multicultural Youth Sports Partnerships and the Multicultural Arts and Festivals Grants are going well. Both programs are oversubscribed but going strong. I’m very pleased with all of that progress, but I’m particularly pleased today to be able to publicly release ‘Access and Equity for a Multicultural Australia’ – the report to government of the inquiry into the responsiveness of Australian Government services to Australia’s culturally and linguistically diverse population. When I announced this inquiry last year, I made the point that strong and cohesive communities can only be sustained if government services reach all Australians equitably. I firmly believe that and clearly, so do you. The inquiry panel received 136 submissions from a wide variety of sources including, I’m sure, many of you who are in the room today. In addition, one-on-one consultations were undertaken across the country. The report makes 20 recommendations to government and I look forward to working on the government’s response. In the spirit of this report, I have asked my department to ensure that summaries of this report are translated into more than 20 community languages and easily accessible on the department’s website, and this work has already started.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Peter Hughes, former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, who chaired the inquiry with great enthusiasm and also the other members of the panel who provided such wonderful support: Maria Dimopolous, Jatinda Ker, Pino Migliorino, and Rauf Soulio. Thank you all for your efforts. As a government, we recognise that we need the most up-todate and relevant research available to develop effective policies and programs. I am delighted to announce that the department will be entering into a new partnership with the Australian Institute of Family Studies to establish the ‘Building a New Life in Australia Longitudinal Survey of Humanitarian Migrants.’ It will be the first comprehensive study of its type in more than a decade, and will involve more than 1,500 new humanitarian families settling in communities across urban and regional Australia, and will build on the knowledge from the Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals (SONA) report and research by Professor Graeme Hugo. Starting in 2013, these families will be invited to complete surveys about their settlement experiences at regular intervals during the following five years. The results will help us to identify where settlement problems exist, evaluate what help is needed, and which groups may need extra assistance. Ultimately, the research will advance our understanding of the issues that affect the settlement potential of humanitarian entrants. It will also allow us to see the evidence-based factors that either aid or hinder successful outcomes and will help us deliver improved policies and programs for humanitarian entrants into the future. The themes of this year’s conference – building service capacity and employment participation – they are timely issues to discuss. Following the release of the Building Australia’s Future Workforce Package, Minister for Employment Bill Shorten has begun engaging with employer organisations to ensure that pathways of employment are open and available to all Australians. This includes people from culturally diverse backgrounds and in particular refugees and humanitarian entrants. Through your work in SCoA, RRAC and other bodies, there is great scope for collaborative sharing experience, best practice and leveraging relationships with other agencies in the job pathways environment. I know that later today, the Minister for Employment Participation, Kate Ellis, will be presenting on the challenges for productive diversity. One of the great benefits of cultural diversity in the workplace is the strength a wide range of cultural experience brings to business innovation. The capacity to innovate is a key determinant of productivity, which will help our economy grow. If we make the right decisions now, Australians can be the big winners from the rapid growth in China, India and across our region. It makes sense that having a culturally diverse and therefore culturally aware workforce is an important strategic asset for any employer. Getting this message out, backed up by good research, is essential. I am really pleased to see you are asking questions about what is working, what isn’t, and how we can continue to build employment pathways, and sustainable employment, for refugees, humanitarian entrants and migrants generally. The emphasis responds to the strategic focus on employment that I signalled earlier this year and

will be helpful in guiding where we go next to improve linkages, collaboration and outcomes, like real jobs. Turning to the second theme of this year’s conference – building service capacity – collectively, we have a lot to be proud of. Australia has a reputation for our world-class settlement services. Our settlement sector is demonstrably capable, resilient and adaptable. The way the sector has responded to a rapidly changing environment with our onshore humanitarian program is evidence of these attributes. As the government expands its broader community-based model to manage our onshore humanitarian program, I see an enormous amount of goodwill and responsiveness to a complex array of challenges right across the sector. Expanded community-based detention arrangements for unaccompanied minors and vulnerable families were announced by the government on 18 October 2010. We continue to implement the community detention program, moving over 4,000 people into the community. This includes over 1,600 adults in family groups, 500 vulnerable adults, and 1,800 children – both accompanied and unaccompanied. In October 2011, the government also announced its intention to grant bridging visas (BVEs) to enable eligible people to reside in the community while their protection claims are being assessed. More than 1,780 BVE’s have now been granted. There is a steady increase in the number of people moving onto bridging visas. The intractable situation in Parliament this week means the number of people is expected to increase further over the next 12 months. These changes have had, and will continue to have, an impact on the settlement sector, including the way humanitarian settlement services are provided. Collaboration and cooperation across the sector is more important than ever. Settlement services have been helpful in providing constant feedback on this impact and that is helping the government shape our response, including adapting to the opportunities and challenges these changes bring. Last week, the SCoA executive hosted a roundtable with me, a representative from Minister Bowen’s office and departmental officials to provide feedback on how these changes are already starting to manifest on the ground. I note the settlement sector expressed a high level of support for the bridging visa program and community detention, as well as making strong representations to be more involved. Given the corporate knowledge, experience and deep community linkages of established, professional settlement service providers, this augers well for improvements in service pathways in the future. In conclusion, I want to report back that we are now in the final stages of work on the settlement framework. We have consulted on the draft document, and thank you to those who provided feedback. This framework will reflect the current and changing circumstance of the settlement sector and will be released very soon. I would like to acknowledge the work that the Settlement Council of Australia does to support services that are the front line of support for refugees and humanitarian entrants in Australia. We are at a challenging but exciting time in the settlement sector. I look forward to seeing the outcome of this conference – a collaborative crosssector action plan – and working through these challenges together. It’s about people, families, children, pain, loss and trauma. But it is also about hope, safety, friendship, belonging, love and caring. This is the gift you bring to so many people. Again, I thank you. Creating our Future REPORT | 13 |

THE HON. KATE ELLIS MP Kate Ellis is the Minister for Employment Participation and the Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare. In 2004, Kate became the youngest woman to be elected to the Australian House of Representatives when she became the Member for Adelaide. In 2007, Kate was elevated to the Labor government’s frontbench as the Minister for Youth and Sport. In June 2008, Kate was given extra ministerial responsibilities as Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport. In 2010, Kate became the Minister for Employment Participation and Child Care and the Minister for the Status of Women. Kate’s highest priority is strong representation for the residents of Adelaide and, as such, she actively hosts regular streetcorner meetings, mobile offices and community events. Kate is an avid supporter of the Adelaide Crows, the Thunderbirds and the Glenelg Tigers.

Challenges for productive diversity Well firstly, can I just say how sorry I am that I can’t be there with you today in person at the Second National Settlement Conference. As you all would have seen, it has been an emotional week for all parliamentarians, and I know the community, particularly yourselves, would have been feeling this too. It has also been a really long week. So I am here – we are having an extended sitting, meaning that I’m trapped and can’t make it home to be with you in time. But I did want to be able to at least send this video message. I wanted to thank the Settlement Council of Australia, firstly for bringing together so many people from the settlement sector – communities, service groups, academics and those with an interest in working together to build their knowledge and support in community participation in a multicultural society. For my part, I’m here to talk about employment participation and the importance of meaningful employment for our refugee and migrant population. There is absolutely no doubt that a person’s ability to take part fully in society is strongly influenced by their ability to work. And we know that having a job is so much more than just the regular pay cheque that it brings. It also brings confidence; it brings dignity, and importantly, inclusion. This is why we are so keen to work with you to ensure that we keep improving our employment services for migrant and refugee job seekers. I’m really proud that since we’ve established Job Services Australia and placed an emphasis and indeed an incentive on the helping of the most disadvantaged job seekers into work we’ve seen dramatic improvements. In fact, when we look at the most disadvantaged – the Stream 4’s – we’re now seeing a staggering 90% improvement in results than under the previous system.


I know that some of you hold concerns about generalist service providers, but it’s heartening to know that refugees are achieving positive outcomes in Job Services Australia; 71.9% of job seekers from CALD backgrounds achieve positive outcomes, being education or employment. This compares with 61.7% of all job seekers. Now I’m sure you know why that is – because we are talking about people who know how to work hard, who know how to make the most of opportunities when they come along, and get results. And Senator Kate Lundy, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and myself have asked a working group on improving education and employment outcomes for refugees, for recommendations about how employment services might be further improved for refugee job seekers. And I’m expecting the recommendations from the working group to land on my desk very soon. And then really look forward to discussing those next steps with you. And watch this space, and this is coming very shortly. But for now, I just want to say that I am incredibly proud of our government’s focus on jobs. I’m proud that we have such a low unemployment rate at 5.1%. But particularly because I know that this creates an amazing opportunity for us. That we actually have a situation right now of employers crying out for workers in several sectors across the economy. It is the best opportunity that we are likely to get to actually increase the participation base, to move those who have been left sidelined into the labour market, and to share the benefits of our prosperity more fairly. And this is an opportunity that I am absolutely determined not to miss. So, while we know that we can do more, and we will do more, I also want to share, very briefly, an example of where the government is looking to provide more holistic support for communities and families as a way of improving participation further.

Our family-centred employment project means employment service providers work with families to develop family care plans that address the needs of that family as a whole. So it might include housing assistance, financial management, conflict resolution and education participation. What’s important and makes this relevant to you is that approximately 40% of the families that are participating are from a CALD background, and of these, just over 35% are refugees. And there are some great results already. In Broadmeadows, Victoria, an Arabic mothers’ group has been established. Most of the women have never been in paid employment, but since the support group has started, some of those mothers have started looking for work or are undertaking training with a view to getting a job soon. We know that not only will this change their lives, but it’s also going to change the lives of their children and indeed their local community. Similarly, in Goodna this project has recognised that more support was needed for families from Central Africa to access childcare. So information sessions were held with childcare providers and a childcare mentor was employed to work with the centres to ensure that they were culturally diverse, and more adequately reflected in the community.

You are probably lucky, because if I were there I would probably bore you on details of our new wage subsidies, on our diversity programs, and new approaches to make the most of the opportunities that our strong economy is currently providing for us. You are saved from that for now, but I will say that I will be very interested in working with you toward shaping the future structure of our employment system and removing any barriers that you believe are hampering our efforts to take every opportunity that is provided for us. With continued low unemployment, there is no better time to work to improve Australian workplace diversity. And to work to increase the participation of those currently under-represented, including migrants and refugees. We’ve taken some great steps, but there are many more before us. And I think this is a really exciting challenge. It’s one that I look forward to addressing with you in partnership. But for now, please enjoy beautiful Adelaide – I certainly hope to be there sometime soon. And, all the best with your deliberations. Thank you.

As a result of these initiatives, many refugee and humanitarian families have already found employment in retail and hospitality, in caring and aid, and in factory and process work. We know that many other participants are completing education and training in childcare services or aged care, in English and language studies. These are good stories. These are real stories, which are happening right now. But of course there is more to be done.


KEYNOTE SPEAKER PROFESSOR GRAEME HUGO Graeme Hugo is ARC Australian Professorial Fellow, professor of the discipline of geography, environment and population, and director of the Australian Population and Migration Research Centre at the University of Adelaide. His research interests are in population issues in Australia and Southeast Asia, especially migration. He is the author of more than 300 books, articles in scholarly journals and chapters in books, as well as many conference papers and reports. In 2002, he secured an ARC Federation Fellowship over five years for his research project, ‘The new paradigm of international migration to and from Australia: dimensions, causes and implications’. In 2009 he was awarded an ARC Australian Professorial Fellowship over five years for his research project, ‘Circular migration in Asia, the Pacific and Australia: empirical, theoretical and policy dimensions’. He is chair of the Demographic Change and Liveability Panel of the Ministry of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, and he was appointed to the National Housing Supply Council in 2011.

Who are the people of Australia and where did they come from? Outline of Presentation • Introduction • Australia: A Country of International Migration • Changing Migration Trends • A Diverse Population • Some Implications • Conclusion

Australia: A Country of Immigration • 26 percent born overseas in 2011 • 27 percent Australia-born with an overseas-born parent(s) in 2011 • 908,049 persons temporarily present at 30 June 2011 • Without postwar migration the Australian population would be less than 13 million Indicators of Australian Diversity, 2011 Source: ABS, 2006 Census Indicator

Migration and Remittances: Top Countries Source: World Bank, 2010

Percent

Born overseas

26.1

Born overseas in NES country

16.6

Australia-born with an overseas-born parent

27.0

Speaks language other than English at home

19.2

Ancestry (multi response) in a NES country (2006)

26.0

Non-Christian religion

22.3

Indigenous Population

2.6

No. of birthplace groups with 10,000 + (2006)

61

No. of birthplace groups with 1,000 + (2006) No. of indigenous persons

118 548,369

Australia: Total Population Growth Showing the Natural Increase and Net Migration Components, 1901-2011


Distribution of Birthplace of Overseas-Born, 2011 Source: ABS 2011 Census

Distribution of Birthplace of Settlers to Australia, 2008-09 Source: DIAC

Largest Overseas-born Groups in 2011 Source: ABS 2011 Census Birthplace

Number

United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man

1101082

New Zealand

483397

China (excludes SARs and Taiwan)

318969

India

295362

Italy

185403

Vietnam

185036

Philippines

171233

South Africa

145682

Malaysia

116195

Germany

108001

Australia: Fastest Growing Groups 2009-10 Source: ABS Estimated Resident Population Data Birthplace

Number

Growth Rate

2009

2010

2009-10

Bhutan

3610

6060

67.9

Japan

162670

208450

28.1

Congo, Democratic Republic of

8510

10510

23.5

Mexico

11710

13960

19.2

New Caledonia

5770

6840

18.5

Venezuela

10970

12770

16.4

United Arab Emirates

19130

22030

15.2

Korea, Republic of (South)

348360

401050

15.1

Taiwan

132710

152150

14.6

Estonia

10310

11820

14.6

Note: Excludes groups with less than 5000 persons in 2006

A Paradigm Shift in Australian Migration • Increase in non permanent migration

Australia: Slowest Growing Groups 2009-10 Source: ABS Estimated Resident Population Data

• Increase in onshore migration • Increased focus on skill

Birthplace

• Introduction of State Specific and Regional Migration Scheme • Increased settlement outside main gateways • Increased diversity • Importance of asylum seekers

Number

Growth Rate

2009

2010

2009-10

Latvia

23420

22800

-2.65

Lithuania

12900

12660

-1.86

Ukraine

59100

58030

-1.81

Hungary

91850

90650

-1.31

Malta

197930

195520

-1.22

11660

11530

-1.11

Gaza Strip and West Bank Poland

236270

233810

-1.04

Greece

514140

508790

-1.04

Croatia

276080

273320

-1.00

Netherlands

357390

354440

-0.83

Note: Excludes groups with less than 5000 persons in 2006 Creating our Future REPORT | 17 |

PROFESSOR GRAEME HUGO CONTINUED Net overseas migration is falling, and is projected to plateau at around 180 000 persons per year Source: Hoffmann, 2011

Australia: Humanitarian Program Arrivals, 1976-2011 Source: DIMIA unpublished statistics, Australian Immigration Consolidated Statistics and DIAC Immigration Update, various issues

Australia: Settler Arrivals by Region of Last Residence, 1947 to 2011 Source: DIMIA Australian Immigration Consolidated Statistics; DIAC Immigration Update, various issues and DIAC unpublished data

Refugee and Humanitarian Arrivals 1977-78 to 2001-02 and Permanent Additions 2002-03 to 2010-11 to Australia by Region of Birth Source: DIMIA Australian Immigration Consolidated Statistics and DIAC Immigration Update, various issues

The Migration Program’s composition has changed over time Opportunities • Combating Ageing • Economic Contribution • Social Contribution


Responding to the Implications of an Ageing Population Source: Swan 2010, p.xiii

Labour Force Participation Rates for First and Second Generation Humanitarian Entrants, 2006 Source: DIAC 2011, p.26

Migrants’ Net Impact on the Australian Government Budget by Visa Category ($ million 2009-10) Source: DIAC, 2011a, 46

Unemployment Rates for First and Second Generation Humanitarian Entrants, 2006 Source: DIAC 2011, p.27

Impact on the Australian Government Budget by Visa Category ($ millions)

Period of Settlement in Australia (years) 1

10

20

Partner and Other

-17.9

259.8

257.9

Parent

-14.8

-14.8

-18.1

228.1

-34.3

-83.4

195.4

210.8

156.4

Family Stream

Contributory Parent Family Stream Total Skill Stream Employer Sponsored

417.4

442.0

475.7

Skilled Independent

171.6

404.8

462.7

State/Territory Sponsored

51.9

79.5

104.9

Skilled Family Sponsored

5.5

17.6

21.4

Business Skills

37.7

27.9

20.3

Skill Stream Total

684.1

971.6

1085.0

Humanitarian Stream

-238.7

-11.9

46.8

Fiscal Impact of Permanent Migration

640.9

1170.5

1288.1

Temporary Business Subclass 457

670.9

332.7

442.1


PROFESSOR GRAEME HUGO CONTINUED Evidence of High Level of Entrepreneurialism • Historical – DPs

Australia: Correlation Between Level of Unemployment and Those of the View That the Immigration Intake is ‘Too High’, 1974-2010

• Vietnamese – study of boatload of arrivals from late 1970s • Case Studies • BRW 2000 – 5 of 8 billionaires of Refugee background

2010 – 3 of top 10 earners

Australia: Settlement of Refugee-Humanitarian Settlers Outside Capital Cities, 1996 to 2011 Source: DIAC

Australia: Net Overseas Migration, Settler Arrivals, Asylum Applications Lodged and Humanitarian Program Permanent Additions, 2005-6 to 2010-11 Source: ABS 2011, DIAC 2010 and 2011a and b

Challenges • Public Perceptions • The Refugee Gap • Brain Waste

Attitude to Level of Immigration, Australia, Selected Years Source: Markus, 2011, 8

Year

Too High (Percent)

About Right/ Too Few (Percent)

1996

62

32

1997

64

28

2001

41

54

2002

41

54

2003

37

57

2005

39

56

2007

36

53

2009

37

55

2010

47

46


There is substantial evidence of a “brain waste” among refugeehumanitarian settlers where they do not get jobs commensurate with their skill/education. There is evidence of - discrimination on the basis of race, religion and ethnic origin - structural disadvantage in the workplace

The Refugee Gap Australia: Participation Rate by First, Second Generation and Australia-Born and Qualifications, 2006 Source: ABS, 2006 Census

Australia: First, Second Generation Humanitarian Birthplace Groups, Australia and Overseas Born by Occupation and Education, 2006 Source: ABS 2006 Census

Workforce Participation: A Mixed Experience • Clear evidence of upward mobility • However also some groups trapped in low income jobs • The “refugee gap” • Need for removal of discrimination, facilitate recognition of qualifications and experience to “level playing field” Occupation of Employed Migrants, 15 Years and Over, 2006 Source: ABS, 2010b, 13-14

• However filling important shortages in labour market not filled by other migrant groups Conclusion • A massive multicultural transition • A positive attitude to migration • Much still needs to be done • A more balanced picture of migration and migrant impact • Need to address discrimination

Australia: First, Second Generation Humanitarian Birthplace Groups, Australia and Overseas Born by Occupation and Education, 2006 Source: ABS 2006 Census




KEYNOTE SPEAKER PROFESSOR ANDREW JAKUBOWICZ Andrew Jakubowicz is professor of sociology at the University of Technology Sydney and the co-director of the Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Research Centre. Andrew also chairs the non-government organisation Institute for Cultural Diversity, which was established in September 2007 to promote the value of cultural diversity for a democratic, creative and productive Australia. He helps run the institute’s website ‘Cultural Diversity News’. Andrew also coordinates ‘Making Multicultural Australia in the 21st Century’, a website designed for teachers and students interested in cross-curriculum diversity perspectives and produced in conjunction with state education and arts bodies around Australia. Andrew has published widely in the fields of cultural diversity, social policy, refugees, Jewish cultural studies, media sociology and new media. He is currently working on a project focused on cyber-racism.

Learning from the past to create Australia’s future Thank you, and can I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we are meeting today, the Kaurna people, and pay my respects to their Elders, past, present. As I was listening to the minister earlier, I was recalling other periods of refugees. My family were refugees. The chance of survival in the community from which I came – or from which they came – was one in ten. That is, for the millions of people who lived before the Second World War in Poland, from my ethno-cultural and religious background, only one in ten survived, and those one in ten were almost totally made up of people who managed to become refugees in the first three to four weeks of the Second World War. So, it’s significant, I think, that we are facing, yet again, people from all over the world running for their lives, trying to find somewhere to live. And indeed the attitudes to the Jewish refugees of that period are not dissimilar in many ways to some of the attitudes that exist today. In a study on Australian attitudes to race and racial difference carried out by the Australian Government about 13 or 14 years ago, one of the things that the research found was that Australians are very tolerant, as long as the harmonious nature of their lives was not disturbed in any way. Out of that insight, whereas the rest of the world chose a day in March to be the day for the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, Australia, as we know, chose Harmony Day. I think it’s significant, then, that we are discussing what Australia’s future might look like. I’ve been asked to talk about learning from the past, a very interesting moment, because my historical colleagues always say I’m not a historian, so how dare I do this, but I pretend. Anyway, three moments I want to share with you to start with. The first of those was the very beginning of what we now know as the settlement community around the country. Back at the end of the 1970s or beginning of the 1980s, as a result of the Galbally Report, the first migrant resource centres were being established. One of the first of these was in a city called Wollongong that some of you may have heard of, south of Sydney. The Illawarra Migrant Resource Centre was set up by people I knew. I was involved in that process, and in the weeks prior to the creation of its board, the Department of – whatever it was then: Immigration and whatever – said our position is that the minister will appoint the committee of this migrant resource centre. The people of Wollongong said, no, that’s not the way we had envisaged it. If you want us involved, we’re going to elect the committee. I can remember, in fact, at the time the minister was in Darwin (a few people will appreciate this), and there was a departmental officer in Canberra, and we were in Wollongong, and the moment was coming when the minister had to announce the creation of these migrant resource centres, sort of, leaping like Athena, fully grown from the brow of Zeus. There was this wonderful last three hours of phone calls as we said, we’re | 24 | Creating our Future REPORT

going to have an election, and Canberra said, no, you’re not. Somehow or other, things were running backwards and forwards to the minister, and approximately half an hour before the announcement was made, the statement was drafted, democracy advances in Australia through the creation of democratically elected migrant resource centre committees. That was the first story I want to share with you. The second was some years later, 1997, early 1997. People may remember that an election had just occurred, and the Keating government had been replaced by the Howard government. During that transition, some of our colleagues in countries north of Australia were bemused by the rise of Pauline Hanson and a variety of other events that were going on. I was invited to speak in Jakarta to the Australian and Indonesian organisation, and the topic I was given was ‘Is Australia a racist nation?’ Now, that’s a fairly … and this had all had to be approved, this time, not by DIAC but DFAT – by Foreign Affairs. The line that I took I thought went down okay, which was Australia is a racist country trying not to have a racist future. I thought that might just capture it, and at the end of it, one of my Indonesian colleagues who was asked to comment got up and said, I was never quite sure what an Indonesian strategist might be able to say about Australia. Then I suddenly realised that countries, he said, nations, are like stories. They’re written by all sorts of people. The challenge for Australia, as for Indonesia, is who gets to sit at the table and write the script. When you arrive in a country, do you have to fit in with somebody else’s script, which tells you where you’re going to be and what you’re going to do, or are you invited to participate as an equal in the writing of the country’s future? That always stuck with me as an incredibly vivid metaphor for the process of settlement. Are people being invited in to help write the nation’s future, or are they being invited in to be told how to behave? The third moment that I want to share with you – in fact, it’s quite a longer moment than those two – began in 2011. I made some reference to it a moment ago. In 1998, the Howard government undertook a major study of Australian attitudes to different cultural groups, to racism and so on. It was the height of the Hanson era. Things were extremely volatile. Public opinion was shifting backwards and forwards on a lot of issues. There was a huge press outcry about Asian crime, these sorts of questions in Australia. We were beginning to see growing Islamophobia in various parts of the country. So it was all very tense. The study discovered various sorts of things about racism, and then the study was locked down, so nobody actually got to see it. This was, in fact, to become a characteristic of the Howard period – that knowledge, information and research was systematically removed from the public context. So, as we moved through the period from 1998 through the next decade, Australians actually knew less and less about the country that they were part of. Key institutions were being closed down. Research was being locked away. If it were’t for people like Graeme Hugo and Kevin

Dunn and various other academics who are committed to undertaking solid empirical research, we would actually know almost nothing at all about what was happening in the country. It had been a bee in my bonnet for some time that I had wanted to find out what was actually going on in this research the government had blocked, and finally, in 2011, after 13 years, my FOI request came through, and I got the results. Amazingly, nothing happened. The world didn’t fall over. There were no revolutions in the streets. People didn’t scream from the rooftops. A year afterwards – yesterday, in fact – I got the final dump of the freedom of information, which shows what happened to the research, what the government actually did do with the knowledge that it had. For those of you who are interested, you can follow this on my blog site, andrewjakubowicz.com, and that’s the last ad you’ll hear from me for that. Okay. So what’s the current story of settlement and where are we challenged? Some of you may have seen earlier in the year a program called Once upon a time in Cabramatta, which I had the good fortune to be part of, and it traced the whole process of settlement from the first arrival of Vietnamese at exactly the moment multiculturalism, the settlement program, everything else, was put in place. It followed it through the nadir of that community in the late 90s when drugs, gun deaths, all sorts of things were happening, and it followed it out the other end, to the situation now where the Vietnamese community is widely perceived as the model minority. It was very interesting to try to understand what actually happened: why did things change, how did things turn around? One of the clear things was that a lot of government policy, particularly in the late 90s and through the first half of the 2000s, was based on reactions to public hysteria. It wasn’t based on carefully thought through research. It was based on political playing of the emotions of the time. Now, of course, we’ve gone past that today. We don’t do that anymore. Secondly, there was a critical element in the role of leadership. That is, that the forming in Australia of leaders in communities who think about their role in Australia was absolutely crucial. As long as the first generation of leaders was still fighting – in their heads – the war in Vietnam, the community could not find direction. When the secondgeneration or younger leaders said, ‘We are here, we are Australians, and we want our rights as Australians, one of which is to be safe,’ things began to turn around. The creation of that leadership was partly serendipitous. This wasn’t the result of any government policy. Some of it had to do with the work of settlement organisations, but a lot of it had to do with accident. Other communities have not been so fortunate. Thirdly, the overall government strategy during that period, which was to demobilise community organisations, was incredibly successful. Many of you who have been part of the MRC program over many years will know the impact of government policies in the beginning of the last decade and the impact of not being allowed to advocate on behalf of people, of not being allowed to organise, of not being allowed to critique, not being allowed to debate. That had a fundamental demobilising effect on the capacity of communities to participate in Australian society, and that was a really major, major problem. We’ve only really in the last five years or so seen that start to turn around. Okay. So, what do I see as the current challenges? The building of community leadership, that question of capacity building are, I think, absolutely fundamental. If communities can gain a purchase on the political system – I don’t mean partisan political system, on the process of resources being allocated – if they can articulate what they want, if they can learn how to work the system and become part of it, then we start to see things changing very quickly. I’m not thinking here of that rather bizarrely labelled program, ‘Resilient Communities’, run by the Attorney-General’s Department, which, as far as I can see,

has very little to do with communities and nothing at all to do with resilience but is actually all about counter-radicalisation strategies. Maybe people need to do that, and I’m not criticising, but I think if that’s what resilient communities are, then we’ve got a long way to go with changing the way government thinks about its capacity to actually produce resilient communities. Secondly, we’re starting to see – and we’ve seen it quite dramatically over the last year or so, probably the last three years or so – pressures from industry for a completely different way of thinking about migration to Australia. This is an industry that’s actually not really concerned about settlement at all. It’s concerned about bringing in large numbers of workers, putting them into the mining industry for the most part, and using their skills. Why is this so important? Because we know as well that government investment in education has been much lower than it should have been for at least 20 or 30 years, so the capacity in Australia to do these jobs is much more limited than it should be. We’re about to see the imminent announcement of a thing called the Migration Council of Australia, which is an attempt to bring together people who are concerned about the building of a bigger Australia, the economic building of a bigger Australia, with people who are concerned about the social building of a fairer Australia. I think this will be a very interesting project, which the settlement community needs to watch quite carefully. At one end of this, we have, if you like, the Gina Rineharts of this world. At the other end, we have people struggling in underfunded community organisations trying to make sense and gain access to the system around them. Thirdly, there is enormous pressure from the Small Australia lobby led, unfortunately, by our current foreign minister, Bob Carr, which is very concerned to limit migration to Australia and to constrain the capacity of Australia to absorb more people. Then, finally, running through it all are the pressures from the economic rationalists. So, what can we actually face now in this whole situation? Firstly, I think there’s an incredibly important moment where we need to understand the role of the settlement community in building community strength, building leadership and making it possible for new communities to play an active role in writing that script that my Indonesian colleague referred to so many years ago. Secondly, there is enormous importance associated with education. We have to demand that education is expanded and that people from new communities are given full access and respectful access to education that can bolster their skills and get them involved in the labour market. Thirdly, the employment environment is clearly something that has to be dealt with, particularly for humanitarian arrivals. Three problems: there seems to be a very limited sign of recognition in government about the real resource needs in the settlement communities. The settlement environment has been drip fed for a long time with just enough resources meaning that people are working rather too hard with far too little to produce the rather amazing outcomes they’ve managed to do. There is a problem, as well, of the danger of further erosion of our community capacity for leadership, we need to watch that very carefully, and the Migration Council of Australia, I think, could play either a very positive or a very negative role in this. Thirdly, my colleague [unclear] will be talking about this in a moment – is the whole question of anti-racism strategy. We’ve had the best part of 15 years of harmony. It’s done some good things, but it doesn’t seem to have cracked many of the issues that people are concerned about. If we are to learn from the past, I think the most important thing we can learn is that the building of communities [occurs] through grassroots organisations … that’s the settlement industry. Creating our Future REPORT | 25 |

KEYNOTE SPEAKER PRO-VICE CHANCELLOR PAL AHLUWALIA Pal has been pro-vice-chancellor of the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences at the University of South Australia since 2008. His main research interests lie in the areas of African studies and social and cultural theory. His work is widely published and internationally renowned for breaking down disciplinary boundaries and challenging orthodoxy. In 2008, Pal was appointed a UNESCO Chair in Transnational Diasporas and Reconciliation Studies. He is a fellow and board member of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. He is also a board member of the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities and of the Helpmann Academy for the Visual and Performing Arts. He is the author of many books and articles. His most recent book is Out of Africa: Post-structuralism’s Colonial Roots, published by Routledge. He is the co-editor of three Routledge journals: Social Identities, African Identities and Sikh Formations.

Towards a new paradigm for settlement of humanitarian entrants and other migrants I would like to begin by addressing some of the key ideas and values around culture, diaspora and settlement that relate to humanitarian entrants and migrants more generally, and how these might impact upon our collective thinking and the way we might approach this in practice. In particular, these ideas are suggestions in the hope that they may assist our understanding, and indeed allow some selfreflection, as we tackle our professional roles, productively, with the good of these new communities, and their relations to our wider society, in mind. Let us consider the broader questions of diaspora, refugees and migrants, and the condition of exile as a backdrop to our more policy-oriented discussion. Diaspora and exile Exile, as Edward Said points out, is like the ‘mind of winter’. It embodies notions of decentring, dislocation and displacement. Yet, exile in Western culture has occupied a much-celebrated position. The exalted status of the exile in the West, arising largely out of escape from fascism and communism, is a result of the contributions that exiles have made in defining modern Western culture. One only has to think of the influence and impact that exiles such as Einstein, Beckett, Conrad and Adorno have made in order to share Said’s observation that, ‘the canon of modern Western culture is in large part the work of exiles, émigrés, refugees’(Said 1984: 49; Said, 1994). While the dislocated and displaced ‘European’ exile has been accommodated, celebrated and allowed a new ‘home’, the position of the ‘other’ raced exile and refugee has been highly problematic. The dilemmas and plights faced by diasporic peoples of the third world have received at best cursory attention in the West. Rather than accommodation, these ‘new’ exiles are seen as a threat to the old order. It should not be surprising that the ‘other’ exile has not been permitted to ‘settle’ despite our best intentions. For cultures that have been denigrated and marginalised within dominant discourse, it would hardly be appropriate to celebrate their exiles. Furthermore, the ‘other’ exile is generally the product of the fracturing and fissuring of societies that have endured the wrath of colonialism and imperialism. That exiles, migrants and refugees have been able to carve out some space from their peripherality and marginalisation speaks more about their resolve rather than the accommodation they have received in the West. It is not merely my intention to lament the lack of celebration of the ‘other’ exile but to share Edward Said’s insights about the condition of exile, which he reminds us should not be romanticised as one of ‘solitude and spirituality’. On the contrary, the exilic condition of the refugee, a creation of the contemporary nation-state, is a brutalising one. As Said correctly points out, ‘the word ‘refugee’ has become a political one, suggesting large herds of innocent and bewildered | 26 | Creating our Future REPORT

people requiring urgent international assistance’(Said 1984: 52). It is certainly these images, images of the genocidal civil war in Sudan and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq that have brought refugees from these countries to the forefront for us. Let us now turn to look at some concerns and policy values. Values and an empowering approach to new arrivals In terms of what happens when the exiled and the displaced, either voluntarily or forced, arrive in Australia, often fresh from scenes of horror, there are certain obligations upon us to actively empower these newest members of our communities, to focus on their strengths rather than their ‘weaknesses’, and to project to them that our society has universal values and offers rights that underpin their expectations for a legitimate place within society, and not just a safe haven. That indeed this is a place of opportunity and that it is a place that can genuinely become ‘home’. In that broad context, I find it interesting to consider the relationship between human rights, multiculturalism and social inclusion, as these agendas are expressed regularly in official circles and relate closely to the resettlement of humanitarian entrants. While these three agendas are aimed at the humanitarian community, it is important to ensure that this community understand their contextual meaning and are not confused by them. In essence, whilst government services are often delivered in a piecemeal approach, for new arrivals there is a need for a more coordinated approach. Indeed, an almost one-stop-shop approach is vital given the distrust that they have for government officials in their home country. There has been a tendency in some circles, to apply the term multiculturalism to signify ‘ethnic’ communities, rather than what it is meant to be – a descriptor of Australian society as a whole. This confusing position takes us back in time to the period of ‘integration’ philosophy of the 1960s and 1970s, which again found favour in the 1990s. As the critics of that resurgence have argued, such an approach undermines community cohesiveness by promoting difference negatively through an ‘us and them’ approach. Whereas, it should be an inclusive definition in which all of us are seen to be contributors to a multicultural society. To that end, it’s critical to avoid saying we are becoming more multicultural as new groups arrive. It is a little like saying that something that is undeniably good is ‘more good’. We are, and have been, undeniably multicultural for decades, and it is sensible to simply project this as a fact. To take this notion further, a critical challenge is to shun a silo approach to these agendas, and to avoid seeing them as competitive elements in social policy delivery. Rather, we should be striving to create empowered communities by weaving together the principles that apply

in each case: that we are a multicultural society in which respect for difference is embedded; that we aim to ensure that all members of our community are able to be included through effective social inclusion policies and action; and that we are all entitled to human dignity and to the rights and responsibilities that flow from that. These ideas need to be regularly projected and absorbed by society at large. We have seen what happens when the official messages become skewed to suggest that there are ‘legitimate’ Australians and then there are ‘others’, and we continue to see the effects of the erosion of the principles of accepting and respecting diversity. The idea of ‘queue jumpers’ is something that seems to have entered our lexicon and is causing lasting damage in the community. This must be resisted, and our approach to humanitarian entrants should always be to emphasise the values I have explained, both as part of their empowering process, but more importantly as a way of reaffirming our own acceptance of them. How does government achieve its goal of real participation for communities of humanitarian background? The issue of encouraging real participation for communities of humanitarian backgrounds cuts across all levels of government and NGOs. All levels of government federal, state and local, are key stakeholders in this process. In addition, many direct service provider agencies for humanitarian entrants are community-based NGOs and their relationship to new communities is highly relevant. Whatever the level of government, credibility with new humanitarian communities is essential for all parties concerned. The management of multiple relationships is a critical factor. This reiterates an earlier point about establishing trust amongst humanitarian entrants who are already affected by the trauma that necessitated their departure. Let me return then briefly to my earlier reflections about social inclusion. We know through the recent report on African Australians – A review of human rights and social inclusion released by the Australian Human Rights Commission that African Australians, and I include in this African Muslim communities, face particular discrimination. The report, among other observations, notes the need to include African Australians as partners in service development, delivery and programs for their own communities. I am a firm believer in the adage given to us by Mahatma Gandhi that we must be the change we wish to see in the world. I offer you some questions here that point to shifting a negative paradigm that can exist in official corridors, and not just in this country. In framing service planning and development, we often hold onto the belief that humanitarian entrants bring with them baggage from their homeland. We often focus on perceived deficits, such as torture and trauma, and on failed state lawlessness experiences, and so on, resulting in us projecting the difficulties, rather than gains, of settling humanitarian entrants who have, after all, survived and triumphed against the odds. It is important to ask whether our reception of new immigrants, and especially those from humanitarian backgrounds, remains locked within a xenophobic paradigm and based on a need to make them like us, rather than valuing and utilising difference and distinctive capacities of newcomers to Australia. How do we work on building social awareness for the benefit of wider society in the face of racism and discrimination?

a humanitarian wave that goes back to the nineties and may be regarded as no longer a newly arrived community. What has been learnt, how have they engaged with government, how satisfied did they feel about their experiences? This is all valuable territory as we examine our next steps. In order to be effective, the three levels of government have to come together to offer integrated services. It is vital that government service-development initiatives use partnership models with communities and community-based agencies to ensure credibility, inclusivity and progress. Indeed, a real opportunity lies in the huge repository of knowledge and experience arising out of partnerships between universities and relevant agencies, where research projects have provided sound results to inform understanding or practice. One of the guiding principles that this conference needs to consider is ‘the settlement process from the angle of refugees’. So, in addressing how government can achieve its goal of real participation for communities, my basic message is to build the partnerships, avoid silo thinking and continuously project to new arrivals that we all have rights and responsibilities in this society. This is the very lesson that we can gain from the earlier points I made in reference to diaspora and exile. Government departments are not going to find solutions by talking to each other exclusively. The three tiers of government and the many agencies beyond government and respective communities all have responsibility for policy, planning and, crucially, cooperation to make the experience for humanitarian entrants as productive and successful as possible. In developing initiatives, those who hold power, such as governments, cannot afford to become the new ‘missionaries’ who are simply controlling knowledge. Government should not approach these matters with a sense of superiority towards new entrants who are often fleeing the long drawn-out results of often-intractable violence. Nor can we impose religious welfare social innovations on communities of diverse religions that are endemic to our multicultural and multifaith society. Nor are we going to find workable solutions by simply latching on to individuals in communities with whom we feel more comfortable, and because it suits our purpose. The government’s role is to empower, not to diminish, and that requires considerable attitudinal commitment. We have much to learn from the inadequacies of dealing with our Indigenous communities. I would argue that community ownership, expert partnerships and cultural competence are key factors in achieving the goal you have before you of achieving effective, integrated service delivery. So, I offer you these critical challenges as you approach the task you have set yourselves: • to ensure that our services are culturally competent • to avoid duplication across services and to use resources strategically • to work ‘smart’ in building on the accumulated knowledge and networks rather than investing in reinvention • to create the right partnerships, to see communities as repositories of knowledge and resilience rather than as powerless recipients • and, finally, to model the values of inclusion, cultural respect and humanity through both individual attitudes and collective services.

Aside from asking you to consider these hard questions as you approach new or restructured service definitions, I am sure that there is a wealth of experience to be mined by framing better and more integrated services for humanitarian entrants in Australia, and avoiding duplication. The Sudanese, for example, were part of Creating our Future REPORT | 27 |

KEYNOTE SPEAKER DR HELEN SZOKE Helen Szoke is Australia’s full-time race discrimination commissioner. Prior to her appointment in 2011, Helen Szoke was the commissioner with the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and worked with the Commission from 2004 until August 2011. Milestones during Dr Szoke’s time as Victoria’s commissioner include the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010. Helen is co-chair of Play by the Rules, a board member of Multicultural Arts Victoria and a member of the Advisory Committee for the Centre for International Mental Health, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne. Helen is patron of New Beginnings, an NGO established to deal with peaceful conflict resolution with a focus on people of African descent. She is also patron of the Australian Arabic Women’s Foundation Inc.

Developing an Australia for all its people through a human rights model Good morning. I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land, the Kaurna people, and your Elders past and present. I would also like to thank the Settlement Council for inviting me to speak to you today. This conference comes at yet another critical time, with yet another public debate about what is happening with refugees and asylum seekers. The primary focus of my role is on racism, and more broadly, the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission is to focus on human rights promotion and protections. I want to make clear that the process of settlement engages a range of human rights beyond the right to equality, and that whilst my focus today is on racism, it is against the backdrop of those broader rights. I commend the work of the people in this room and in the organisations that they represent in promoting and protecting those rights during the important settlement process. Many of you will have heard Richard Towle, the regional United Nations representative talk, and I had the opportunity to do so recently at the Foundation House Oration, where, in addition the important and significant work of John Gibson, President of the Refugee Council of Australia was recognised. He is concerned about the direction of the public discourse around refugees and quoted Rabbi Jonathan Magonet in saying, ‘We are defined as a society by how we treat the ones who don’t belong to us.’ This is something that we should keep in mind, because so many of us have histories where we didn’t belong and then became a part of this country. One of our joint challenges is how we translate human rights principles into practical actions. This requires vigilance and perseverance as this is an issue for all Australians, not just those of us who work in the human rights field. We have to continue to strive to do a number of things: • to develop a national conversation about human rights and the realities of living in a global community • work with all parts of the community to find solutions • engage with international instruments as benchmarks for change • ensure we have robust and well-utilised domestic legislation that reflect international standards • advocate for better leadership • and education, education, education. We cannot afford to let the Australian community drop their support and understanding for humanitarian resettlement programs. A research report commissioned by SBS found that only 39 percent


of the nearly 1,400 survey participants agreed that Australia has a responsibility to accept refugees. But let me now focus on equality and racism in particular. The human rights principles of non-discrimination and inclusion are the foundations of any true democracy. It is one of the strange paradoxes of Australia that we pride ourselves on our egalitarianism, but often dismiss or ignore those who are experiencing inequality. We need to talk about racism. We need to talk about it in our schools and workplaces, with our friends, and with our leaders. It is a problem, and one that we should not be silent about. We need to find a way to move the conversation from a place of denial and apathy, to recognition and engagement. This is the only way we can ever begin to address its multiple and complex forms. Racism is not always inyour-face verbal or physical abuse, crass jokes or being denied access to a shop based on the colour of your skin. When we talk about systemic racism, we are talking about the ways systems act on people from particular ethnicities or cultures with the effect of limiting their opportunities or rights. Systemic racism is much harder to identify, and much harder to change. It is both overt and systemic racism that should be addressed when we look at the total suite of human rights protections for our resettlement process. Research tells us that it is a real problem in Australia. People with Chinese and Middle Eastern names have to submit over 50% more job applications to receive the same number of callbacks as Anglo-Australian candidates.1 In 2009, the Western Australia Equal Opportunity Commission conducted an inquiry into the housing sector, and found that there were multiple barriers for Aboriginal and culturally and linguistically diverse communities.2 Despite this, very few formal discrimination complaints are ever lodged at a state or federal level. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s own research with African Australian communities documented stories of the multigenerational effects of systemic racism: ‘We came here for our children, and we want them to feel that they are part of this society. But when they see us working in cleaning jobs or retail jobs, when some of us have been teachers, doctors ... and they then think that there is no hope for them.’4 Racism is a major barrier to the economic and social wellbeing of migrants. New arrivals are particularly vulnerable to systemic discrimination, as it is easier for employers and service providers to exploit their fears of deportation and their limited English skills. A report by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2010 recognised

that there are ‘significant numbers of cases involving unlawful conduct perpetrated against migrant workers in Australia’. For example, you may recall the Federal Court case last year of an employer who paid five Chinese construction workers $3 per hour to work 10–11 hour shifts at least six days a week. The role of migrant workers in the Australian economy continues to sit uncomfortably in collective consciousness, most recently demonstrated in the controversy around the Roy Hill mining project in Western Australia. On the one hand, significant skills shortages in some sectors are reducing the productivity of Australian businesses; on the other, there are many who fear increased domestic unemployment due to imported labour and the additional strains on our infrastructure. It is a complex space to be operating in, particularly given the current worldwide economic instability. We have to think more creatively and probably more aggressively about how settlement services can work in this environment. We have to join the dots for the broader Australian community so that they cannot easily default to a ‘fear of the foreign worker’ mentality. There is some good work being done in various jurisdictions to address systemic racism. The WA Commission convened a working group of relevant agencies to progress the recommendations in its housing report. They have also developed a policy framework for substantive equality. Its aim is to address systemic racism issues within the WA public service. In Victoria, a place very close to my heart, VicHealth and the VEOHRC are doing great work on a four-year pilot program known as the LEAD project. It works across sectors within two local communities to support the development of antiracism resources and opportunities to improve cultural harmony. Queensland has also been working to improve the accessibility of local government services in 13 councils through the Local Area Multicultural Partnerships program. Two of the things that programs like these have in common are that they rely on strong supporting frameworks and they are based on a partnership approach. I know very little about mechanics. To me, an engine is just a labyrinth of differently moving parts. However, I do know that you need a pretty good understanding of how all the parts work, or trying to fix one is probably going to end up doing more damage. The same is true of human systems. That is why we need to engage experts from a range of fields, including settlement services, to help us build on the good work already being done, and to help solve the challenges that continue to perplex us. There are many benefits for Australia to have new and emerging communities productively engaged in education and employment. For this to happen successfully there must be front-end investment in culturally competent processes. We have to do two things: we have to identify the opportunities to build culturally competent bridges to allow success in employment and education and we have to identify the systemic racism that exists that creates barriers to the full enjoyment of these activities. To fix one part of the engine we need to understand how it works with other parts – cultural competency means identifying both overt and systemic racism. Cultural diversity is not a deficit to be overcome; it is an opportunity to be grasped. Migrants and refugees have the right to be treated with the same level of dignity and respect as all human beings. It is unrealistic to suggest that their history and culture, everything that has defined who they are, should be left at the arrival gate. The settlement process is one of massive upheaval. The cultural understandings that people have forged throughout their lives are the anchors that can help to ground them during this process. As another

participant in our work with African Australian communities told us: ‘In your own country, you feel strong and you are confident. You know what is expected of you and where your place is. Here everything is just different and I feel so unsure about everything.’ 5 The importance of maintaining one’s culture has been recognised in a number of international declarations, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. Human rights instruments are often criticised for being overly legalistic and inaccessible to the practical realities of those most in need of their protections. However, international conventions also provide a set of clearly articulated standards that all people are entitled to access, as well as a tool for advocacy where these standards are lacking. Australia ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, or ICERD, in 1975. In essence, it commits the Australian Government to pursue ‘a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races’. Australia last appeared before the committee in 2011. It was an opportunity to highlight some of the race issues that Australia still needs to progress on an international stage. Soon we will be gearing up to start the process again. We will be seeking feedback from our stakeholders in developing the shadow report, so I encourage those of you who are interested to be involved, to keep an eye on our mailing list or my Twitter account for further updates. The Australian Government gave domestic effect to their commitment to ICERD in the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA), which also passed in 1975. The RDA makes it unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. The general prohibition of discrimination in section 9 of the RDA is accompanied by specific prohibitions of discrimination in a number of areas of public life, such as: • access to places and facilities; • land, housing and other accommodation; • provision of goods and services; • the right to join trade unions; and • employment. In practice, most the complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission have been made in relation to these more specific provisions. But the general prohibition of racial discrimination affecting any human right remains both an important legal safety net and an immensely important statement of principle, reflecting the indivisibility of all human rights. The government is currently undertaking a consolidation of all federal discrimination laws, to fix the inconsistencies in the levels of protections between the race, disability, sex and age discrimination acts. It has committed to maintain the current level of protections in all of these acts. We expect that the outcome of this process will be one law that is more consistent, simpler and easier for communities and their advocates to access. We need commitments like these from our government. We need leadership in saying that racism is not okay and in committing to concrete actions to address it. Lodging complaints has brought about some organisational changes, but we cannot expect that the people most vulnerable to racism should be the standard-bearers by which others follow.


DR HELEN SZOKE CONTINUED There are some promising signs of change. As you may be aware, the government has committed to implementing a National Anti-Racism Strategy. The strategy draws on the expertise of three government departments – the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs – together with the Australian Multicultural Council and the Australian Human Rights Commission. The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples and the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA) also participate in the partnership as non-government representatives. We plan to launch the strategy next month, and implement it over the next three years.

It will take much more education. Two of the key areas of effort for the strategy are the development of educational resources, and increased public awareness. Education is a vital component of any attempt to create a society free from discrimination. By education, I do not just mean formal anti-racism programs in our schools and workplaces. Education is also about experience and engaging emotion. We can learn as much from our peers as we can from our leaders and teachers. There are creative people within many of our multicultural communities with stories to share that give texture to the messages that we will be promoting through the strategy. Without giving too much away prior to the launch, I can tell you that we will be calling on you to work with us in developing these.

A consistent theme that we heard throughout the five-week consultation process is the importance of leadership. It has been absent for many years, which has allowed misinformation about our multicultural communities to flourish. Instead, we see headlines like, ‘Close borders and stop all migrants’.6 SBS’s report found that Australians continue to be fearful about immigration: 22% of respondents did not support it under any circumstances, and 23% support its economic benefits but were highly concerned about its cultural impacts.7 We need a chorus of strong voices from a range of sectors to counteract the media stories that demonise new and temporary migrants and refugees. For example, corporate Australia has a big leadership role to play in promoting the benefits of skilled migration, and creating opportunities for those without local qualifications or experience to find a foothold in the Australian job market.

I do not pretend that I have all the answers. For the past ten months that I have been in this role, I have listened to the voices of communities, organisations, academics and governments, and I can tell you that there are as many opinions on how to eliminate discrimination, as there are threads in a tapestry. However, I do believe that the people who experience racism and their advocates are a good place to start. I suspect that many of you do not think of yourselves as human rights workers, but in effect, that is what you are. Your work assists new migrants and refugees in accessing their rights. You hear their stories, share in their success and failures and connect them with the communities that will carry them forward into their new lives.

However, we must also be careful that our messaging does not create classes of migrants. We must not for example talk about so-called highvalue migrants – namely skilled migrants and international students.8 The benefits of migration cannot solely be measured in economic terms. Australia has been enriched by the contributions of migrants from all visa categories, both socially and culturally. Furthermore, if we treat skilled migrants purely as economic assets, then there is a real danger that we will end up neglecting or restricting their social rights. It is my hope there is also capacity for the media to support these objectives. The SBS report found that there is little trust in the information provided by the media about migrants and refugees: 45% trust the media only ‘slightly’, 28% trust it ‘to a moderate extent’ and 23% ‘not at all’.9 This will be one of the sectors we try to engage with in the strategy in advocating for greater diversity.

I started my speech today with suggestions for some actions that can help to create a more robust human rights culture. Each of them relies on engaged and interested people. Rights cannot exist in a vacuum; they are only as strong as the people who believe in them. A truly inclusive society can only be built when people are willing to open their eyes and ears to their fellow human beings, in all of their colours and voices. In the words of the great Mahatma Gandhi: I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. I refuse to live in other people’s houses as an interloper, a beggar or a slave.10 It is time for Australia to open the windows and let some light in. Perhaps we will find that the monsters lurking in the dark are not as frightening as they appear. Thank you.

1 A Booth, A Leigh and E Varganova ‘Does Racial and Ethnic Discrimination Vary across Minority Groups? Evidence from a Field Experiment’, (September 2011) Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 2 Equal Opportunity Commission, Accommodating Everyone, (2009). At www.eoc.wa.gov.au/complaintsandinvestigations/AccommodatingEveryone.aspx. 3 Australian Human Rights Commission, African Australians: a review of human rights and social inclusion issues, (2010), p13. At www.hreoc.gov.au/africanaus/review/index.html. 4 F David, Labour Trafficking, (2010), Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series 108, xii. 5 Australian Human Rights Commission, African Australians: a review of human rights and social inclusion issues, (2010), p. 19. 6 A Wright and J Masanauskas, ‘Close borders and stop all migrants’, The Daily Telegraph, 22 May 2012. 7 Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute, The Ipsos Mackay Report: SBS Immigration Nation (2010), pp. 19–21. At www.sbs.com.au/aboutus/corporate/view/id/556/h/SBS-Ipsos-Immigration-Nation-Research-Full-Report. 8 A Patty, ‘Big Sydney: bid to boost number of migrants’, Sydney Morning Herald, 21 March 2012. At www.smh.com.au/nsw/big-sydney-bid-to-boost-number-of-migrants-20120320-1vi1r.html#ixzz1wJUW3gPh. 9 Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute, The Ipsos Mackay Report: SBS Immigration Nation (2010), p. 18. 10 Mohandas Gandhi, Young India, 1 June 1921.


KEYNOTE SPEAKER FELICITY-ANN LEWIS Mayor Felicity-ann Lewis is the City of Marion’s first-ever female Mayor and the longest serving Mayor of over ten years. As an advocate for Local Government, Mayor Lewis has promoted Marion Council and the community by developing strong alliances with all levels of government and has established good working relations with neighbouring Councils. Mayor Lewis is a passionate supporter of reform in Local Government and was elected President of the Local Government Association in 2009. She is currently the Immediate Past President. In 2010 she was elected as Vice President of the Australian Local Government Association. Mayor Lewis has recently been appointed Deputy Chair of Regional Development Australia (RDA).Mayor Lewis is a Senior Lecturer in Health Education at Flinders University focusing on health promotion and health education. She is currently studying as a candidate for a PhD Doctorate. With a strong interest in environmental issues, Mayor Lewis was appointed as a member of the Natural Resources Management Council in 2010.

Role of local government in settlement and participation Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this conference on behalf of the Australian Local Government Association – ALGA. The President of ALGA, Mayor Genia McCaffery, was to have been here with you today but the death of a close relative means that unfortunately Genia must send her apologies. Can I first begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land on which we meet. I pay my respects to the Elders, both past and present. My presentation today will share local government’s views on the conference’s important theme of ‘Creating our Future’ and the role of local government in settlement and participation. This is highly relevant, given local government’s desire to ensure that our diverse local communities remain harmonious, engaged and sustainable in the truest sense of the term. I intend to strongly argue that local government is a key player in the area of settlement, service delivery and in the building of a strong sense of community. I want to make the point, however, that unless local government is fully engaged and integrated within the broader planning and settlement roles played by both the federal, state and territory governments, its contribution will be underutilised or worse – undermined! Before sharing more of local governments’ views on where local government fits in the area of settlement planning, let me say a little about the Australian Local Government Association, commonly known as ALGA. ALGA, based in Canberra was formed by the state and territory local government associations in 1947 as an advocacy body to represent the views of Australia’s councils. Back then, there would have been over 1,000 councils in existence, but today there are around 560 councils. ALGA’s direct members are not the individual councils but rather the state and territory local government associations around the country. For instance, our member in this state is the Local Government Association of South Australia. The ALGA board consists of representatives from each of these local government associations and the Government of the ACT, given the municipal services it provides to the residents of Canberra. ALGA is not only an advocacy organisation but it is also recognised as the representative body of a distinct level of government. For instance, as President of ALGA, Genia McCaffery represents the local government sector as a full member of the Council of Australian Governments (CoAG). Genia, or her nominee, also sits on several of the new Ministerial Standing Councils including those examining

transport, infrastructure, climate change, regional development, emergency management, environment, and housing issues. ALGA is also a key participant in the newly created Select Council on Immigration and Settlement, having formerly been a long-term participant of the Ministerial Council for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Until recently, ALGA was also a member of the Ministerial Council for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, which no longer exits. So, you can see, local government as represented by ALGA is engaged in a range of federal policy areas that impact on settlement and participation. This involvement in a broad range of settlement issues should come as no surprise to you given that local government has a long history in Australia, predating the federation. The City of Adelaide is, in fact, the oldest municipality in Australia, having been created in 1840, just four years after the settlement of South Australia. As the level of government that is closest to the people, local government plays a critical and fundamental role in looking after the broad interests of everyday Australians. One could say that issues surrounding settlement and participation are essentially the reasons why local councils exist. Local government is in many ways at the cutting edge of ensuring we have cohesive, sustainable and engaged communities. Councils have promoted and continue to actively promote cultural diversity. Councils are also equally committed to the fundamental principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development, that seek to promote the economic, social, environmental and cultural values of civil society. The responses of councils to the challenges of sustainable settlement are varied, reflecting the different needs of their respective communities. But it can be broadly categorised into a range of key areas, such as: Service delivery Local government is the level of government that provides most of the basic services used by our community. It is your council that provides the footpaths, local parks, street lighting, library service, meal on wheels, waste collection, aged-care centres, public health, community transport, tourism services, educational programs, animal care, and sporting and recreational services, including but not limited to, swimming pools. Consultation Councils actively seek out culturally and linguistically diverse groups to ensure their views and needs, hopes and aspirations, can play a genuine part in the planning and policy formulation process. Consultation can take the form of the creation of advisory committees, surveys and even regular forums to create an interaction between the council and community groups. Creating our Future REPORT | 31 |

FELICITY-ANN LEWIS CONTINUED Access Councils ensure services reflect the needs of these groups. New services may be created or existing services adapted to ensure the needs of these communities are met. This may include the use and ready availability of interpreter services. Some councils will even identify staff with language skills and make them available when assistance is required. Brochures, websites, information pamphlets and newsletters are often translated into a range of locally significant languages. Many councils will also actively pursue skilled migration to their region, using as a strong selling point the availability of culturally appropriate local services. Awareness Councils conduct activities such as appropriate culture awareness training for staff, social planning workshops and liaison with other government and non-government agencies and the employment of community development officers. Engagement Councils run events that bring the community together to share the richness of each other’s cultural experiences. These include multicultural festivals, Chinese New Year celebrations, Harmony Day activities, multifaith events, citizenship ceremonies and Australia Day events, and sister city relationships to name just a few. Some councils also run community leadership development courses, to help local communities play their full role in our civil society. Others will actively engage older migrants, who might otherwise feel isolated, through senior citizens groups. Advocacy Councils will work in partnership with others to address problems and issues that are confronting different communities, such as housing affordability, unemployment and lack of recognition for overseas qualifications, access to childhood services, substance abuse and drug and alcohol education. One important aspect of Australian community that must never be forgotten is participation in the democratic process. An increasing number of councillors are from diverse ethnic backgrounds themselves, more closely reflecting the composition of the local community. This reflects the importance of the local democratic process. As I have previously said, local government is the sphere of government that is closest to the people. As such, it is more responsive to local needs than state or federal governments and is generally more accessible than its federal and state counterparts. But if we are to ensure services are responsive to local needs, we as a nation should more closely apply the principle of subsidiarity – that is, wherever possible, services should be devolved to the level of government that is closest to the affected citizens. However, we’re not even at first base:

As you will all recognise through various examples in your own communities, local government is doing terrific things at the local level to respond to the needs of its citizens, including those of new migrants and visitors, be they tourists or students. But we’re doing it on a shoestring. Local government needs to be fully engaged in the Australian federation as a valued and equal partner. We need constitutional recognition to underpin this partnership and ensure that muchneeded funding from the Commonwealth is able to be directed to local government where it is necessary. Last week’s High Court decision in the Williams Case on the right of the Commonwealth to fund chaplains in our schools has added further strength to this demand. The implications of the case focus mainly on the ability of the Commonwealth to provide funding on issues for which it does not have constitutional responsibility – and settlement is one of those areas. Funding local governments is another such area. And we also need to address the structural funding problems that confront us as a federation. The spheres of government that provide most of the services and infrastructure that people need do not have the funds to undertake those tasks. The Commonwealth, which does not have these direct responsibilities, collects 82% of the taxation revenue in Australia. For local government we need a means of accessing a fair share of federal taxation revenue so we have the capacity to respond to local need. There has – over the past two or three decades – been a profound change in local government expenditure. Demand for human services, such as health, welfare and public safety, has escalated at a rapid rate to the detriment of funding for traditional property-related services. Equally relevant is that the provision of critical local and regional infrastructure is not keeping up with the demands placed on it by increasing populations, and changing demographics. These trends will grow, exacerbating the financial difficulties faced by councils. Nonetheless, councils are more than willing to play a significant role in areas of core business – and community wellbeing is about as core as it gets. When it comes to settlement and community participation, the challenges for local government are profound. Given this fact, ALGA and our state and territory local government associations are in total agreement that there are several initiatives that the Commonwealth and state and territory governments could introduce that would make a big difference. These would include: 1. a more clearly articulated, strategic and mutually agreed position on the respective roles and responsibilities of federal, state and local governments around settlement and cultural diversity policy and programs 2. greater inter-governmental engagement and coordination from the federal government

• Local government remains unrecognised in our national constitution.

3. access to DIAC-funded settlement services for skilled migration entrants

• Local government grants are not growing in line with increasing demand for human services.

4. more effective delivery of settlement support for new arrivals to regional municipalities and shires

• Local government continues to be hit with cost shifting by the other two spheres of government.

5. a modest investment in collaboratively developing a national multicultural good- practice handbook to guide Australia’s councils

• And local government has a severely restricted ability to raise its own revenue.

6. consideration for conducting a national biennial ‘local government and multiculturalism’ conference to progress policy development, program design and service delivery.


With respect to the latter, there is much to be gained by sharing good practice at the local government level. This year’s national local government awards were recently announced last week at the National General Assembly of local government. Apart from showcasing the good work done by councils in cultural diversity, the awards involve a leading practice seminar series, which promotes the work in a practical and accessible way. I’ll take this opportunity to congratulate this year’s national winner – the City of Moreland who won the major award with its highly influential CALDCOM Story Boards.

In summary, I think it fair to say that local government is playing a highly significant role in development of a tolerant, inclusive and harmonious society. But this role could be enhanced if local government was accorded proper recognition in the federation, greater engagement and fairer funding arrangements. As advocates of strong, inclusive communities, local government looks forward to working collaboratively with the federal and state governments to ensure this remains the case into the future. Thank you.


KEYNOTE SPEAKER THE HON. ROBYN LAYTON AO, QC Robyn Layton is an adjunct professor at the School of Law, University of South Australia, and a judicial education and program development consultant. Prior to September 2010, she was a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. In her legal career, spanning more than forty years, she has in turn been a solicitor, a barrister, a judge in the Industrial Court of South Australia and a deputy president of the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In 2002–2003, she was appointed by the state government to conduct a review of child protection and prepared a government plan to protect children from abuse, ‘Our Best Investment’, which focused on Aboriginal child-protection issues and children in detention. Robyn argued a number of cases in the courts on a pro bono basis for refugees and was instrumental in setting up the program for refugee assistance in South Australia. Robyn is chair of the Advisory Committee for the Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia; a member of the Justice Aboriginal Awareness Committee and the Judicial Development Committee in South Australia; a member of the Community Protection Panel of the Social Inclusion Unit; co-chair of Reconciliation SA; and patron of the Migrant Resource Centre of SA and SA Refugee Week.

Building capacity to ensure the inclusion of vulnerable groups Introduction I will use this broadly expressed topic to address a highly important concern of mine, and I am sure of others – the need to ensure that the situation of migrants and refugees living in Australia are regarded and treated appropriately, as a matter of human rights. I am concerned that we do not have an adequate human rights framework in our country and that this has particular impact on how we perceive and treat migrants and refugees who come here. I immediately recognise that this is a vast topic, but I wish to focus attention on some particular examples and then pose challenges at the end as to how we should approach them using a human rights framework. What is a human rights framework for migrants and refugees? A very helpful start is to look at the specific UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their families (ICMW)1. In the case of refugees, their rights and protections come from a separate and well-established protection regime, the UN International Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention). While there are some basic human rights similarities, there are also differences. In the interests of time, convenience and simplicity, I will mainly focus on the rights of migrant persons. The ICMW substantively includes the fundamental rights protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ICCPR2, the ICESR3 as well as other international conventions4. However, the ICMW specifically identifies these rights in ways that take account of the particular circumstances of migrant workers and their families. It applies to the ‘entire migration process’.5 They have the right to enjoy treatment not less favourable to that which apples to nationals in respect of remuneration and work conditions.6 The country is to promote sound equitable and humane conditions in connection with migration and pay due regard not only to labour needs but also social, economic, cultural as well as ‘the consequences of such migration for the communities concerned’.7 It places certain obligations on states and there are concomitant duties on migrants to abide by the laws and regulations of receiving countries. Australia has not ratified the convention. The fundamental starting point for a framework is that countries may determine who enters and remains in the territory. At the same time, in the words of the Global Commission on International Migration, ‘entering a country in violation of its immigration laws does not deprive migrants of the fundamental human rights provided by human rights instruments ... nor does it affect the obligation of states to protect migrants in an irregular situation’.8 The UN Human Rights Committee has stated the general rule, namely that each of the rights under the covenant must, with narrow exceptions, be guaranteed without discrimination between aliens | 34 | Creating our Future REPORT

and citizens. The enjoyment of the rights ‘must be available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons, who may find themselves in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State Party’.9 In my view, too little attention is paid in Australia to the role of human rights in relation to the migration and refugee arrivals. This can impede their ability to fully contribute to development in Australia, both economically and culturally as well as to their own personal development. My particular concern is that migration is often seen only in economic terms. Migrants are sometimes regarded more as commodities rather than as individuals entitled to the full enjoyment of the human rights. There is a need to go beyond a focus just on Australia’s economic needs or our ‘economic poverty’, but to give greater focus on the ‘human poverty’ in our country. Capacity building The Human Development Report defines human development as a process of enlarging people’s choices, the most critical being the ability to lead a long and healthy life, to be educated and to enjoy a decent standard of living. Additional choices are those that include political freedom, human rights and self-respect. In this context, I take some liberty when looking at building ‘capacity’ to incorporate the notion of building ‘development’. There is ‘economic development’, which leads to economic growth, which tends to be more at the macro-economic level based on country; and there is ‘human development’, which focuses on the individual, their family and community and looks to health, education, a decent standard of living and human rights, including cultural rights. The spectrum of migrant and refugee arrivals It is necessary also to consider ‘development’ from the perspective of both migrants and refugees. At one end of the spectrum, there are voluntary migrants who include migrant workers and other economic migrants. At the other end of the spectrum, there are refugees who are forced to leave countries to escape persecution, as well as persons who are the victims of trafficking. However, often the two groups come very close together. Discrimination, gender inequality, social and economic problems, poverty, lack of opportunity, as well as civil and political rights in countries of origin are often central factors in the decision to emigrate.10 There are clearly overlapping issues with the causes that lead to refugee arrivals, which must additionally include a well-founded fear of persecution. Another important cause of migration is the demand for migrant labour in destination countries; Australia is one of them, particularly in the mining industry but also in the health industry for nurses and doctors.

Economic and cultural impediments for migrant and refugee arrivals Migrants’ as well as refugees’ status can enrich the countries of destination in both economic development and human development terms. However, these contributions are impeded if they have no secure legal status; they are not incorporated into the formal labour market and they do not get adequate education opportunities. This can result in social exclusion. A human rights based approach should address the issue of social exclusion. It should be a precondition for migrants coming to Australia that they are able to lead economically productive and culturally and socially enriched lives. There should be specific policies that enable them to have access to health care, adequate housing, training and language acquisition and, in particular, to have access to the labour market. The inability to access such services can lead to grave deficits economically and culturally – for them and for Australia as a whole. Similar social exclusion occurs in respect of refugees; again there should be specific polices to address that issue. Another factor that impacts upon the quality of lives, particularly of refugees, is the effect of the tightening of geographical borders in order to prevent irregular migration. This is a complex issue, but at this point, I wish to highlight the impact this has on refugee arrivals. Traffickers and smugglers have expanded, routes have become more hazardous and the dangers have grown exponentially.11 In the case of refugees, their traumas are compounded by the whole process, let alone what greets them when they reach Australia given our current detention policies. They have special needs, which need to be addressed by special measures. Challenging topics This brings me to my first topic of concern. What supports and services do we provide to migrants and refugees? Do we create further division within their own country communities rather than inclusiveness because of the differential access to, and delivery of, services and supports, which are in turn dependent upon visa status? We have various classes of visas, which I do not intend to explore except to draw out some basic propositions. We distinguish between ‘voluntary’ migration visas, and ‘refugee and humanitarian’ visas. There is also a distinction between humanitarian ‘offshore’ visas (obtained outside Australia) and ‘onshore’ visas, which are obtained in country. With regard to ‘voluntary’ migration visas, there are Employer Sponsored Worker visas (457), business skills visas for short stay, and special visas, such as for doctors and nurses. In relation to ‘refugee and humanitarian’ visas, there are various classes. The main ‘offshore’ visa (200) follows from an offshore UNHCR evaluation. Visa (202) is the Special Humanitarian Program, which relates to the family members of already accepted refugees. Regarding ‘onshore’ humanitarian visas, visa (866) covers refugees other than ‘Irregular Maritime Arrival’ (Boat visas). There is also a new class of visa (851) called a Resolution of Status visa (RoS), which has replaced what was previously the TVP and THV visas. Finally, there is the Irregular Maritime Arrivals. Each of these visas gives rise to differing services and supports available through government departments or government-funded services. Humanitarian Settlement Services (HSS) The primary services for settlement for humanitarian clients is through the Humanitarian Settlement Services (HSS). The HSS program provides a suite of services delivered through a coordinated case management model12. HSS is limited in time,13 and yet settlement is a lifelong process requiring different services as different times. Offshore refugee visas (200) and (202) may be able to access HSS; onshore visas (866) may also access HSS. However, most Irregular

Maritime Arrivals, if they are not being kept in detention are unable to access HSS. They live in the community with limited supports from government and are heavily reliant on NGO services. Voluntary migrants who are employer sponsored are unable to access HSS, and it is expected that they obtain their services through their employers. The availability and quality of these services is variable. In short, looking at this situation from a human rights perspective, we have people from the same country and race in our community, who live often within a geographic proximity and are a close social community, but their individual economic and service facility circumstances differ widely. This is across the spectrum of health, employment access, Centrelink payments and other community programs. Within the one community of recent arrivals, there are the ‘haves’, the ‘have-somes’ and the ‘have-nots’, depending on the nature of the visa. The disparity in some instances can be very great and the effect can be divisive. Employment differentiation The second challenging topic is that the circumstances of access to employment also differ. Persons with Irregular Maritime Arrival visas – most can now work, but RoS visas are unable to work in Australia. The level of unemployment of migrant populations within Australia is highly concerning. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) made a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration14 and made a number of points with respect to employment. It highlighted that: • many qualified migrants and refugees take up positions as factory hands, taxi drivers or cleaners because of the cost and time of bridging courses, professional examinations, assessment and accreditation of prior learning • migrants often have difficulty finding opportunities to gain firsthand work and experience and knowledge of the industry and develop networks • there is a lack of employment systems knowledge and support, in particular information and support required for finding jobs, applying for jobs, writing resumes and being interviewed. The AHRC argued that there is a need for a funded and targeted employment strategy to help engage culturally and linguistically diverse communities in the labour market, similar to other strategies in operation e.g. Indigenous Employment Strategy, Disability Employment Strategy and the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act. These should each form part of an overall framework of employment. Protection of ethnic minorities against discrimination A third challenge is respect of discrimination protection. The AHRC in its submission made the point that at the present time, social inclusion policies tend to focus on socio-economic disadvantage. The government identifies priority groups for social inclusion policies, which includes vulnerable new arrivals and refugees as one of the ‘risk’ groups requiring attention.15 The AHRC argues that that the Social Inclusion Tool Kit does not adequately address disadvantage that results from discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, country of origin or citizenship status, as well as gender, disability and age. There is no specific or identified priority that expressly focuses on the disadvantage of ethnic minorities in Australia within that policy. The migration numbers and budget The fourth challenge concerns the recent budget, which indicates the following: • Refugees and the Special Humanitarian Program will again take 13,750 places, 6,000 being visa (200)16; 7,750 places shared between the Special Humanitarian Program visa (202)17, (866) and (851) visas.18 Creating our Future REPORT | 35 |

THE HON. ROBYN LAYTON AO, QC CONTINUED • The general migration program will increase to 190,000 places, 129,250 being the skills stream, which has increased, and the family stream of 60,185 with 565 special eligibility places, which has also increased. In particular, the increase in the family program is targeted at attracting and retaining skilled migrants. These changes can impact on, for example, the number of family reunifications that can be obtained by accepted refugees in comparison with family visas for skilled migrants. The HSS program has had its funding decreased by $3.6 million to $57.8 million. This is as a result of capping the maximum level of humanitarian services to asylum seekers who have been granted a permanent visa and have been in the community for more than six months. This will significantly affect services to those persons. A related concern about HSS services is that settlement can be a lifelong process19. Migrants and refugees often experience ‘information overload’ in the initial period following the arrival and require information and services to be provided to them over an extended period.20 In taking an overall human rights perspective, services should be available and delivered strategically to properly address the needs. Catering for different levels of need A fifth challenge is catering for different levels of need across the spectrum of refugees and migrants. The degree of vulnerability differs between the two extremes. A human rights approach suggests that equality is not achieved by providing exactly the same services. There is a need to address the imbalances between citizens and aliens and, I would also add, between the different degrees of vulnerability experienced by differing migrants and refugees.

Concern has been expressed by some Aboriginal peoples about whether, as a consequence of migration policy and also our humanitarian program, they find themselves even further down the ladder with regard to receiving services such as housing and health within government provided services. There have also been signs of some racial conflict between African and Aboriginal youth groups in some areas. This is a topic that needs to be acknowledged, and it requires a sensitive and careful approach. In my view, there needs to be more interaction and a greater exchange between the Aboriginal community and migrant communities. The arts and sports are a ready interface. The recent project ‘Hand in Hand’ by the Migrant Resource Centre SA was an excellent joinder of youth reconciliation and multiculturalism. The migrant community also needs to become involved in the issues concerning constitutional reform and the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Constitution as well as in our own South Australian Constitution. This will give an excellent opportunity for reconciliation and multiculturalism to be working together. Finally, on this point, Australians generally need to be better informed about Aboriginal culture, traditions and beliefs, as well as the customs and beliefs of culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The level of ignorance within Australia is alarming. The challenges The challenges that I throw out are: • How can we use human rights principles in order to achieve better outcomes and prevent division within our community, including within ethnic groups?

Basic human rights requires information and services that allow for language and cultural diversity in the provision of materials, interpreters, bilingual service workers as well as culturally appropriate service delivery (particularly related to childcare responsibilities and the circumstances of refugee women).

• Do we need a minimum platform of comprehensive services for all, which caters for differing needs and allows for different delivery, regardless of the visa status?

A culture of inclusion The final challenging topic concerns cultural inclusion. The AHRC also referred to the connection between multiculturalism and reconciliation: reconciliation referring to the respect and recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, multiculturalism referring the respect for diversity of languages and cultures.

• How can those of us not from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds learn and be better informed about new arrivals to community?

1 The ICMW came into force on 1 July 2003. 2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3 nternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 4 Including International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions on migrant workers.

• Should we agitate for an overall employment strategy for migrants that addresses the key employment exclusion points?

• How can we ensure that we have both reconciliation and multiculturalism expressed in our social inclusion policies in order to improve outcomes?

13 HSS also links to other settlement and mainstream services, which can sometimes go beyond the HSS period. 14 The Australian Human Rights Commission Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration: 29 April 2011.

5 Art 1.2, which includes preparation for migration, departure, transit, stay and return.

15 Australian Government, Australian Public Service Social Inclusion Policy design and delivery toolkit, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra 2009, p. 9.

6 Art 25.

16 Offshore refugees referred for resettlement through UNHCR.

7 Art 64.

17 Which includes family reunification.

8 Global Commission for International Migration, Migrating in an Interconnected World: new directions for action, Geneva, 2005, p. 55.

18 There are also 720 places for women at risk offshore visa (204).

9 Human Rights Commission The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties, General Comment number 31 [10.]. 10 Cairo Program of Action, 1994 [10.1]. 11 UN Special Rapporteur on Migrants E/CN/.4/2004/76/Add.3. 12

It includes: • on-arrival reception and induction • assistance with locating short-term and long-term accommodation • information about referral to mainstream agencies and to other programs • an onshore orientation program.


19 Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, March 2001, Settlement is a Life-Long Process: Submission to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. 20 Australian Human Rights Commission 2001, In Our own Words – African Australians: A review of human rights and social inclusion issues, Sydney.

KEYNOTE SPEAKER KIROS HIRUY Kiros Hiruy is a senior consultant with Regional Development Services, Hobart, and an honorary research associate at the School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania. His experience in Australia and abroad over the last decade has spanned settlement, international development, food security, training and facilitation, social research, and project management. Kiros has worked with refugee communities in countries of asylum and settlement, travelled to several refugee camps in Africa and trained refugees from nine countries of origin. Kiros is a graduate of the Tasmanian Leaders Program 2007. His community involvement includes two years as a member of the Tasmanian Advisory Council on Multicultural Affairs and as a board member of the Tasmanian Council of Social Services. Kiros is currently undertaking a PhD with the Institute for Regional Development, UTAS; his doctoral research is investigating bottom-up driven social empowerment and inclusion in Australia.

Empowering communities through democratic governance: A case of African community groups in Australia Let me begin by briefly defining the key terms in my title. Community may mean different things to different people and that is probably why we use the term in several ways like ethnic communities, migrant communities, virtual communities, community policing, community organisations, community sector, and the list goes on. An early work on community shows that there are over 90 definitions, although social interaction, geographic area and common ties run along the majority of these definitions (Hillery cited in MacQueen et al., 2001). For our purposes, however, community is defined: as a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings. (MacQueen et al., 2001, p. 1936) Empowerment is also a contested idea and is defined differently in different fields of study. For our purposes, empowerment refers to the expansion of freedom of choice and action and to the process of gaining control over resources (Narayan, 2002). The focus is on gaining control over resources and decisions by increasing the assets and attributes and building capacities to gain access, partners, networks and voice (Narayan, 2002). It also refers to the process of enabling communities to increase control over their lives. When we bring community and empowerment together, we are specifically talking about collective action, both as a source of community cohesion and identity and as a constitutive element of empowerment. Community empowerment recognises the diversity in a group and highlights the presence of social ties and common interest and perspectives that serve as a basis for a community group to exist and operate as a unit and, as such, it creates a sense of community (Jewkes & Murcott, 1996). On the other hand, democratic governance is a mix of ‘set of values’ and the ‘process of interaction among three sets of actors’, namely the state, civil society and the private sector with regards to participation, accountability, transparency, rule of law, access and equality among others (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2006). Basically, democratic governance provides the rules and principles by which other actors of empowerment such as service providers or third sector agencies and government agencies interact with the community. Now that some of the terms are clarified, let me sketch how this interaction plays out in empowering a community by providing an example from my doctoral fieldwork. I will particularly focus on the African Communities Council of South Australia (ACCSA) and its partners and members. The intention is to reflect on the learning not necessarily to prescribe how things should be; although, I will endeavour to provide some ideas/suggestions towards the end.

Some facts about ACCSA History ACCSA was established in 2001 after a community forum was held for two days in a place called Mylo (the forum was organised by the Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia (MRCSA)). ACCSA provides settlement services; and promotes diversity, linkage and harmony among its members and mainstream communities and organisations. Organisations and governance To date, it has over 42 registered member African community organisations and community organisations who work with the African communities in South Australia. Its members represent Africans who belong to a certain ethnic, language or country group; nonetheless, its constitution only allows one representative from each country of origin from the African continent to sit in its executive, which currently has 17 members. The executive governs the organisation and holds regular meetings to deliberate on affairs of the organisation. As a community group, ACCSA promotes democratic governance and advocates for its member associations to govern their respective groups democratically. Its activities and interaction with other partners and agencies ACCSA runs many activities including support services for newly arrived migrants and refugees; organising and coordinating annual African festivals to promote African culture, diversity and harmony; running youth and community leadership and development activities; and advocating on behalf of its members. In order to accomplish its objectives, ACCSA works in partnership with other service providers particularly MRCSA and receives funding from both state and Commonwealth governments. To date, the organisation runs services worth half a million dollars and employs eight staff members. In most of the cases, these staff members are graduates or university students for whom this job is their first professional job. ACCSA does this intentionally to enable its community members to enter the workforce, and, to date, it has enabled 20 community members to do so. This is perhaps a testament to the community group’s capacity to bring together the African community, identify key issues in the community and work in partnership with other service providers to achieve its own goal. It is also apparent that the SA government’s commitment to CALD communities and its strong policy of social inclusion and the presence of supportive and enabling community organisations in the state, such as the MRCSA, has contributed to its success. In discussing the day-to-day interactions of ACCSA, the following roles are worth noting:


KIROS HIRUY CONTINUED 1. The facilitative role of MRCSA To start with, MRCSA’s decision to support ACCSA to operate on its own and its initiative in bringing all Africans to the forum in Mylo in 1999 has created a better ground for collaboration and the empowerment of the African community groups. The partnership between MRCSA and ACCSA was later formalised through a memorandum of understanding and the two organisations work collaboratively. ACCSA’s clients were observed moving seamlessly between the two organisations and staff in a coordinated manner and this was seen as a good outcome by the clients. On the other hand, although the two organisations have to compete to access the same resources to fund their activities, there seem to have been an intentional move by both agencies to work together and support each other in doing so. 2. The support and facilitation provided by the state government One of the highlights of my fieldwork was attending the roundtable meetings organised and facilitated by Multicultural South Australia (Multicultural SA) between state government departments and African community leaders. Through this round table, community leaders were able to present issues in their communities and at times negotiate programs and the allocation of resources to their communities with the relevant departmental agencies. The facilitative role of Multicultural SA was significant and this has availed an opportunity for ACCSA to coordinate its members and advocate for the African community at large. Role in community building and advocacy For many of the African community members, ACCSA has become the beacon of hope in South Australia and beyond. It works closely with relevant government agencies to resolve community issues. A case in point is its efforts in negotiating an African police liaison officer position with the SA Police to curb youth violence and other legal issues among the African community. It is also able to advocate for the African communities widely, and this is being recognised both at the state and national level. Community empowerment in ACCSA As a process, community empowerment is instrumental in developing ‘a sense of responsibility, commitment, and ability to care for collective survival’ and that is what has been observed among ACCSA members, as they acquire skills in problem solving, and ability to influence changes relevant to their quality of life (Sadan, 1997). As a community endeavour, it also involves encouraging and enabling citizens to become engaged in the civic and economic life of their communities (O’Neal & O’Neal, 2003). In such a process, some authors argue that resources are often drawn from two sources: individuals who are willing to act for the common good in addition to realising their personal goals (often community leaders), and external agents (government and service providers) who contribute by providing resources and rules and resources of meaning, legitimisation, and power. The interaction and action of these two groups is important in determining the empowerment of a community. In my discussion below, I will focus on the interaction of these two groups in the life of ACCSA to describe the community empowerment process through the four components of community empowerment, namely collective belonging, involvement in the community, control over organisation in the community, and community building (see Hur, 2006). 1. Collective belonging Collective belonging is the sense of feeling and being part of a social network; the emphasis here is particularly in interdependence and hence does not preclude autonomy. At that initial stage of settlement, | 38 | Creating our Future REPORT

many African community groups seem to form cohesive community groups or associations, often along countries of origin, ethnicity, language and culture with the purpose of promoting their culture and supporting each other. These groups participate in various cultural festivals, Christmas pageants and Harmony Day events enthusiastically. As time goes by, however, the level of enthusiasm wanes and while some maintain their community cohesion, others seem to cascade down into an array of conflicts and divisions. The inability of leaders to build consensus on key issues beyond cultural issues within the community seems to be one of the key reasons at the centre of this conflict. The needs of the community shifts from the initial cultural and social needs to more of socioeconomic and political purposes; however, the organisation and its leaders may not necessarily be equipped to deal with these needs. Thus, amid all the conflicts, the community tries to create an organisation that may bring other groups with common issues together and provide the sense of feeling and being part of a bigger social network. ACCSA was formed on these premises, and it seems to have been successful in bringing the several community groups (42) together by building consensus on key challenges and strategising the way forward by mobilising both internal and external resources and skills to meet these challenges. Such a success cannot, however, be attributed only to the internal dynamics of ACCSA. The democratic governance structure in which ACCSA operates does also contribute significantly. Although communities are able to organise themselves and re-create an organisation that is able to influence its own future beyond the current situation, such an organisation would require support from both government and the third sector to sustain its gains. In ACCSA’s case the facilitation of MRCSA, the support of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) and the state government has played a significant role in its establishment. The formation of ACCSA has helped the community to focus on common identified issues to create a positive sense of feeling and hope among its members. The knowledge that this organisation is part of a wider social network has also provided some assurance to its members that the possibility for changing one’s own situation is there. This feeling and assurance creates a sense of collective belonging, which ultimately leads to collective empowerment. 2. Involvement: the participation and contribution of members in the life of the community and beyond Involvement in the community is about taking part in community activities or events that may lead to effecting change by affecting the power structure in communities. It is about participation in the social, cultural, economic and political life of the society. ACCSA runs several activities and organises cultural events and annual soccer tournaments and the level of participation in these events is high. ACCSA also mobilises its members to participate in other socioeconomic and political activities. For example, the participation of ACCSA members in the ‘community round table meetings’ organised by Multicultural SA has created a fertile ground for state government agencies and the communities to interact and, at times, negotiate programs. Another example is the contribution to, and involvement of, ACCSA and its members in the establishment of an African Police Liaison Officer position within SA Police. The key here is the capacity to understand the need, awareness, skills and knowledge of the community to work together on priorities, as true participation is based on such an understanding (Simpson, Wood & Daws, 2003).

Of course, even with such an understanding, it is challenging to ensure involvement of members in the process all the time. In communities with a refugee background, ensuring involvement becomes a complex ballgame altogether. For a starter, communities tend to be inundated with internal conflicts, and thus finding consensus becomes a long and convoluted process. Secondly, although the support of government and the third sector inevitably strengthens community belonging, it is not always easy to attract such support when you are a ‘new community’ at the bottom of the social ladder. Thirdly, the already existing social structure and the rules of the game may not necessarily favour disadvantaged communities. Let me elaborate on the three points I just enumerated. Firstly, there is an assumption that communities are right and whenever there are problems that the state, the third sector or the structure is to be blamed. However, ‘fault lines also run along communities’ (Friedmann, 1992) and this is particularly evident in migrant communities who are predominantly from a refugee background. Due to the experiences of torture, trauma and maltreatment, one of the basic social capitals necessary to build consensus – trust – is compromised from the beginning. Thus, communities will require more time and effort to build consensus. Secondly, it is often difficult, particularly in light of resettlement, for communities to achieve their own goals without the support of government and the facilitative role of the third sector. However, in some cases this needed support may not be directly accessible for migrant community groups as they are perceived to be less organised. This difficulty in accessing support affects the involvement of the community members in their own organisation. The amount of contribution provided by community members to their own organisation is related to both the ability of other actors (government and the third sector) to provide opportunity for participation and to meet the practical needs of the community members. In other words, it is directly related to the conviction of the disadvantaged members of the community group that their lives would be better because of their participation (Buccus, Hemson, Hicks & Piper, 2008). Thirdly, already existing structures can provide either the opportunity or the barrier for community groups to participate and access resources. For example, during my fieldwork, I attended a briefing session by a department after a grant program was created for less advantaged communities to access, and the qualifying statement provided by the officer in charge was that ‘community groups need to partner [to ask] a well-organised community organisation [NGO] to apply for and access the funds’. I asked for further clarification as I was convinced that it should be the other way round, for the NGOs to work with grassroots communities to access the fund. However, the officer in charge reasoned that since the reporting and fund acquittal requirements for the funding were rigorous, small community groups will need to work with ‘well-organised’ third sector agencies. Of course, concepts of accountability and transparency were discussed and, for the bureaucrats, receiving a good report was more important than providing access to less advantaged communities.

3. Control over organisation in the community: leading, influencing, representing and mobilising support Control over organisation in the community is more about the act of influencing representative groups and their effectiveness by way of active collective support and advocacy. Although the capacity to control over one’s organisation is an internal affair; it can also be said that other external actors of empowerment and the type of support or opposition they present a community group also influences the control of an organisation by a community group. The actions of these actors can often be influenced by views they hold about the community group. When it comes to new and emerging migrant communities, there rather seem to be several external views that work against their empowerment. Let’s take, for example, the perception that new and emerging communities are less educated and/or organised and hence are unable to manage resources or funds or to acquit them once received. To a certain degree, it is true that a better-resourced, skilled and organised community group is better equipped in dealing with bureaucratic requirements. However, one cannot expect communities to develop the capability to manage funds overnight without providing them the necessary support to build their capacity or the opportunity to have the initial experience of managing such a fund. By denying the opportunity for a community to develop its capacity and to have a go at managing resources on its own, we can only maintain its disadvantage and hence deny its capacity to control its own organisation. To avoid such a conundrum, other actors of empowerment will need to take risks and allow the community group to develop on its own or look for other innovative solutions rather than reinforcing disadvantage as indicated above. For example, in the case of ACCSA, the initial resources provided by DIAC and state government agencies has enabled ACCSA members to control the organisation and develop the skills required to manage more resources in-house. Another example, still from South Australia, is the migrant to migrant community mentoring arrangement initiated by Multicultural SA which has benefited the Australian Burundian Community of South Australia (ABCSA). Due to this mentoring arrangement, the Vietnamese community were able to mentor the ABCSA, which runs some services for its own community in the City of Playford. 4. Working together and collective decision-making: building the community for tomorrow The idea of community building is referring to creating a sense of community or sense of social cohesion by working together, resolving problems and making collective decisions for positive change. Community empowerment as a process creates the opportunity for less advantaged communities to work together to resolve problems and make collective decisions to change their own situation. In the case of ACCSA, by creating an opportunity for all its members to participate either in the round table meetings or any other collective decision- making, it can be argued that ACCSA has succeeded in creating a sense of community or sense of social cohesion. However, it has a long way to go to create the community of tomorrow by ensuring its full participation in the wider society to influence its own future. This will require extra work in creating awareness among the wider community, as the inclusion of disadvantaged communities could be influenced by the beliefs and knowledge of the host community and those in power.


KIROS HIRUY CONTINUED Conclusion Let me conclude by summarising my points and providing some suggestions to policy makers, service providers and others interested in the empowerment of community groups. As I alluded to in my discussion above, the empowerment of communities seems to be influenced by many factors. The internal dynamics of the community tends to affect the direction and action of a community group. Secondly, the action and interaction of the government, the third sector and the private sector do also contribute positively or negatively towards the empowerment of a community. And thirdly, the policy environment – the rules of the game – play a significant role in the life of a community. In light of this, the following points highlight what can be done to create a better space to empower communities through democratic governance: • To ensure that the internal dynamics of a community group is conducive to empowerment and that leaders are equipped with the resources needed to create consensus in their community

and ultimately control their organisation, governments and the third sector need to intentionally take a position to support communities in their endeavours to create consensus by supporting innovative and collaborative initiatives. • As indicated earlier, the focus of empowerment is on gaining control over resources and decisions by increasing the assets and attributes and building capacities to gain access, partners, networks and voice. In light of this, current models of resource allocation and funding will have to be looked at if better outcomes are desired. • Finally, I would like to point out that there is also a need to consider the aspiration of each community in planning key policies and initiatives, again if better outcomes are desired. Thank you.

References Buccus, I., Hemson, D., Hicks, J., & Piper, L. (2008). Community development and engagement with local governance in South Africa. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 297–311. Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Oxford: Balckwell Publishers Ltd. Hur, M. H. (2006). Empowerment in terms of theoretical perspectives: Exploring a typology of the process and components across disciplines. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(5), 523–540. Jewkes, R., & Murcott, A. (1996). Meanings of community. Social Science & Medicine, 43(4), 555–563. MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R., et al. (2001). What is Community? An Evidence-Based Definition for Participatory Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1929-1938. Narayan, D. (Ed.). (2002). Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Source Book. Washington DC: The World Bank. O’Neal, G. S., & O’Neal., R. A. (2003). Community development in the USA: An empowerment zone example. Community Development Journal, 38(2), 120–129. Sadan, E. (1997). Empowerment and Community Planning: Theory and Practice of People - Focused Social Solutions (R. Flantz, Trans.). Tel Aviv, Hakibbutz: Hameuchad Publishers [in Hebrew]. Simpson, L., Wood, L., & Daws, L. (2003). Community capacity building: Starting with people not projects. Community Development Journal, 38(4), 277–286. United Nations Economic and Social Council. (2006). Fifth Session of the Committee of Experts on Public Administration: Compendium of Basic Terminology in Governance and Public Administration New York: United Nations Public Administration Network.


KEYNOTE SPEAKER DR XAVIER CSAR Xavier is Assistant Secretary, South East Australia, in the Commonwealth Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport. Prior roles with the Victorian Government include Chief Executive, Regional Development Victoria (RDV), Deputy Secretary, Department of Planning and Community Development and Executive Director, Economic Projects, in the Department of Business and Innovation. Xavier held senior investment, industry development, economic policy and innovation policy executive positions. Prior to joining State Government, Xavier worked in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry in new company formation and technology development in both private sector and academic environments. Xavier has a Doctorate in Biochemistry, a Bachelor of Science and Masters of Business Administration. He is a graduate of the Australia and New Zealand School of Government Executive Fellowship program.

Building settlement and industry alliances Introduction Thank you for that introduction. Let me begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land, and pay my respects to Elders past and present. I am here to speak on behalf of the Commonwealth Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, where I have the role of Assistant Secretary with responsibility for South East Australia. This morning I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to you about building settlement and industry alliances in regional Australia. Over the past two days we have heard from a diversity of speakers, including professionals from the settlement, employment and community sectors, as well as academia. What we have heard so far at this conference As you have heard this morning, Minister Lundy reiterated the importance of migration and a whole of government migrant settlement approach to maximise the benefits of migration to both migrants and the communities they are settling within. The minister reiterated this will also support industry to innovate and grow our economy; this is particularly important to regional Australia. Many of you attended yesterday’s presentations by Garry Fleming from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, I understand that you heard from Mark Roddam from Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations on migration and the opportunity it presents to address skills needs. This is also particularly important in regional Australia where labour markets are thin. You may have also attended the session yesterday afternoon where Michael Kraft discussed his experiences as deputy chair of Jobs Australia and as a committee member of Ipswich and West Moreton Regional Development Australia committee in Queensland, about simultaneously meeting the needs of migrant communities and employers. Today I will be building on these presentations. The Regional Australia agenda Settlement issues are particularly important in regional Australia. Some of the major challenges impacting on regional towns and local economies include: • the need to respond to skill shortages as constraints to economic growth; • the management of changes in population – both growth and decline; • the importance of infrastructure and service accessibility; and • responding to changing demographics, such as ageing.

Governments at all levels recognise there is great diversity across Australia’s regions – and that regions themselves must be able to drive the planning, building and realisation of their own futures. The Australian Government, through the establishment of the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, has made building stronger regions central to its economic and social agenda, and as such, we have responsibility for supporting regional communities to identify local, sustainable solutions following collection of evidence, robust analysis and community engagement. Regional Development Australia (RDA) And we do so through the Regional Development Australia network – also known as the RDA network. The RDA initiative is a partnership between the Australian, state, territory and local governments to support regional development. There are 55 RDA committees in the network, which comprises around 600 volunteers. Membership is drawn from a diversity of local organisations – local governments, regional development organisations, small and medium businesses, large firms, industry groups and stakeholder organisations. These RDAs, as regional engagement bodies, are a key platform for the identification of local issues and solutions, and the articulation of a shared future vision and a pathway for how regions can get there. In supporting RDAs, we encourage them to reach out across their communities, to consult and listen to them. We ask them to use their collective judgement, their experience – their knowledge to clearly identify, develop, promote and drive a strategic regional vision. We ask that each RDA find its own way, because the regions of Australia are evolving in different ways and at different speeds. Understanding this patchwork economy and what it looks like in regional Australia is critical to enabling all governments to support each region in supporting their populations as they contribute to national economic prosperity and wellbeing. Regional Plans RDA committees actively influence national policy more broadly through the development of their annual Regional Plans. These Regional Plans provide a substantial economic, social and environmental profile of the region that identify regional priorities and locally based strategies for achieving them. The Regional Plans are underpinned by comprehensive consultation with key stakeholders to ensure coverage of important economic, social, and environmental issues In the development of their plans, RDA committees consult all levels of government, businesses and industry, the health and education sectors and community groups to clearly develop a strategic regional vision. A recurrent theme in many, if not the majority, of RDA plans is recognition of the benefits of migration to regional liveability, viability and workforce needs. Creating our Future REPORT | 41 |

DR XAVIER CSAR CONTINUED Increased recognition of regional Australia There has been an increased recognition of issues affecting regional Australia and an increased interest in Regional Plans from other Australian Government portfolios. For example, budget initiatives in areas like transport, infrastructure, employment and training are being developed with reference to and regard of the priorities identified in regional strategic plans and are a resource for governments at all levels when designing and reviewing policy proposals and programs. RDAs and migration and settlement My department has connections right across the Australian Public Service and provides a regional perspective to policy activity, including migration initiatives. RDA committees have played a role in regional workforce planning, through consultation and engagement with employers and industry representatives. For example, in Queensland, RDA Brisbane brought together nearly 40 key stakeholders from all levels of government, education and training, the trade union movement, business development, recruitment and migration services, the construction and resources sectors and other South East Queensland RDAs to formulate an action plan to address predicted skills shortages in the Brisbane region over the next decade. The forum recommended policies to overcome skills shortages, including attracting migration (from overseas and from the rest of Australia) through provision of improved housing and infrastructure. The forum input has now been used in the development of implementation strategies for both the RDA and its partners to take forward to policy makers in order to influence policy and planning decisions more generally. Migration initiatives As you heard yesterday from Garry Fleming’s presentation, there is a range of immigration initiatives to support regional migration. As community brokers, RDA committees can play a key role in these by building settlement and industry alliances. A large number of RDA committees have been approved by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship as Regional Certifying Bodies and are actively encouraging settlement of skilled migrants to their regions. Many RDAs support the Regional Sponsored Migration Initiative, both as sponsors and promoters of the program within their regions to industry and communities. In NSW, RDA Riverina continues to successfully support Regional Skilled Migration to enhance community capacity. In 2011, RDA Riverina processed 153 applications for regional sponsorship after liaising with employers, industry bodies, migration agents and government bodies to identify the region’s skill needs.


Almost without exception, RDA committees recognise the importance of migration to national and regional economic prosperity, and that skilled migrants who settle in regional Australia help support and grow regional economic activity. Challenges of migrant settlement But there are challenges, and many RDA committees are also familiar with the multicultural characteristics of their regions and have developed strong links to members of these communities. These regions recognise the benefits that humanitarian and family reunion migration is having on their regions to sustain population growth, whilst enriching culture and diversity. In Victoria, RDA Melbourne West has been working with the local community to address challenges faced by disadvantaged 16–24 year olds from new migrant and refugee communities. The Sustainable Employment and Economic Development (SEED) program was developed for young people disengaged due to unemployment, low education outcomes or poor work experience. SEED seeks to increase local skills and employment, provide young people with industry networks and encourage workforce and community participation. The program includes formal training, paid work experience, preparation for the responsibilities that come with being part of the workforce and development of individual employment pathways. The SEED program has been recognised as highly successful – with one participating council, (Moonee Valley City Council), winning a 2011 National Award for Local Government in the category of Youth Engagement. RDA committees are responding to the demands placed on their regions in a tailored manner – focusing on each region’s specific issues. Conclusion I trust that this morning I have provided you with something of an overview of the government’s agenda in regional policy, the role of the RDA network, and how immigration and settlement issues are being identified and responded to by communities through their RDAs. One of the identified aims of this conference was to strengthen links to develop a broader understanding and ownership of immigration and settlement issues. Whether it is sponsoring and supporting skilled migrants to regional communities, or supporting the settlement needs of multicultural communities – these are key issues which support regional and national economic growth and social wellbeing. Thank you.

KEYNOTE SPEAKER SIMON SCHRAPEL Simon Schrapel is the president of the Australian Council of Social Services and chief executive officer of UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide, a broad-based community-service provider in South Australia committed to social justice and inclusion. Simon’s thirty-year career spans working in social and community services in the UK, Sri Lanka and Australia in local government, state government and non-government organisations. He has held leadership positions in sector peak bodies, advocacy groups and advisory boards. He is the director of Foodbank SA, a past chair of SACOSS and of the Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia, and a board member of Families Australia. Simon is a member of the South Australian Council for the Care of Children and the newly established national Children and Family Roundtable. He has been a member of the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children Implementation Working Group since its inception in 2009.

Importance of cross-sector partnerships in achieving National Compact Outcomes I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the country in which we are fortunate enough to meet today – the Kuarna people and to pay respects to Elders past and present. I would also like to thank the organiser of this Second National Settlement Conference and to congratulate them for convening the conference in Adelaide – as a parochial South Australian, I would like to acknowledge such wisdom, and in putting together such an impressive program and diversity of session topics and speakers around a unifying theme of ‘Creating our Future’. Whilst I am here today representing the views and position of ACOSS as its president, I would like to emphasise that what I will contribute is also informed by my experience as: • A chief executive of a large ‘mainstream’ community-service agency in South Australia, Uniting Communities, which has its own challenges in ensuring its many varied services reach out and remain relevant to the needs of migrant communities, including the Sudanese community which worships in our sister church – Maughan – in the city, and through our Multicultural Home Support Program which focuses on the needs of older people from non-English speaking backgrounds requiring personal care and other in-home support services. • My insight and reflections are also informed by having forged a close and productive relationship, in a previous role, with the MRCSA in the delivery of humanitarian settlement services within this state. Not without its challenges, this experience taught me much about the processes and value of forming partnerships – this between another major mainstream service provider and a broad-based multicultural agency. Before I focus on the challenges of forging partnerships within the community services sector to deliver better outcomes for the community as a whole and for those who can benefit from services and advocacy more specifically, I would like to touch briefly on the value placed by ACOSS on cross-sector partnerships. In pursuit of our agenda for a fairer and more inclusive society, ACOSS places significant worth on the need for collaboration and collective action. This should come as no surprise as a member based organisation, which ultimately is only as powerful and influential as the contribution its membership allows. So what we have come to learn is that the efficacy of our policy and advocacy work, whether it is in community sector reforms, tax and transfer or employment policy or health and climate change is inextricably linked to the effectiveness of the partnerships we develop and nurture. These partnerships are not only within our

sector and inclusive of our membership. They include associations with others parts of Australian society who share common interests and sometimes those who we don’t always share natural bonds or thinking but with whom we might find a point of coalescence to our mutual advantage. In recent times these relationships have spread far and wide and have included: • Getting agreement from the likes of the Business Council of Australia and Australian Industry Group on the need to increase allowance payments such as Newstart beyond their currently wholly inadequate levels – $35 a day for a single person on Newstart, which has only risen to just over $35.60 a day following the recent supplements announced in the May Federal Budget. • Working with the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Climate Institute, Choice and the CSIRO in ensuring that compensation for the introduction of a price on carbon is fair, well targeted to those who need it most and timely, whilst supporting the need to implement policy change to address global warming. • Working with the ACTU and across our membership to bring about important changes to superannuation and retirement savings and ensuring precious public resources are not directed into the pockets of those who do not require additional incentives to save. • And of course on the issues of the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees – something much closer to home for many in today’s audience – ACOSS led a campaign last year, which culminated in a statement being published in national newspapers calling for an end to offshore processing and mandatory detention of people seeking asylum. This initiative involved a coalition of agencies, including the ASU and other unions, Amnesty International, GetUp, Churches and a broad cross section of both mainstream and refugee and migrant communityservice organisations. Whilst these examples concentrate on collaboration around advocacy and campaigns, the impetus and value that sits behind such endeavours are equally applicable to more practical communityservice activities, including the engagement of people in community life and the delivery of essential services, whether they be about the immediate settlement requirements of those recently arrived in the country or provision of essential health, education or community care services. There are indeed many examples of effective, positive partnerships within the community and social services sector and across sectors. I suspect many in this room today could identify collaborations, both informal and formal, which have proven to be highly productive. But Creating our Future REPORT | 43 |

SIMON SCHRAPEL CONTINUED I also suspect that there have been examples which have created frustration and perhaps have even been divisive and created angst for participants and failed to deliver positive outcomes for community and intended beneficiaries.

But the compact does something more than focus on government and NFP relationships. It, I think, challenges us to think more about how we forge partnerships and work collaboratively within our own world of NFPs and community services.

I would like to spend the bulk of the remainder of the time I have left to concentrate on what we, as NFPs, can do to give us a better chance of making such relationships work. But before I do that, I would like to comment about the role played by governments in creating the type of environment in which not-for-profits can flourish and fulfil their role in creating a civil society in which all members can participate fully in political, social and economic life.

Governments too, play a role in this. I note FECCA’s own contribution to the Productivity Commission expressed concern about the current models of competitive tendering which undermines sustained partnerships between CALD-specific and mainstream organisations. ACOSS and others have expressed similar concerns and sought more enlightened approaches to the dissemination of public funds that build community and community organisations’ connections rather than undermine them. Together with short-term funding arrangements, competitive tendering has done much to destabilise NFPs.

The Productivity Commission Report on the contribution of the NFP sectors released in January 2010 set the scene for a rethink in how governments should relate to NFPs. Most importantly, the PC report looked at the contribution of NFPs beyond their role as deliverers of essential services, many of them on behalf of governments. These benefits, referred to as ‘spillovers’ by the PC included: • the opportunity to provide for people to participate in organisational life in a democratic and engaging (and sometimes very robust) way • involving community members in shaping and in delivering services and assistance to others in the community • providing an outlet in which people can mobilise, discuss ideas and represent these as part of the broader political dialogue in our community. This is of critical importance, especially for those who find themselves on the fringe of society without an effective voice. In acknowledging these and other values of NFP organisations, the Commonwealth Government, to its credit, has seen fit to act in bringing about reform to the regulation of NFPs. This is a very live and active debate at present with everything from the establishment of new national regulations to the taxation treatment of charities and indeed the very definition of charities. These are all important changes, although each of these areas requires meticulous and detailed attention to ensure changes don’t place more regulatory burdens on NFPs and end up causing greater harm than good. ACOSS and others in this room are having their input to these processes. But at the same time other changes, which are perhaps more directly at the heart of government/non-government relationships have been enacted. In 2010, the National Compact: working together was released, part of the federal government’s social inclusion agenda. Agencies large and small from around Australia were invited to sign up to the compact and its principles and a Shared Vision of Government and the Third Sector (a very British term not widely accepted in Australian language) to work together to improve social, cultural, civic, economic and environmental outcomes. This was seen as a means of improving community wellbeing for all and both acknowledging and strengthening the role of NFPs to this end. The process of implementing the changes envisioned in the National Compact continues. I suspect many will be sceptical about the slow pace of change. The extent to which contracting processes have been streamlined or, for that matter, policy consultation processes which truly engage the Australian population and representative groups have been enhanced is open to conjecture. The compact framework remains laudable – but as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and I’m not sure the chef is yet to receive an accolade for this dish. | 44 | Creating our Future REPORT

But we also have a responsibility for the decisions we make, whether as small ethnic-specific groups, larger multicultural agencies or mainstream NFPs, in how we relate with each other. The reality is that we cannot simply design systems in which services and assistance to people of NESB are delivered either by ethno-specific or mainstream agencies. To ensure equity of access and quality of services, we need these options to coexist and work in harmony, rather than in competition. As a mainstream provider of services to newly arrived and NESB communities, I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring strong partnerships are formed with both NESB-led organisations and with communities themselves to ensure services are culturally relevant and sensitive and delivered in ways that respect and indeed celebrate the cultural heritage of those who receive such services. At the same time there needs to be recognition of the vital need to ensure ethnically based community organisations and multicultural organisations like the MRC, have the capacity and strength to engage meaningfully with their respective constituencies. This requires government investment – but it also requires the investment of mainstream NFPs to enable such communities and organisations to develop and thrive. It also requires the formation of partnerships that are both genuine and equal. Equality doesn’t necessarily require the same level of co-investment or even control over the development of resources. However, it does require a sharing of decision-making over the things that work. This requires a recalibration by some mainstream service providers in how decisions are made, which divests control and truly recognises the expertise ethnic community organisations bring to the table. ACOSS is currently involved in a fledgling project with two national Indigenous organisations, the Healing Foundation and the Secretariat for Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC) over how to influence government policy in relation to funding and delivery of services aimed at reducing child abuse and neglect in Indigenous communities. As part of this process we are learning about protocols established by mainstream organisations across Australia and ATSI bodies in how to forge partnerships in the delivery of family and children’s services. Essentially, these partnerships recognise the service expertise and infrastructure that many mainstream organisations have available in working with largely smaller and less equipped ATSI bodies operating at a local or regional level. At the same time, mainstream agencies have also come to appreciate and learn from the authenticity, authority and cultural knowledge and expertise of local ATSI organisations.

What makes this initiative potentially very promising is a threeway commitment involving governments, ATSI organisations and mainstream agencies, which requires a time limited partnership that has mainstream organisations share and divest their knowledge and systems to the ATSI organisations over a five-year period. SNAICC have recently prepared a report on partnership principles and management based on a case study analysis of a number of partnerships between ATSI and mainstream bodies across Australia. It is available from the SNAICC website (www.snaicc.asn.au) and I would encourage those with a genuine interest in collaborative practice to access this resource. The keys to successful partnerships are at one level very simple and, perhaps to many, somewhat obvious. But at the same time they are also the most difficult to routinely and effectively implement – because they require will, a preparedness to learn and even make some mistakes, and a commitment to trust and share control. As much as we all might recognise the inherent worth of these qualities, I am not entirely sure they always come to the fore as we tackle the tricky business of building and maintaining partnerships. The SNAICC experience identifies a range of factors underpinning successful partnerships, many of which might be germane to any inter-organisational collaboration. These include: • the importance of establishing reciprocal trust • clear negotiating and decision-making structures • ongoing partnership management … it doesn’t end at the point of signing the agreement or MOU – its only the beginning • effective resourcing of the partnership – don’t expect it to just unfold on its own • good monitoring and evaluation of the partnership, including its processes and management – not just the product.

But the learning from the SNAICC case studies highlighted some other lessons too, and these are perhaps more significant in the context of cross-cultural partnerships. These included: • An openness to understanding and working with culturally based organisations, which often have different decisionmaking structures, and can operate within different timeframes. Mainstream organisations, especially those that are large and long established, adopt governance and management structures that suit this history – but these are not the only ways to conduct business or run an organisation, and appreciation of the processes and protocols of culturally and community driven organisations is crucial if partnerships are to work. • A preparedness for mainstream organisations to transfer resources, leadership and responsibility – and on the other side of the equation for culturally based organisations a willingness to assist mainstream organisations to develop the cultural competencies in its workforce to enable partnerships to flourish. Partnerships exist, and probably only truly succeed, where and when there is a joint appreciation of the value that each party brings to the table – and a willingness to both give and to take. The SNAICC experience is but one approach and not necessarily relevant for all partnerships. But it is recognition that partnerships can be managed in ways that build capabilities and empower communities to take greater control over their own affairs and constituencies. In summary, the challenge is for all of us to make partnerships deliver something meaningful and lasting. We can look to others, like government and government policy, to facilitate more collegial and effective relationships within our broader sector – and indeed, they have a role to play. But at the same time we must also do more to create the conditions and values in which true partnerships can not only survive but thrive. This is our responsibility and wholly within our control … if we are up to it! Thank you.


KEYNOTE SPEAKER JUDGE RAUF SOULIO

Judge Soulio is a judge of the District Court of South Australia. He is the chair of the Australian Multicultural Council and was previously deputy chair of the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council. Judge Soulio is a member of the Council for the Order of Australia and a member of the Anzac Centenary Advisory Board. He is president of the Football Federation of South Australia and chair of a state government sporting advisory committee. He has held the position of chair of the Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia for the past seven years and is a member of the judging panel for the Governor’s Multicultural Awards. In 2003, he was appointed as honorary consul-general for Albania in Australia.

Indicators of equity for all people in Australia I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we are gathered and pay my respects to their Elders past and present. Acknowledgements Thank you to the Settlement Council of Australia (SCoA) for convening this conference. Mr Cedric Manen, Chair of the Settlement Council of Australia; Ms Eugenia Tsoulis OAM, Conference Convener; Session Chair, Ms Violet Roumeliotis. My fellow keynote speakers: Senator Kate Lundy, Minister for Sport, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation; Mr Xavier Csar, Assistant Secretary, South East Australia Regional Development Australia; Mr Simon Schrapel, President, Australian Council of Social Services. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, It takes great courage for people to leave their homeland, whether by necessity because of danger, or fear, or war; or by choice to make a better life for themselves and their families. It takes wisdom and commitment for them to become citizens of Australia. I am honoured to be invited to speak at the Settlement Council of Australia’s National Conference – and to meet – and to learn from you – from those who have dedicated their careers and the better part of their lives to welcoming the future citizens of Australia, and to easing their pathway to citizenship and a fully realised participation in our society. Migrants have played a crucial role in the building of our nation. The post-war settlement of some seven million people has been described as one of Australia’s greatest achievements. At the end of World War II, our population was a little over seven million, with around 90% born in Australia. A popular slogan of the time was ‘Populate or perish’. The incredible challenge faced by Australia was that of building a modern nation from the ground up – in a world shattered by years of conflict. The governments of the day negotiated with other governments, and with international organisations, to help us achieve our high migration targets, to welcome to Australia the people who became part of the foundation of modern Australia. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, Australia accepted a disproportionate share of the refugees sponsored by the International Refugee Organisation. Even in the early days of planned migration, we were at the forefront of helping people build new lives. In this period, we also accepted migrants at an astonishing pace. My own father arrived in Australia in 1950. He was one of 150,000 who came that year. By 1955, a young woman from Europe, newly married, had become our one-millionth post-war migrant.


Today, as you will know, our migration program is drawn from some 200 countries and is comprised of people from diverse cultures and traditions. The statistics have already been referred to by speakers at this conference – of Australia’s resident population of 21.5 million, 5.3 million were born overseas, and 47% of Australians either were born overseas or have at least one overseas-born parent. I was pleased to observe that the press coverage of the latest Census report focused on the cultural diversity existing in Australia and, in general terms, did so in a positive way. We have undergone an incredible social and cultural transformation over the past 60 years, while still retaining a uniquely Australian identity and attitude. As was observed in an Australia Day opinion piece – we can see something of the national character and spirit in each of us: an informal friendliness and generosity, a dislike of pomposity, a belief in people’s innate equality, and an ability to rise to our best in times of adversity. In Australia, great value is placed on equality before the law, the freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and religious expression, and equality between men and women. We have incorporated successive waves of immigrants from all parts of the world, into a stable society and into our national culture, while drawing from, and benefiting from the cultural diversity that each group brings. Our diversity has opened up a world of social, cultural and economic opportunity to all Australians. We recognise that the world has become smaller – technology means that we are increasingly conducting international business on an immediate basis. In the knowledge-based economy of this millennium, where people are the key to a nation’s productivity and competitiveness, Australia’s multiculturalism is one of our most valuable resources. It encourages diversity in ways of thinking, and stimulates innovation and creativity. It helps us to forge links with the rest of the world that can deliver increased trade and investment through the expansion of markets and the development of diverse goods and services. Our diversity gives us insights into different economic markets around the world and exposes us to a variety of new business practices and innovations. It provides us with unique opportunities to grow business domestically and keeps our society and our economy vital. The world is changing at an incredibly rapid pace. Six or 12 months from now, we may be doing business with people from many parts of the world in new and unimagined ways. Our diversity will help us make the most of new opportunities, and will help us prosper in the future.

If we are to continue to benefit from our diversity, there are a number of challenges we must face. There is much work to be done. Many of you here today are at the front lines of that work. Many of you will literally be the hands that help build our future. The assistance you give to our newest arrivals will have a direct impact on their experience of being Australian. This, in turn, will frame how they contribute to the Australia of tomorrow. There is a direct and crucial connection between the work the settlement sector performs, and the future stability and prosperity of our country. As we all recognise, migrants and refugees are able to make, and do make, very significant contributions to our nation once they have reached that point where they can participate fully in the life of our society, as equal members of the Australian family. When new arrivals are included, welcomed and supported, there is great potential for innovation and for genius. A citizen should, four years after first arriving in Australia, feel that they can navigate their way through society – they should feel that they have the potential at least to fulfil their dreams – that they have work, or the potential to find work – that their health needs, physical and mental, can be met – that they have access to housing. In short, they should feel comfortable that they belong to Australian society. The first challenge is to ensure that all Australians, including our newest arrivals, have the same opportunity to achieve that level of participation, regardless of their national or cultural origins, language or religion. The Australian Multicultural Advisory Council, in its advice to government, said: It is the duty of government to see that all citizens are able to participate in programs and receive the services to which they are entitled, regardless of their cultural background. Where programs and services are not being used by Australians because of cultural or language difficulties, such programs need to be delivered by organisations culturally and linguistically able to do so. Importantly, and contrary to some popular misconceptions, ‘that is not a matter of providing an advantage not available to all Australians, but rather ensuring that all Australians are treated equally’. We need to do this at the levels of policy, the implementation of that policy, and in the governance and accountability of such policy. Policy must be reflected in the day-to-day delivery of services. I was delighted that Minister Lundy was able to launch the report of the Access and Equity Inquiry Panel this morning. The inquiry was one of five key initiatives in the People of Australia – Australia’s Multicultural Policy, announced early last year, in response to the advice provided by the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council –

and in November last year, Minister Lundy established the panel that conducted the inquiry into government services to ensure they are responsive to the needs of Australians from diverse backgrounds. As you have heard, the panel was chaired by Peter Hughes, former deputy secretary of the department, who is with us today. I would also like to acknowledge the valuable work performed by Peter and the other members of the panel. The Australian Multicultural Council will, once the recommendations of the report are adopted, have the role of reviewing the action plans of the departments and agencies, and will, with the Auditor-General, have the role of overseeing the compliance requirements. Another of the factors that prevents full participation is the potential for discrimination and racism against our most recent and most visible arrivals. One of the roles of the Australian Multicultural Council is to identify and advise on fracture points and threats to our social cohesion. Such threats may take the form of pockets of racism, unrest in the community brought about by rapid change, or divisions between communities. The government’s response to the advice of the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council included the appointment of a full-time race discrimination commissioner, and secretariat, and the development of the National Anti-Racism Partnership chaired by Helen Szoke. That strategy will be launched in the coming weeks. Our diversity is a daily fact of life in Australia. In the last 60 years or so, we have learned much about how to successfully build a society from many different sources. The work you do is an integral part of that success and I again commend your work, your commitment and your enthusiasm. All Australians benefit from that work, as will our future generations. Since World War II, Australia have been immensely successful in bringing people to Australia and in helping them to build new lives. We are rightfully recognised as a world leader in this field. At a dinner in Canberra earlier this year, Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for refugees, was discussing the performance of the various resettlement countries, and acknowledged Australia as the nation with the most successful resettlement program. He was able to do so because the courage, the wisdom and the commitment shown by those who come to Australia is complemented by the dedication and the enthusiasm of those who encourage, and enable our newest citizens to fully participate in the Australian community. Without free, self-respecting, and autonomous citizens, as Vaclav Havel observed, there can be no free and independent nations. Thank you.


plenary SPEAKER Garry Fleming Garry Fleming became first assistant secretary of citizenship, settlement and multicultural affairs, Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), in November 2011. Prior to that, he was first assistant secretary of border security, refugee and international policy in DIAC. Garry had previously worked in the area of homeland and border security in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for two years and had been regional director of the department’s Sydney CBD regional office. Since joining the senior executive in 2000, Garry has focused on client service excellence, immigration detention policy and related public scrutiny, new immigration detention arrangements and alternatives to detention, and management of the department’s property portfolio. Garry holds a bachelors degree in laws (honours) and a bachelors degree in commerce from the Australian National University.

Building and Delivering Sustainable Support Services for Irregular Maritime Arrivals We are progressively moving toward a settlement sector (or ‘space’) with much less defined walls. This settlement space needs to be innovative and responsive to the changing make-up and needs of clients. Stakeholders don’t necessarily have additional resources to work with, so building upon existing capacity and programs is crucial to reach successful integration of services across a client’s settlement pathway. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the Department) is developing an Integrated Service Delivery Framework for community based programs, including for Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMA) clients. In conjunction with this framework, is an opportunity to deliver settlement and other services ‘smarter’. The Department will work collaboratively with the community and settlement sector, and government colleagues, to achieve this. An Integrated Service Delivery Framework (the framework) The framework will draw together programs that support vulnerable clients undergoing status resolution into a single service delivery platform. These programs include Community Detention (CD), Community Assistance Support (CAS) (and CAS Transitional) and the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS). The Department is considering the place of the Humanitarian Settlement Services (HSS) program, including Complex Case Support (CCS) and Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minor (UHM) programs – which supports those who are granted permanent humanitarian or protection visas – within this framework. Clients need similar types of services While the extent of the support available differs between existing departmental programs, there is considerable commonality of service types. Depending on eligibility and individual needs-assessment, relevant programs (CD, CAS, ASAS and HSS) will, at various stages, provide or facilitate access to some or all of the same services, including: financial support; accommodation support; health services (including mental health services); torture and trauma counselling; some English language training; case work and orientation assistance; and specialist support services for children and young people. Better integrated services The Department acknowledges that services provided to clients in the community are not as ‘joined up’ as they could be. Services may be fractured and delivered by different providers to the same client at different stages of their settlement journey, which may lead to duplication, inefficiency and confusion.


The key to joining services up is to ensure a broader range of providers in the settlement sector are directly contracted to provide CD, CAS and ASA services. The development of better linkages across providers is also critical. The Department has started and will continue on with this process. Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMA) IMA and BVE clients are not currently eligible for English language training and yet learning English is critical for their adjustment to the Australian community. Some English language tuition – of varying quality and attendance – is currently being provided to clients in detention. English language training is also provided to clients in CD and this could potentially be expanded to providing tailored ESL support for BVE clients. Classes could also be orientated towards employment and, therefore, focus on supporting job readiness. The Department is regularly approached by stakeholders requesting additional support for these clients to achieve employment readiness and find employment. Under current arrangements, clients are only eligible for basic support (stream 1) for employment readiness under Job Services Australia (JSA) until PV granted. This service is not funded based on an employment outcome so there is little incentive for JSA providers to invest in BVE clients. To date, only a small number of existing BVE clients have found a job. Potentially more could be done to ensure that BVE clients have the opportunity to earn a wage and become independent of governmentfunded services. A number of DIAC-funded and other service providers operate excellent models for employment orientation or for combining industry training with specific English language support, work experience opportunities and assistance with work preparation skills and vocational advice. BVE clients would benefit significantly from such programs. We would also see downstream savings, both for the government and the community. Fiscal innovation In light of very tight resources, the Department needs to ensure that services are as targeted and effective as possible. The settlement space, particularly in regard to IMA and BVE clients, is also politically sensitive. The Department is doing what it can to foster more efficient client support and outcomes. This includes: • development of the Integrated Service Delivery Framework and expanding specialist service providers; • examining what more can be done for clients while they are in detention (e.g. ESL, orientations, employment readiness);

• working with HSS providers to put the ‘needs’ back into ‘needs based’ so that living within budgets can be achieved with little – preferably no – negative impact on clients and providers (e.g. Single Adult Males and their needs based Basic Household Goods package); and • being flexible in the approach to one-off cohorts. There is also a strong role for providers in building a more integrated, sustainable and client centric approach. This could include: stepping into a broader than traditional space and being innovative; seeking out and making linkages across providers and programs; helping to build the evidence base for what is working and is best practice; and advocating for better program models and working with the Department in doing so. As flagged above, it is important to consider a model where some support services could be enhanced or brought forward to be delivered earlier in a client’s settlement journey. For example, clients could be needs-assessed and streamed into low, moderate or intensive support under simplified and objective criteria. This would mean that clients would receive services earlier, at the point of greatest need, and once only. The delivery of subsequent services would build on clients’ growing capabilities and clients would be able to engage or disengage from individual services as their circumstances changed.

We need to consider how they can live fully and effectively in Australia, and how they can impact on our society. These other groups are certainly featuring heavily in a range of areas such as: research and analysis; the National Settlement Framework that is being developed under the auspices of the COAG Select Council on Immigration and Settlement; and by the Australian Multicultural Council and the Migration Council Australia. However, it is certain that intensive settlement support will not be provided to these groups. Over the coming years, all spheres of government will be tapping into the experience, ideas, innovations and networks of the settlement sector, as we work together to be responsive to the changing makeup and needs of clients.

Such an approach would have broad ranging benefits, including: maximizing efficiencies and minimising duplications; supporting clients to begin their settlement journeys earlier; and a more financially responsible and transparent support model. It will take time to build such an approach as there are budget implications and a need for an evidence base to argue for greater end-to-end efficiencies. Other permanent and temporary migrants In thinking about building the future, another area to consider support for is the migration and ‘settlement’ of permanent and temporary migrants, other than the most vulnerable. While it is essential to focus on intensively helping the 13 750 humanitarian entrants per year, the needs of the hundreds of thousands of other permanent migrants each year, as well as similar amounts of people temporarily in Australia at any given time, are also important. It is expected that over the next several years there will be a greater focus in planning and policy development on skilled migrants and their families, family migrants, and temporary migrants such as students and 457 visa holders. Creating our Future REPORT | 49 |

plenary SPEAKER MARK RODDAM

Mark is the branch manager for Migration, CoAG and Evidence Branch in the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Mark has worked in the department for more than a decade. His role includes responsibility for migration policy as it relates to the labour market (including for humanitarian migrants); the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme and its successor, the Seasonal Worker Program; and the department’s research and CoAG agendas.

Employment participation While most DEEWR programs and services support the entire population, some focus on assisting people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, including refugees. Refugees are achieving positive outcomes DEEWR’s Post Program Monitoring shows 71.9% of refugees are achieving positive outcomes in education and/or employment compared with 61.7% of all job seekers (year ending December 2011). These results are encouraging, relative to other equity groups. An alternative measure of performance is to look at the rate at which refugee job seekers achieve job placements and whether these placements turn into 13- or 26-week outcomes. Refugee job seekers are slightly less likely than all job seekers to be anchored in a placement. More encouragingly, refugee job seekers are just as, or more likely to, sustain these anchored placements over a 13or 26-week period. Job Services Australia assistance for refugees Refugees granted visas under Australia’s Humanitarian Program are eligible for the full range of employment services assistance, and income support, from the date of arrival in Australia (or from the date of permanent visa grant for onshore applicants). Job Services Australia (JSA) provides opportunities for training, skills development, work experience and tailored assistance relevant to job seekers’ individual circumstances. While all JSA providers are able to assist all job seekers, there are seven providers across 27 sites that focus on delivering services to CALD and refugee job seekers. Employment Pathway Plans for CALD and refugee job seekers can include assistance in language and literacy training, torture and trauma counselling, or other support (as needed by the job seeker). The level of assistance required to meet the needs of job seekers is determined through the Job Seeker Classification Instrument (JSCI) and/or the Employment Services Assessment (ESAt). Refugees fare relatively well in the area of employment. The recent DIAC Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals (SONA) survey of 8,500 humanitarian entrants and migrants aged 18 years or older resident in Australia for one to five years, showed positive results for English language classes. The SONA survey also showed a high percentage of humanitarian entrants have secondary, tertiary or trade qualifications. Humanitarian entrants are most likely to be unemployed. However, the proportion changes over time, with 19.1% employed after residing one or two years and 39.4% employed after four or five years residence.


Refugees on JSA caseload At 31 March 2012, refugee job seekers accounted for 4.5% of the total JSA caseload. On average, refugee job seekers face a greater level of disadvantage than non-refugee job seekers – most of the refugee job seekers (54%) were in Stream 3 and Stream 4 compared to 45% for all job seekers. Refugees are most prevalent in Stream 3 (almost a third of refugees are serviced in Stream 3, while job seekers as a whole are most prevalent in Stream 1). At 30 April 2012, there were 5,900 refugees on the Disability Employment Services (DES) caseload (4% of DES caseload). Between 1 March 2010 and 30 April 2012, there have been 2,800 Job Placements, 1,900 13-week Outcomes and almost 1,300 26-week Outcomes achieved for refugees. Job placement of refugees – occupations DEEWR’s Employment Services System and DIAC’s SONA Survey both record information on employment by occupation. Refugees and humanitarian entrants are mainly employed as labourers, community and personal service workers, machinery operators and drivers. This means they are placed into jobs that are not as reliant on strong English skills as other low-skill jobs such as sales or clerical workers. This does not mean that refugee job seekers may be more likely to be placed in low quality, less-skilled jobs. While some 70% of refugee job seekers are employed in these types of jobs, this is only slightly higher than the proportion of the total job seeker population employed in lower-skilled jobs, which is about 64%. Overall findings DEEWR analysis of JSA data shows certain barriers appear to affect refugees at a higher rate than they affect the total job seeker population. Barriers include lack of a support network, language and communication barriers, a limited employment history, possible torture or trauma suffered prior to arrival in Australia, cross-cultural issues, and a lack of formal education and job seeking skills. Employer attitudes and community support were also barriers identified during DEEWR’s recent engagement with the refugee community. DEEWR is committed to continuous improvement DEEWR is committed to improving employment assistance to refugee job seekers. DEEWR chairs the Interdepartmental Working Group (IWG) on Improving Education and Employment Outcomes for Refugees, which was established to improve cross-agency collaboration and integrated service delivery to achieve education and employment outcomes for refugees and vulnerable migrants.

Other members include the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Department of Human Services and the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. This group is currently considering issues such as the JSCI and characteristics of high- and low-performing service providers. Information gained by this group will be added to the findings of the Job Services Demonstration Pilots to inform the design and development of future contact and service delivery arrangements from 2015. Consultation with JSA providers on refugee servicing Consultations revealed innovative, local initiatives by providers working cooperatively to deliver better employment and education outcomes for refugee job seekers. The JSA providers consulted by DEEWR report refugee job seekers are generally keen to work

but often lack basic English skills. Managing refugee job seekers’ expectations can be challenging as they may overestimate their English ability in a workplace context and seek employment before they have used their full English language training entitlements under the Adult Migrant English Program. Consultation suggests there are opportunities for better linkages between English language and employment programs with the possibility to formalise servicing pathways to employment for refugees. There are also challenges in balancing the distinct delivery outcomes required of the employment, settlement and other language programs.


plenary SPEAKER MARGARET PIPER

Margaret Piper is a consultant with more than twenty-six years’ experience in the sector. She began her refugee work in 1986 at Austcare. From 1991 to 2005, she was the executive director of the Refugee Council of Australia (RCoA) where she was heavily involved in all RCoA activities, particularly research, policy and advocacy. Since leaving RCoA, Margaret has undertaken research for and provided advice to a wide range of government and non-government agencies and has been heavily involved in capacity building within the settlement sector. She also works part time in the Law Faculty at Sydney University where she coordinates a project on refugee children and youth. In 2001, she was made a Member of the Order of Australia for her work with refugees.

Building service capacity The human dimension There is little dispute that Australia leads the world in the delivery of settlement services to refugees and humanitarian entrants. A curious thing about this is that it came about in large part as a result of the work done on the development of service delivery models, while at the same time, comparatively little attention was paid to developing the competencies of the staff delivering the services. Broadly speaking, workers enter the sector via three very different routes: from the ‘mainstream’ community (usually with some form of degree or diploma in the social sciences), from the experience of having been a refugee or from having worked with refugees overseas. People within each of these groups have important skills and insights, but none have fully prepared them for working in the settlement sector. This work requires knowledge and skills distinct from and additional to that needed for work with other client groups and in other settings. The lack of focus on this area resulted in a situation in which there was no standardised training and, by extension: • no standardised recruitment criteria • no way to assess properly the experience of people who do not have formal qualifications, in particular that of former refugees who have, for instance, worked for UNHCR or NGOs while overseas • no standardised benchmarks for performance assessment or for assessing gaps in a worker’s knowledge • no framework for professional development, so each agency was required to come up with its own, thus resulting in much unnecessary duplication • no clear pathway for career progression within the sector • bicultural workers being left high and dry when their language skills are no longer required because they have not gained qualifications recognised more broadly.


This ad hoc approach does not fit well with the objectives of DIAC and other funding agencies. Nor is it consistent with the sector’s desire to deliver high-quality service to highly vulnerable people whose future settlement outcomes are dependent on workers’ aptitude and skills. Recognising the problems caused by the lack of clearly identified training pathways and inspired by some relevant work undertaken in Canada, a small group of settlement practitioners met to discuss whether a solution could be found to address this gap. They began by discussing the competencies required by people working with migrants, in particular with forced migrants, identifying (in consultation) that workers in the sector need a specific set of competencies unique to their work with refugees plus competencies generic to welfare-related work. Consideration was then given to how best to ensure that workers in the sector have access to training courses that cover these competencies. After exploring various options, it was concluded that the National Community Services Training Package within the National Training Framework (NTF) provided the best fit. The NTF training packages provide a consistent and reliable set of competencies for training skills assessment, enable nationally recognised qualifications to be awarded through direct assessment of workplace competencies, are highly flexible and transferable to related disciplines, and encourage learning and assessment in a workrelated environment. The core group then joined forces with others with sectoral expertise1 to successfully lobby for the inclusion of two new units in the NTF: Working with Refugees (CHCSW401A: Work Effectively with Forced Migrants), and Bicultural Work with Refugees (CHCSW402B: Undertake Bicultural Work with Forced Migrants in Australia). The first unit gives a general overview for anyone whose work brings them into contact with refugees or other forced migrants, be they settlement

workers, teachers, employment officers, nurses or workers in any one of many other fields. The second unit is explicitly intended for people from a refugee background who are working with, or want to work with, refugees. Refugees are usually recruited for their linguistic and cultural skills, but they are often unfamiliar with Australian workplace culture and laws and are ill equipped for the multiple complexities associated with being a bicultural worker.

• whether a specific qualification for those working in the settlement sector should be included within the NTF, thereby recognising the settlement work as a profession

Mindful of the specialised nature of this work, the team then joined forces to produce training materials to support the new units. These are available free of charge to Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and agencies wanting to enhance the skills of their staff from the AMES and Navitas websites.2 The package for each unit contains a comprehensive Trainer’s Guide, a PowerPoint presentation to support the training activities and a Participant’s Handbook. In addition, RTOs are able to request an Assessment Manual that includes fully developed assessment tasks, a validated assessment matrix and a marking guide. These materials provide RTOs with all they need in order to be able offer the course.

• what obligations the sector (and by extension, the funding agencies) have to ensure that bicultural workers receive training and obtain qualifications.

The sector has thus moved from a place where there was no standardised training to one where those seeking to enter the profession can include relevant units while studying at TAFE or university, and those already working can upgrade their qualifications by obtaining a Certificate of Attainment for the relevant unit(s), a process that involves some additional study and/or through recognition of prior learning.

• what core qualifications should those working in the sector be required to have • how existing workers can best be supported to enhance (and update) their competencies

In reflecting on these questions, it is relevant to note that standardised training has the potential to enhance: • accountability – by enabling government agencies and those delivering services on their behalf to demonstrate that they were delivering quality settlement services • comparability – by assisting all stakeholders to compare settlement services across the country • protection of settlement clients – by ensuring clients receive the same standard of settlement services, regardless of where they have settled.

There is, however, still more to be done. Work has just commenced on developing training materials specifically tailored for those working with young people from refugee backgrounds. Like the existing units, this will fit within the NTF. Arguably, there is scope for further units of competency to be added as well. And there are bigger questions that remain unanswered, not least:

1 The core team was made up of representatives from AMES Victoria, ACL/ Navitas English, the Multicultural Development Association and Margaret Piper and Associates, supported by DIAC, SCOA, FASSTT and the Riverina Division of General Practice. 2 AMES Victoria www.ames.net.au/bookshop; ACL/Navitas English navitasenglish.com.au.


plenary SPEAKER MICHAEL MARTINEZ

Michael Martinez is the chief executive officer of Diversitat, a regional service representing forty-two ethnic communities in the Greater Geelong Region and which employs more than 150 staff and 600 volunteers across seven sites. For thirty-four years, Diversitat has advocated and delivered services to migrant communities, including to refugees. Diversitat manages a broad range of programs: refugee settlement (including IHSS, SGP and AMEP) and an extensive range of additional programs, such as employment services, education and training, community enterprises, aged care programs, youth programs, and more. Michael has worked in the community sector since 1985 and has been with Diversitat since 1994.

Employment participation Compassion, peace, work and understanding Diversitat – Our vision, mission and values

Settlement services, AMEP, Job Services and training – outcomes • 90% of learners engaged in paid employment

• Vision: To empower individuals and communities to reach their full potential.

• 41% secured lasting employment

• Mission: Building on our proud heritage of migrant services, Diversitat aspires to provide an innovative and high-quality response to the changing needs of a culturally diverse community.

• 100% learner educational retention and further study

• Values: Dignity, respect and acceptance are basic values defining our humanity and must be afforded to every individual in our society. We value an ecologically sustainable environment, and promote and celebrate harmony, cultural diversity, peace and social justice in our society. Our current programs • Adult Migrant English Program • Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy • Settlement Grants Program • Individual case management • Youth programs for those disengaged from the mainstream school environments • Management of a multicultural community radio station, 94.7 The Pulse • A Registered Training Organisation with a broad scope • Driver education for new arrivals • Recreational and sporting programs • Multimedia education • Social enterprise development • Aged care provision • Job Services Placement and Support • Multicultural arts and events • Material aid • Housing support • Financial counselling


• establishment of a wide range of business partnerships • participation in higher English certificate • a gender balance for all those participating in program areas • increased confidence of CALD communities and stronger community links through Diversitat networks • a changing mindset of the learners, teachers and community • clients from a multitude of cultures that results in bonding • offering of alternate education in conjunction with AMEP English study and training as an RTO • assistance with job placement though CALD and youthspecific programs • involvement in Diversitat’s social enterprise transitional employment model Inclusiveness and employment generation The key elements: • social inclusion and acknowledgement of all stakeholders input • continued commitment to the negotiation at all government levels • researching and defining community needs, including affordable housing and material aid • reflection on emerging government policy and appropriate responses • social enterprise development as a transitional model for sustainable employment • inclusion and connectedness between all of the organisation’s programs and services that intrinsically includes Job Services provision and support • a connectedness with other community providers to enhance the organisation’s knowledge base, so as to provide additional outcomes for clients beyond any government funding • being responsive to the housing needs of individuals and new arrivals through its subsidiary Diversitat Housing Inc., transitional accommodation and owned or managed properties by Diversitat

Diversitat’s social enterprise The following embraces all of the organisation’s program areas and services. Diversitat’s social enterprise is built upon the recognition of client needs, community needs and a paid transitional employment model. It is about the development of a work ethic and communicating with the broader community and, at the forefront, inclusiveness – not only internally but also externally. Diversitat’s social enterprise includes contract works for local councils, Wholefoods as a cafe enterprise, private works, event management, sound production and radio broadcasting, to name a few. Diversitat’s Social Enterprise Model:

• holding feelings in check inclusive of Diversitat policy if that might interfere with expectations of what stakeholders want, such as a social outcome and community benefit • an ability to gain the most out of the social enterprise for a positive outcome for all stakeholders • motivate and empower the individual participant within the enterprise to achieve personal and professional goals and aspirations • progression to external employment and self sustainability for individual participants within the enterprise

• the ability to accept things of which the organisation holds within its charter where it suits the individual’s purpose and needs as so community

• putting back into the community for community benefit and providing a real work experience for all that participate

• changing the way we act to satisfy a person with whom we are working with in a social enterprise context

• primarily, adherence to our vision, mission and values.

• value adding to government funding


plenary SPEAKER ALISON SINCLAIR Alison Sinclair is the state manager for Quality Management Services for South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. She has extensive experience in quality improvement, training, organisational and standards development, assessment and review. Alison has held senior positions in health and community services, developing their quality systems and preparing them for accreditation. She has also worked in government departments in policy and quality improvement (SA Health Commission and the Department of Human Services) and as an independent consultant in organisational review and development. She is a trainer and assessor for the Quality Improvement Council and the Australian Service Excellence Standards. Over the course of the last eleven years, Alison has worked closely with the Office for the Ageing in the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion SA, conducting training and managing the Home and Community Care service appraisals for South Australia. Alison’s professional qualifications include a bachelors degree in arts (social work) from the University of South Australia and a graduate diploma in primary health care from Flinders University, along with health leadership and management courses.

Building service capacity Choosing accreditation to build organisational capacity My interest in standards and quality improvement began with my work in community health in the 1980s and the development of the then Community Health Accreditation and Standards Program (CHASP). This was a sector-led initiative, embedding the values and principles of that sector in the standards and accreditation program, focusing on making services better for clients and organisations effective and living the values the sector had espoused. I believe sector choice, values and ownership are still critical to the success of any accreditation program. I don’t believe in reinventing the wheel. That is why I am very excited about speaking here today and giving you a thumbnail sketch of my career observations about accreditation and how it can build capacity in a sector. Standards are basically the scaffolding for building your organisation. In any organisational accreditation framework, there are two broad types of standards: governance standards that are all about your organisational infrastructure and making sure you have systems in place to operate legally and with minimal risk. They are the scaffolding for a strong organisation. The other types of standards are those related to service delivery, with systems for supporting safe, respectful, accessible and appropriate services. How this all fits together varies, depending on the framework you choose. QMS works across a range of accreditation frameworks, giving clients a choice of frameworks to fit their size and maturity in terms of quality systems. I will talk about why choice is an important part of the equation later. On the topic of not reinventing the wheel, QMS helps organisations who might want organisational accreditation, as well as needing to manage compliance with other funder required standards; we do this via the QMS Quality Portal. This helps organisations manage both organisational and service delivery accreditation, through online selfassessment, work plans automatically generated, policy and other templates available online. This all helps with your organisational scaffolding, as well as enabling you to simultaneously monitor your compliance with a wide range of funder driven service delivery standards, achieving an integrated quality system.


I know that there are very passionate and committed people working in community services. I also know there is often a reluctance to engage with accreditation in many areas because they are working with high client demand, they are resource poor and concerned that it will take away from needed services without adding value. Standards and accreditation are about keeping your eye on the longer-term strategy for your organisation, planning for a sustainable and stable organisation, one your clients and community can rely on rather than a house of cards. It is just as important to meet the needs of the people who will be knocking on your door next week and next year as it is to respond to the immediate need of the people that are knocking on your door today. QMS works exclusively with health and community services of every shape and size and service type. Too often, we see really good people driving themselves into the ground and wasting a lot of effort by not having good systems to support them and their staff. We have accredited organisations with 0.6 FTE and a team of dedicated volunteers, and accredited organisations with a thousand-plus staff. The commonality is that you need systems to support you, even if you are very small; it is a big risk and cost to keep everything in your head or rely on key people to know it all. This is particularly the case for very small organisations. What happens if they leave? Will you have to start again and at what cost? Standards are designed to help set up your organisation to run well and serve your clients, even when key people leave or are absent.

Why do it? For your clients

Reliable, safe, effective client services

For your staff

They know what is expected of them

For your funders Risk is managed, you are efficient, effective and legal For your board

The board need to be sure your systems support staff, meet funder requirements and you’re providing services client’s expect and need

It’s about good governance and accountability to all these stakeholders. QMS has spent many years supporting small community organisations down this path, trying to make it simple and successfully building capacity and sustainability. In my experience the six key lessons for success are: 1. Give people choice 2. Don’t over complicate it 3. Own the process 4. Ensure synergy between your accreditation framework and your values 5. Don’t reinvent the wheel but do make sure it fits your car! 6. Get people involved and make it a shared journey 1. Choose a framework that fits for you This has to do with where your organisation is at, the skills and expertise of your staff, the size of your organisation, your accreditation readiness, the resources you have to drive the process, etc. But, fundamentally, if you choose it, you believe in it more and you will use it to its best advantage for your organisation. 2. Don’t over complicate it You don’t have to start with the Taj Mahal. Your starting point can be a simple shack; it will still keep you warm, dry and safe. You can build on, if you wish, and when you are able. Anxiety around standards and their interpretation often leads people to over complicate what is needed.

3. Own the process This is very important. Set your own goals for accreditation and use it for organisational development. Whatever accreditation or standards framework you choose, make sure you use them to make your organisation stronger. Don’t ask what you have to do for the standards; always ask what will the standards do for you and your organisation. 4. Values-based leadership The choice of accreditation framework and provider should be driven by a good values match between your organisation and the standards. They can assist the leader(s) to imbed the values of your organisation in your systems and processes. These values are often the reason people choose to work in your organisation in the first place. Accreditation can be used to build an organisation that you believe in. 5. Don’t reinvent the wheel Support is available; you don’t have to do it all on your own and you don’t have to start from scratch. Don’t duplicate quality frameworks if you can possibly help it. Start with a generic organisational quality framework and just tweak it with the specific unique aspects of your service type; don’t start again. Use the interpretive guides, (another way in which generic standards can be tailored to a sector is to develop a specific interpretive guide, eg. for settlement services; it has already been done with Aboriginal services, using QIC). Other things you can do include asking people who have done it, accessing templates via the QMS Quality Portal and/or talking to your accreditation provider for clarification. 6. Share the journey Get as many people on board as possible, ensure it is led from the top and support staff to participate. Recruit some quality champions internally and celebrate your achievements along the way. In short, standards and accreditation can help you to build a strong organisation, building your organisational capacity to meet the needs of your clients, ensuring you become and remain a sustainable organisation for your clients into the future and that you are providing effective and relevant services. Thank you and good luck with building your organisational capacity.


plenary SPEAKER ALAN TIDSWELL Alan is the managing director and chief executive officer of the Mining, Energy and Engineering Academy (MEEA), a not-for-profit organisation sponsored by the mining, energy and heavy engineering industries. MEEA works with a range of key stakeholders, including all levels of government, skills councils, and the higher education, vocational education and schools sectors to attract and develop the current and future workforce needs of the mining, energy and engineering sectors. Prior to this role, commencing 2006, Alan was the general manager of human resources with OneSteel and was responsible for the highly successful Goal 100 and Get Set employment programs in the Upper Spencer Gulf. Previously, he was manager of human resources with International Timber Company – Carter Holt Harvey, Mount Gambier. Alan is a board member of Northern Futures and the Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia. Alan lived in regional South Australia for twenty-two years. He holds a bachelors degree in business (human resource management).

Employment participation My organisation currently works with many large corporate organisations preparing unemployed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for employment and placing them into sustainable employment. There is today a significant commitment by corporations and businesses to employ Aboriginal people. We have guaranteed jobs for these people. There are significant monies available to support this process and to support businesses who want to employ Aboriginal people. We have mentoring for two years to ensure sustainable employment. We expect to place over 500 unemployed Aboriginal people into employment this year. There are also now opportunities to place Aboriginal students from Years 11 and 12 into school-based apprenticeships and traineeships through a new federal government initiative. This process is aimed at getting them into jobs leading to sustainable employment rather than having them drop out of school and into the unemployed queue. These models are best practice. We have guaranteed jobs across a range of sectors, we have committed employers, we train people to get into those jobs, and we mentor them to ensure that their employment is sustainable. Importantly, the participants can choose which jobs they like, whether they are in mining, construction, banking, retail or other. These initiatives and practices are all in place because there is high unemployment amongst this group of Australians, they struggle to gain employment on their own, they struggle to utilise the online recruitment processes many companies use these days, and they are discriminated against due to the colour of their skin and perceived biases. Sound familiar? So, what about our new arrivals? I know the situation, but I thought that I would just check and read a report produced by the Centre for Social and Community Research, Murdoch University, in January 2007. This report found … and I am sure that none of this will be new to you:

• ‘everyday’ street racism does not affect levels of life satisfaction as much as perceived discrimination in the labour market. So, this was in 2007, and since then we have had a high influx of new arrivals, so the situation has not improved. However, despite this, there are no special incentives for employers to employ new arrivals. There are no guaranteed jobs out there for new arrivals. There are no specific employment schemes for new arrivals. The reality is there are jobs out there. Australia is already facing a skills shortage. I know companies who are bringing skilled labour from overseas. The skills shortage is going to get a lot worse as the mining boom grows and we see things like the expansion of BHP’s Olympic Dam Mine at Roxby Downs commence, when multitudes of new mines commence operation. Jobs will be out there because other sectors in the community will lose employees to the mining companies and their contractors opening up an array of opportunities for employment in different fields. So the challenge is – how do we change this? Or, how do we get this skills shortage and mining boom to work to your advantage? Food for thought – why not: • lobby the government to provide incentives to businesses towards the employment of new arrivals and to create a ‘new arrivals employment panel’ • promote companies to adopt a ‘new arrivals employment strategy’ • develop relationships with a number of large companies to trial a direct employment pathway involving some pre-employment and work readiness training and, importantly, the guarantee of jobs • research and identify where the skills shortages are today, and the future skill shortage projections, and focus training and skill development in that direction • investigate and understand the type of skills companies are bringing in from overseas

• massive loss of occupational status among skilled refugees

• lobby the large mining companies who are expanding to get them to consider new arrivals and provide opportunities for up-skilling now, rather than importing those skills

• persistence of a segmented labour market, where racially and culturally visible migrants and refugees in particular, despite their skills levels, are allocated unattractive jobs

• encourage the youth to remain in school to complete their secondary studies and take up university studies to facilitate movement into careers of their choosing

• loss of human capital benefits to Australia and a waste of skills currently in short supply; for example, among respondents, doctors and engineers reported driving taxis, and teachers cleaning offices

• develop a specific trial around a unique employment opportunity, e.g. trade skills or?

• high levels of unemployment among skilled refugees

• refugees face structural disadvantage in the labour market (e.g. non-recognition or part recognition of qualifications, lack of accessible referees) • discrimination on the basis of race, religion and ethnic origin plays a role in creating unsatisfactory employment outcomes. Employers discriminate on the basis of ‘soft skills’, such as Australian cultural knowledge | 58 | Creating our Future REPORT

Everyone needs to think outside the square; nothing will change unless we make it happen and drive it. A clear employment strategy needs to be developed and publicity (marketing) needs to occur. There are many people here today and I am sure that in the discussions you will be having shortly there will be a range of ideas raised and opportunities identified that could help to build an employment strategy for new arrivals. Thank you, and all the best for the discussions and the remainder of the conference.

plenary SPEAKER SKY DE JERSEY

Sky is the executive officer of the Settlement Council of Australia (SCoA). Sky spent five years working with recently arrived refugees for the St Vincent de Paul Society, initially managing direct settlement services and later coordinating all migrant and refugee activities in New South Wales. This role included membership on the Refugee Council Board, a position Sky retained when she changed sectors to work in international development and intellectual disability. Spending nine years as a teenager in Africa shaped Sky’s engagement with the world and led her to study anthropology and philosophy, which culminated with a masters degree in applied anthropology and development studies from Macquarie University.

Building service capacity National Settlement Service Standards - July 2012 Background and history National settlement service standards were discussed as part of the Settlement Council of Australia’s (SCoA) consultations with the settlement sector across the country during 2011. Service standards can be a great source of strength to an organisation or sector, supporting the growth and development of agencies as they become more professional. SCoA is conscious of the need to ensure standards for the sector are flexible and not burdensome given the diverse range of providers in the settlement sector. Within the examination of settlement service standards issues of language, semantics and definitions become important. Discussion has highlighted the need to be clear in conversation about settlement standards to define terms carefully. In addition, it is important to ensure settlement standards do not marginalise the settlement sector. Implicit in any discussion on settlement service standards is an understanding of what settlement is, including what successful settlement looks like, and the timeline for successful settlement. It has been very important to SCoA to make sure the sector is consulted and included in discussions and decisions in this area. A mandatory framework imposed without consultation will not be in the best interests of the sector. SCoA formed a working group to have input on the discussion paper presented at the SCoA National Conference, which included a range of large and small, metropolitan and regional agencies, experts and representatives from DIAC. There are a wide range of standards already in operation in Australia, some of which cover specific sectors and others that are focused more generally on good governance and rigorous management. Many of SCoA’s members are already accredited under one or more of these frameworks. Settlement standards – inclusions In looking into the specifics of settlement standards, the conversation can be framed in a few ways; standards can focus on governance, management and service delivery. Standards can be oriented towards process and practice, or oriented towards principles (such as rights based frameworks). In Australia, discussion on inclusions for any proposed settlement service standards have identified the following areas as important.

Contextual issues: • cultural competency or cultural capability • guidelines and support for bicultural workers and any variations in respect to regional and metropolitan differences • community development • advocacy Service delivery and practice issues: • settlement service delivery • use of interpreters (as a separate standard, but conceptually closely aligned to cultural competency) • regional and youth settlement • case management, including intake, referrals and relationships to mainstream agencies • documentation Cultural competency This is an area of strength for the settlement sector. It is also an area in which we can promote best practice to other mainstream sectors and government. Bicultural workers Bicultural workers are an important part of the settlement workforce, and the settlement sector benefits enormously from bicultural workers’ linguistic and cultural skills. Further, it must be acknowledged that work in the settlement sector is often a stepping-stone to further employment opportunities for migrants and refugees. The need for appropriate support and training for bicultural workers, not necessarily in terms of cultural competency but in terms of more generic practice is clear. The sector also needs to support bicultural workers with the issues they face in terms of working and living in the same community. Standards in this area will likely relate closely to best practice in human resource management, with additional supports and recommended training for bicultural workers. Community development Community development is an important part of settlement work, and has some unique elements that relate to new and emerging communities, which need to be included in settlement service standards. As with case management, this is an area where different models and underlying principles are in operation.


SKY DE JERSEY CONTINUED Client advocacy There are different types of advocacy – on behalf of a client, policy/ systemic advocacy and supporting community members to become effective advocates. Any standards need to address advocacy in its own right and in relation to cultural diversity, social inclusion and settlement. Advocacy needs to be underpinned by a ‘do no harm’ philosophy. An issue that any standards development in this area needs to address is the potential consequences of advocacy, particularly in relation to media engagement, which can backfire. Settlement service delivery Settlement services are delivered by settlement service providers (eg those funded by the government for direct settlement support) and other agencies (eg schools, housing providers, health providers, etc). There is a need to understand the complementary relationship between all of these organisations. These relationships are likely to have an impact on proposed standards. All these agencies are involved in the bigger picture, which is settlement. Each service delivery provider needs to have clear objectives on what they are trying to achieve beyond the outputs they are delivering. The various types of settlement services delivered by settlement and other agencies impact on a migrant’s overall settlement journey; it is therefore important that the standards for each service clearly align. On the ground, there is a need to get people to work together and have services that are complementary. Service providers should not be duplicating services. If a service is not meeting the needs of clients then the gap should be investigated, rather than a ‘band aid’ service being provided. At the core of this, there is a need to define what is meant by a settlement service in order for there to be settlement standards. This may not be an area of a specific standard, but does relate to the overall standards discussion. Use of interpreters It is acknowledged that it is good practice to use interpreters, and the settlement sector needs a way of demonstrating best practice in how it uses interpreters and of highlighting the positive impacts of this practice to encourage mainstream services to do the same. This is an area of strength for the sector, and an area where the settlement sector can lead best practice across the full spectrum of agencies, through clear articulation of the practice and principles involved when successfully using interpreters. While using interpreters is part of demonstrating cultural competency, it was felt it is important to include it as an element on its own. Regional and youth settlement Regional settlement and youth settlement are areas that could either be incorporated as a consideration into each area as a cross cutting issue, or addressed as specific stand-alone factors. Settlement in regional areas is happening through planned placement and unplanned relocation, with particular emphasis on accessing employment. Youth settlement is now addressed much more specifically through the inclusion of youth plans in the current Humanitarian Settlement Service contracts (the governmentfunded program service supporting refugee settlement in Australia), but it must be acknowledged that this is not the only area where consideration of the particular needs of young people from refugee backgrounds is important.

Case management, and intake and referrals to mainstream agencies Case management, intake processes and referral pathways are important aspects of many areas of settlement work. Analysis of existing standards relating to case management is needed to assess them against settlement best practice in this area. It is also important that the discussion include theory, not just procedure. Definitions of case management can vary and this may be an area that requires discussion and clarification before standards can be agreed. Discussion of case management quickly turns to discussion of terms such as ‘client centred’, ‘strengths-based’, ‘welfare/social work model’ and the underlying assumptions of language choices. Standards can be written with a technical or philosophical/rights based orientation and this is an area that will benefit from in-depth discussion in the settlement sector. In addition, service provision is governed by a range of contracts and grants, which can include standards relating to the specifics of the contract or program. Documentation The sector is operationally efficient in terms of management; however, there is little standardisation in areas such as job descriptions. Further, the sector is good at dealing with the changing demographics of clients, but there is no documentation or framework to show this or how it is done. Documentation on program evaluation and measuring outcomes could also be strengthened. Recommendation - hybrid model SCoA is recommending the settlement sector identify a range of commonly used comprehensive standards, which could serve as industry foundations, and adds to this a set of settlement-specific service standards that address key activity areas. Advantages The settlement sector could focus development effort on the areas of greatest expertise. Agencies would not need to do a full accreditation process, but rather utilise their existing accreditations, with the addition of a settlement subset. It is likely that this process will be administratively simpler and cheaper to develop and implement. Disadvantages Choosing existing mainstream accreditation frameworks may increase the complexity of the process, adding subsets of standards to a range of other standards that organisations are complying with. Settlement agencies will only get a ‘settlement-sector tick’ rather than a full ‘organisational tick’ accreditation. Recommendations for implementation and issues to consider The recommendation from the working group is to adopt the hybrid model, and to utilise expertise in the standards sector to assist the settlement sector in developing appropriate standards. In considering implementation issues, there is a wide range of issues to consider, including: • nomination of ‘accepted’ external accreditation frameworks • pathways for accreditation – including self-assessment and external assessment and verification • how much of the process can (or should be) online • sector capacity to undertake the process – what training and additional resources are needed to support the sector undertake accreditation • what agency undertakes the accreditation and how are they funded and resourced?


Key definitions As mentioned above, language and definitions are an important part of standards. The following is put forward as suggested definitions for key terms, but it by no means represents a final or agreed set of definitions for the sector. Also relevant in thinking about definitions are definitions used by the Department of Immigration And Citizenship (DIAC) in settlement contracts and in publicity by DIAC on settlement (such as the recent booklet on Women at Risk and the forthcoming booklet on Settlement Journeys). Settlement ‘is the period of orientation and acquisition of information, knowledge and skills required to allow a migrant or refugee to participate independently in daily life, as they become established in their new society’. Those being settled need somewhere to live, money, information and orientation to their new country. It is generally recognised that the settlement experience will vary for each individual depending on a range of factors. For some people the period until they become able to operate independently may be relatively short (under 12 months); for others it may last a number of years. (SCoA Strategic Plan 2011–14) (www.immi.gov.au/living-inaustralia/delivering-assistance/government-programs/settlementpolicy/what-is.htm accessed 30th May 2012)

Successful settlement can be defined as reduction in post-migration living difficulties, evidence of social and economic engagement, and average or above self-reported quality of life (QOL). Settlement timeline is often referred to as (and funded for) the first five years after initial arrival, but can be a shorter or longer time period, with significant variations dependent on personal circumstances. Cultural competence refers to an ability to interact effectively with people of different cultures, particularly in the context of human resources, non-profit organisations, and government agencies whose employees work with persons from different cultural/ ethnic backgrounds. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_ competence accessed 30th May 2012). Next steps? Following the SCoA National Conference, the discussion paper will be released to the sector more broadly. SCoA will review responses to the range of discussion questions, using feedback to inform further development of a standards and accreditation model, with a suggested timeframe for a pilot/testing phase, and clear windows of consultation and engagement with the settlement sector.


plenary SPEAKER FARIDA FOZDAR Farida is a professor in anthropology and sociology at the University of Western Australia (UWA). After holding a position at Murdoch University for eight years, Farida took up an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship at UWA in 2011 to explore national, transnational and post-national identities. Her research focuses on race relations and migration settlement issues and includes issues to do with refugees and asylum seekers. Her portfolio of research includes developing a cultural-awareness tool for health professionals, developing a package on career and training options for new migrants and refugees, evaluating migrant settlement programs, and researching issues of social cohesion and citizenship. Farida has published widely, including three books, seven book chapters and more than thirty journal articles.

Building service capacity Settlement and service provisions: support and employment The National compact: working together is an aspirational agreement between government and the not-for-profit sector, to improve engagement with each other to build mutual trust, respect and collaboration. There are 817 partners out of a possible 600,000 not-for-profit organisations. Its goals include protection of not-forprofits’ right to advocacy; recognition of the value of the sector’s diversity; improvement of information sharing, including greater access to research; reduction of red tape; simplification of financial and reporting requirements; and improvements to paid and unpaid workforce issues. Among fundamental challenges, however, are the competitive funding structures that privilege large mainstream organisations (with economies of scale), atomise organisations by putting them in competition with each other, mitigate against building institutional knowledge and experience, waste resources, produce high levels of stress and uncertainty, and require overly bureaucratised processes that, ironically, result both in one-size-fits all and in highly specialised service provision that excludes some groups in need. This structure also means that organisations often undertake informal and unpaid service provision in order to maintain services to clients they feel would otherwise fall through the cracks. In this brief paper, I wish to identify two areas that recent research indicates could be improved. In partnership with the Metropolitan Migrant Resource Centre, Western Australia, Dr Lisa Hartley and I have just completed a Lotterywestfunded project seeking to identify differences in key settlement issues for refugees early in the settlement process, compared with two to four years after arrival. Seventy-six participants from a range of ethnic and religious backgrounds participated in interviews and a subsample undertook a photovoice project; service providers also participated in focus groups. Settlement issues reflected earlier research, although health appears to be less important, and housing and belonging (particularly the lack of mainstream friends, and importance of religious networks) more important than previous research suggests. Lack of coordination and funding approaches were key concerns of service providers. Here I will report briefly on two findings: the importance of service providers in humanitarian entrants’ support networks, and the dissatisfaction with current employment assistance service provision.


Support networks Writing about settlement of refugees, Ager and Strang (2008: 166–191) identify four domains that act as both markers of integration and the means of achieving it: employment, housing, education and health. Social connections, in the form of bridges, bonds and links, which are facilitated by language, cultural knowledge, safety and stability, are another important dimension. Finally, they argue, the foundation of integration is built upon rights and citizenship. Our research demonstrated that while there remain issues with the four domains, social connections and access to rights are vitally important, and that these are often provided through service providers. When asked about the extent to which they felt they belong here, humanitarian entrants talked about their aspirations to belong at some point in the future, once they had enough English or understanding of the culture to be able to engage with mainstream Australians. The longer people were here, the less confident many felt about the achievement of these goals. Another key theme was a sense that belonging had more to do with rights to the same services as other Australians, rather than an emotional connection. The notfor-profit sector was a key to both things. Participants drew network maps of concentric circles identifying people or organisations that had assisted in their settlement. Service providers were vital providers of support, in their official capacity and unofficially, even four years after settlement. The main areas of support identified from the data were as follows: financial support (mainly from Centrelink); health services (Medicare, both physical and mental); education (AMEP); housing (Centrelink and Homes West, various community housing options, private rentals with some financial assistance, shared accommodation with relatives or sponsors); employment (a small number of participants commented on receiving employment services/advice); emotional and social support (predominantly family and friends, and less often, community leaders, but also service providers).

Table 1. Closeness and types of support identified by humanitarian entrants Support

Govt

NGOs

Sponsors

Family

Friends

Relig org/ leaders

Community leaders

Very close

29 (38%)

31 (41%)

11 (14.5%)

37 (49%)

26 (34%)

15 (20%)

4 (5%)

Close

35 (46%)

30 (39%)

-

6 (8%)

23 (30%)

12 (16%)

10 (13%)

Not close

5 (6.5%)

14 (18%)

8 (10.5%)

3 (4%)

24 (31%)

11 (14%)

3 (4%)

For many, a sense of connection is based on links with service providers, which come to be seen in personal and informal ways rather than as formal service provision. Additionally, access to services is a strong part of humanitarian entrants’ sense of belonging in Australia, and formed the basis of a ‘civic identity’ for many. Employment assistance service provision The research confirmed that employment remains of vital importance, regardless of how long humanitarian entrants have been in Australia. The current Job Services Australia model is seen both by humanitarian entrants and by service providers as seriously failing this section of the community. This was evident both in interviews and in the photovoice exercise, and I will share some of these photos at the presentation. The excellent recent report by the Refugee Council of Australia that reviews current service provision identifies key factors that need to be addressed. A model based on the defunct Employment Directions Network model, based at migrant resource centres rather than at mainstream providers, would be preferable. This model provided career advisors and case management; facilitated linkages between schools, organisations, industry, government; offered training programs and workshops to schools and the local community; helped develop skills needed to gain employment or to have existing skills and competencies recognised; provided information and resources relating to career and employability and supported referrals to others who could help; provided work experience insurance cover; and offered facilities (e.g. computer, free internet access (for career guidance and job search purposes). Service providers also offer valuable social capital to connect people to job opportunities, often informally. This is vitally important to avoid concentration in low-paid, dangerous, low-status, niche markets. The Integrated Services Centres (ISCs) were also seen as useful. These are one-stop-shops, located at schools, run originally in partnership between the state government’s Department of Health, Department of Education and the Office of Multicultural Interests. The state Department for Child Protection, DIAC and Centrelink were also key stakeholders. ISCs included community health nurses employed by the Child and Adolescent Community Health section of the Department of Health; mental-health senior social workers employed by the Infant, Child, Adolescent and Youth Mental Health Services of the Department of Health; and multicultural community liaison workers and administration assistants employed by the nongovernment organisation responsible.

Below is a composite of photographs and quotes that indicate participants’ dissatisfaction. “They just advise, they don’t help me get a job, they are just meetings without meaning, nothing more.” “I am looking for a job, I go there every month I don’t like the job network. They are not organised, they forget my appointment and they are always telling us to go somewhere else. I want to teach chemistry but you need good language. My language is not very good.”

The research found there are few differences between those who have been in Australia longer compared with those who have been here only a year or two. The main differences have to do with language ability, confidence in negotiating the system and, for some, levels of disillusionment about what is possible in terms of employment and connection with mainstream Australians. While humanitarian participants did not articulate differences in access to services through the HSS and Settlement Grants Program (SGP), service providers noted that SGP often falls short due to its inability to offer intensive casework support. One implication may be that services are not developing independence and self-reliance after the initial period of intensive support. Another reading is that the intensive support may be required for a longer period for many humanitarian entrants.


plenary SPEAKER DR TAHEREH ZIAIAN Dr Tahereh Ziaian is a community health psychologist and a senior lecturer and course coordinator with the School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia. She is also a member of the Sansom Institute for Health Research at the University of South Australia. She has been engaged in transcultural psychology and public health research for more than twenty-four years and has made substantial contributions to the public discourse on the mental health of migrants and refugees in Australia and internationally. She is active in national and international research collaboration, including leading the largest study of its kind undertaken in Australia on the mental health of refugee children and adolescents. She serves on the Health Performance Council, advising the Minister for Health on the effectiveness of the health system and health outcomes for South Australians and specific population groups.

Building service capacity Building cross-sector capacity through research – reflections from the field I speak today from my own perspective as a migrant, a community health psychologist, an educator, and a researcher who has special interest in improving the health and wellbeing of non-dominant groups. However, my experience and my research background is related to migrants’ and refugees’ mental health and related issues, specifically women, children and adolescents. My presentation today is focusing on adolescents’ settlement and their health related issues. Adolescents are a less understood group and one with pressing needs for improved support. Adolescents currently arriving in Australia are confronted by social and cultural conditions and a system that are significantly different from their past experiences. They mainly originate from collectivist societies where family and the community are paramount to one’s wellbeing and identity. Some of the mentalhealth risk factors that adolescents face as a result of migration and acculturation include: limited English language skills; difficulty understanding and negotiating Western culture and systems; premigration experiences of trauma; loss of familiar sources of support, including family, friends and ethnic community networks; identity conflict; intergenerational conflict; school adjustment problems; limited peer support networks; and low social participation. Despite all these experiences, most adolescents appear to have enormous sense of optimism and determination to succeed in life in their new home. However, they face significant challenges to achieving social inclusion. What can we do to improve collaboration between settlement services and community for the best outcome for youth? We should never doubt that our work is as essential as ever in developing in our young people an understanding of the importance of active participation and building social harmony. Adolescent years, in particular, are times of identity formation with identity resolution as a positive outcome, or ongoing identity diffusion, which will result in a negative outcome. For young refugees or migrants, an extraordinary task will be the integration of an identity that is harmonious within the self, one’s family and cultural belonging, and also fitting within the new host society. To assist in this process, how can family, society and health educators help youth to integrate their social, personality and relationship development into a secure sense of self? Being assisted for shaping their approaches to adulthood and set their new life priorities, and create a better future for themselves, their communities and the society they live in is the major task of the settlement services to help them to achieve their goals and aspiration in life and create a happy and fulfilled life.


The focus in Australia is an appreciation for cultural diversity. The goal of achieving sameness and uniformity is not only unachievable, but it is also undesirable. What then should settlement services and the minority communities do to give these differences a positive meaning to avoid negativity? How can we carry forward our values by action, and not merely words, and move towards a cohesive community? What strategies should we take to improve our intercultural relations for a better and cohesive outcome for all? How can we value diversity and at the same time increase awareness and benefits of similarities? How can in-group and out-group relationships be improved towards completion tasks rather than competition tasks? How can we create win–win situations and talk more about ‘we’ and less about ‘us’ and ‘them’? Responding to these questions is a big task. I believe, the ethno-specific agencies dealing with newly arrived adolescents’ settlement issues need to provide programs and activities that offer psychosocial support, promote social networking beyond their own communities, provide relevant work experiences, enhance skills and the specific language acquisition in regards to their employment-focused areas. The settlement agencies must support and provide opportunities for these young people to achieve their educational aspiration and goals. Of importance, despite the frequency of traumatic or stressful events experienced by refugee adolescents prior to migration and following resettlement issues, the majority do not experience mental-health problems, emphasising the critical nature of resilience. Resilience is enhanced by certain personal attributes and skills, such as positive self-esteem, personal problem-solving skills and strategies, and confidence in one’s own ability to adapt to change and adversity. Resilience is a multidimensional construct including personal characteristics and skills (eg active problem solving) as well as external protective factors such as a supportive family and social environment1. Our recently completed ARC research project in collaboration with MRC (‘Refugee children and adolescents in Australia: Issues of mental health and wellbeing and equity access to mental-health services’) found lower than expected prevalence rates for psychiatric disorders affecting refugee children and adolescents living in South Australia despite high exposure to mental-health risk factors1-5. However, of interest, resilience scores were also low, suggesting that while many children and adolescents appear to be free from psychiatric disorders, they may be adversely affected by future difficulties3. Another important finding was that adolescents, who indicated higher levels of resilience, had lesser depressive symptomatology and emotional/ behavioural problems.

We also found a gender difference, with females demonstrating greater resilience. Lower resilience among male adolescents may indicate an increased risk of mental-health problems, while females scored higher on the pro-social behaviour. While we found no significant ethnic differences in total resilience scores, ethnic differences were found in some subscale scores, for example, former Yugoslavians reported greater resilience associated with acceptance of change and security in relationships while Middle Easterners and Africans reported greater resilience associated with religious beliefs. A relationship was also found between length of time in Australia and resilience, with adolescents in the ‘five years or more’ group reporting higher resilience than those in the ‘less than five years’ group. This may suggest that resilience increases with adaption, social inclusion and acculturation to Australian society and culture. What does good collaboration look like in practice? Good collaboration in practice is only possible when the intrapersonal conflicts between the parties are resolved. This would be possible through: • cooperation – ‘we’ replaces ‘us’ and ‘them’

Conclusion In summary, newly arrived adolescents are coping remarkably well despite being exposed to pre- and post-migration challenges. Many adolescents and their families lack basic conditions necessary for good mental health, such as appropriate housing and economic security. At the service delivery level, there needs to be a more concerted effort to build organisational and worker cultural competency and reduce the barriers refugee adolescents face to services. The results of this study suggest that services need to respond to social and practical needs in addition to mental-health concerns; provide interpreters, same-culture professionals, and translated mentalhealth information for parents and, if appropriate, for adolescents; raise community awareness of mental-health issues and the services available; develop strategies to establish trust with adolescents; engage in planned regular community outreach; address individual and network-induced psychiatric stigma; ensure special precautions are in place for adolescents to preserve confidentiality; and offer services in a form adolescents can accept, for example, basing services in schools and other community settings, and exploring alternative service delivery models and approaches.

• respect and support • completion vs. competition approach – building on the strength of the other party rather than taking the ‘deficit’ approach • harmony through compassion – emphasising the common goals (oneness) • positive thinking – positive approach to your own values and to others • respecting the ‘differences’ and taking the ‘Salad Bowl’ approach.

References 1. Ziaian, T., et al., Emotional and Behavioural Problems Among Refugee Children and Adolescents Living in South Australia. Journal of Australian Psychologist, Article first published online: 19 OCT 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-9544.2011.00050.x in press, 2012a. 2. Ziaian, T., et al., Depressive symptomatology and service utilisation among refugee children and adolescents living in South Australia. Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMH), Child and Adolescent Mental Health Volume **, No. *, 2011, pp. **–** doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2011.00620.x(Article first published online: 6th September 2011). 2011. 3. Ziaian, T., et al., Resilience and its association with depression, emotional and behavioural problems, and mental health service utilisation among refugee adolescents living in South Australia. International Journal of Population Research 2012b. Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 485956,: p. 9 pages. 4. Ziaian, T., de Anstiss, H., Caudle, L., Baghurst, P., Sawyer, M., &Procter, N.G., , Emotional well-being of children and adolescents of refugee background settled in South Australia, in National Refugee Health & Wellbeing Conference. 2009b: Auckland, New Zealand. 5. Ziaian, T., de Anstiss, H., Baghurst, P., Sawyer, M., Procter, N.G., Caudle, L. , Becoming Better Equipped to Provide Culturally Competent Care to Refugee Children and Adolescents with Social, Behavioral and Mental Health Problems., in 6th Biennial Conference of The International Academy of Intercultural Research. 2009a: Honolulu, USA. Creating our Future REPORT | 65 |

plenary SPEAKER ERIKA VICKERY

Erika is the Mayor of Naracoorte Lucindale Council. She was a local government councillor for ten years and was elected by the people as Mayor in 2010. She was born in Austria and immigrated with her family and settled in Naracoorte over 50 years ago. She left Naracoorte to attend Adelaide Teachers College before returning to Naracoorte where she married and had two children. She has always been very community minded, receiving the Australia Day Citizenship Award in 1991. As Mayor she is a strong advocate for children, youth, new migrants, seniors, underprivileged and those without a voice.

Employment participation The Naracoorte Lucindale Council is a rural council, approximately three-and-a-half hours south-east of Adelaide, with the town of Naracoorte as its centre and minor towns of Lucindale, Frances and Kybybolite. It is geographically in the centre of the Limestone Coast region with the border of Victoria in the east and the coastal District Council of Robe in the west. The main industry is agriculture with associated industries including seed production, Teys Brothers meat processing and exporting, and the wool bedding manufacturer and exporter Mini Jumbuk. Another important industry within and bordering the council is the well-established wine industry of Wrattonbully, Coonawarra in the south and Padthaway to the north. Naracoorte is also the retail and service centre for the district. This local government area was host to immigrants from Europe after the Second World War. They came as skilled tradespeople, many working to build the railway that connected the south-east to Adelaide and Melbourne, thus providing transport pathways for the primary industry. Many of these families’ second and third generations are still in the Naracoorte District. A second significant and more recent group were the Maori New Zealanders and Chinese and other Asian 457 visa holders who were sponsored to work in the meat works about ten years ago. Many of the Maori workers have settled with their families in Naracoorte but very few of the 457 visa holders have now remained in Naracoorte, although there are quite a few Asian families settled there. At about the same time, four to five Afghani men, quickly followed by their families, settled in Naracoorte. One became a contractor for itinerant workers during peak seasons in the vineyards. Other itinerant workers from a diversity of cultural groups, including international students, continued to come to the area. In the past three years, Naracoorte has seen the influx of a growing number of mainly Afghani men who resided in the town joining the first few established Afghani settlers. Some of these men have brought their wives and children. Others have families waiting in Pakistan to be re-united with them. Over 200 men including their families now reside in Naracoorte, working in the vineyards for about eight months of the year or in the meatworks. Most live collectively sharing houses and expenses, while a few have bought their own houses. They have blended into the town without any preliminary service planning and without any fanfare. The media, the services, schools and local clubs have welcomed them because they have demonstrated their industriousness. A number of the Afghani men have become Rotarians and have linked the Afghani community with the local townspeople. All this has happened in spite of many of the newcomers not being able to speak English.


What has assisted this sustained settlement? There are a number of factors. None of the factors can be isolated as each is dependent on the other. Employment, even though it is seasonal, is one of the main factors that have attracted the men. The second, and as important, is a core group of Afghani families who have taken on a leadership role, attracting the men and providing the social supports and links to services. The very understated and positive reception they have received from the town, schools, services, etc. And, importantly, almost two years ago was the establishment of the Migrant Resource Centre in the town to coordinate settlement services, to link new settlers with the services, to assist the building of the community’s capacity to navigate and engage the town, their work opportunities, housing and social interaction. For example, some of the initiatives taken to keep the men and families in the town have been the coordination of English classes, building local education pathways for students so they do not have to leave the town when they leave secondary school, and organising the community into a formal body to represent themselves. What are the challenges for the future? • Social and cultural outlets, as many of the men do not have their families with them. Most of the men are anxious about and, at the worst, depressed that their wives and children may be in danger. • Family reunion is essential to sustaining settlement in the area. • Housing may become a problem as the population increases – the lack of affordable housing has been an identified issue for some time now. • Keeping families with children post secondary school in the area will continue to be a challenge. What can we learn about new settlement in regional areas from our experience? Experienced settlement coordination is essential to ensure people stay and have their needs, including employment, met. This resource may be small but without it we, the broader community, can’t effectively consult with the new settlers, and cannot assist the services to provide the muchneeded supports that are required for good reception. It is the essential difference between having continuous itinerants that do not commit to staying in our town, come to work for a few months, then leave and are replaced by others, and providing an environment in which families want to live. Too much dependence on an itinerant workforce situation does little for a community’s fabric, its wellbeing and its economy. We want to support new settlers, such as the Chinese and the Afghanis, to feel they are part of our community, to stay more permanently in our town, to become part of our local area and to assist their own prosperity and wellbeing and the town’s prosperity and wellbeing at the same time.


plenary SPEAKER NADINE LIDDY

Nadine is the national coordinator of the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network. She has worked in the youth and multicultural sectors for more than twenty years. As a caseworker with refugee and newly arrived young people, Nadine has worked in the areas of torture and trauma, education and training and housing and homelessness. She has also worked extensively in policy and sector development with a focus on promoting good practice with young people from refugee and migrant backgrounds. Nadine has visited Malaysia and Thailand as part of the Australian Cultural Orientation (AUSCO) Trainer Exchange Program and has worked in the asylum-seeker field, most recently delivering national training on ways to support unaccompanied minors in community detention.

Building service capacity Young people in focus: a national approach to youth settlement The Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network (MYAN) has advocated for a youth focus in settlement policy and practice since its inception in 2005. Like many others, we welcomed the introduction of a discreet youth focus both in the Humanitarian Settlement Services (HSS) and in the Settlement Grants Program (SGP). This focus is consistent with the high numbers of humanitarian arrivals under the age of 30 (including relatively high numbers of on-shore UHMs) as well as an acknowledgement that young people have particular needs in the provision of settlement services. This paper provides an overview of the work of the MYAN (Australia) and our vision for a nationally coordinated and responsive approach to youth settlement. About the MYAN Australia The MYAN (Australia) is the recognised national policy and advocacy body representing migrant and newly arrived young people, in order to advance their rights and interests. The MYAN works in partnership with government and non-government agencies at the state/territory and national levels to ensure that the particular needs of multicultural young people are recognised and to support a coherent and consistent approach to addressing their issues at both the policy and service delivery levels. The MYAN plays a key role in bringing together the settlement and youth sectors at both the state and the national levels and supports the development of state and territory multicultural youth policy and advocacy bodies. The MYAN is auspiced by the Centre for Multicultural Youth (CMY) in Victoria. The MYANs current policy priorities focus on (1) youth settlement, (2) education, training and employment transitions, (3) intergenerational conflict, (4) racism and discrimination and (5) regional and rural issues.


Key youth settlement issues The MYAN plays a key role in highlighting and working on youth settlement issues at the national level. Current issues or areas of concern include the need for a nationally consistent approach to the care and support of UHMs, the lack of adequate support for UHMs turning 18, and the need for targeted support for young people to navigate education, training and employment pathways. MYAN’s vision for youth settlement in Australia While the MYAN has welcomed DIAC’s introduction of youth-specific case plans in the HSS contracts and the discreet focus on youth settlement in the new SGP guidelines, there is a need for targeted resources to support the settlement and broader youth sectors to better meet the (particular needs) of young people from humanitarian backgrounds. Over the last six years, the MYAN has supported the development of state and territory networks as well as capacity building across the youth and settlement sectors to improve settlement outcomes for young people. The MYAN believes that in order to meet the particular and specialised needs of young people from refugee and migrant backgrounds and thereby achieve good settlement outcomes (sustained social, cultural and economic participation in Australian society), the current service system needs additional support to be both responsive to and appropriate for young people. Our vision for a nationally coordinated and responsive approach to youth settlement is premised on a specialist approach to youth settlement service delivery and has a focus on sector development – ensuring services are resourced and have the skills and knowledge to

appropriately and adequately support young people. This vision also includes the recognition of the need for specialist services (or bodies) in each state and territory and the need for a specialist approach to best support young people from refugee and migrant backgrounds. A nationally coordinated approach to youth settlement would be undertaken at the local, regional, state and national level and would focus on: • collaboration and partnerships – building networks to facilitate collaboration between the settlement sector, mainstream youth services, school or education providers, youth employment service, health services, etc. • developing resources to support best practice in youth settlement – promoting and sharing models of good practice • building the skills of existing settlement service providers and mainstream youth services • providing leadership to build good practice in youth settlement and achieve sustainable outcomes for young people – through specialist multicultural youth networks or organisations in each state and territory, and a national network. Key outcomes of these activities would be that mainstream youth workers and settlement workers would:

Young people will be supported to access appropriate services so that they receive the support they need across housing, health, sport and recreation, arts, education, training and employment. Using our existing networks and partnerships, these activities will complement existing and new youth and family settlement services. This best practice model will include key principles and benchmarks for working with young people in the settlement sector, and we will continue to work with SCoA on the settlement standards project. MYANs capacity building work A nationally consistent approach to youth settlement will build on existing specialist youth settlement work: established youth specialist services, such as the Centre for Multicultural Youth Victoria (CMY) and Multicultural Youth South Australia (MYSA), Multicultural Youth Services (MYS) in the ACT, as well as capacity building projects, such as the HSS Youth Support and Coordination Project undertaken by Settlement Services International (SSI) and the MYAN NSW, and other MYAN sector development work, for example, national training with community detention providers, our partnership proposal with DEEWR-funded Youth Attainment & Transitions programs, and the National Youth Settlement Unit being developed by a consortium of settlement agencies, including the MYAN.

• have the knowledge and relationships to refer a young person to a range of youth and other services that can meet their needs and have access to information regarding comprehensive local referral pathways • have increased knowledge and skills to effectively engage and support young people from refugee and migrant backgrounds.


plenary SPEAKER RICHARD SPURRELL

Richard Spurrell joined MAX Employment in 2004, where he is the executive general manager of quality, performance and innovation. He has more than twenty-five years’ experience in the employment and vocational training sectors, including eighteen years in the Australian Public Service developing, delivering and managing employment training programs. He has established new businesses in the training and employment field and advised community organisations on operating and delivering government-funded employment and training programs. Richard has completed a masters degree in business administration and post-graduate studies in accounting.

Employment participation Why work is the best pathway... MAX Employment is Australia’s largest Job Services Provider. This simply means that we are in the business of assisting people to return to work, and every year we assist more people than any other provider. We have 76 full-time sites and numerous outreach locations across the country, where we work with jobseekers from all backgrounds with a wide variety of needs and employers that also have wide ranging needs. What makes MAX unique? We operate under an integrated model with MAXimusSolutions Australia, allowing us to provide our job seekers with support to find sustainable employment as well as assisting them with health and training programs to combat any barriers to employment that they may have. As you know, 80% of jobs are not advertised. New arrivals have limited networks and they need to use all the resources available to them so that they can integrate into their new lives easier and with minimal additional stress. Finding a starting point in the workforce is critical, as this can become the new arrival’s entry point to: • learn English – learning English is greatly enhanced by being in an environment that requires it. Workplace English programs have outstanding results, and we have found the benefits of work in parallel with English language study is more effective than delaying any involvement in work until after all English training is completed • feel more connected to their new surroundings. Workplaces are the single greatest contributor to social networks, community contacts and ‘inclusion’. A hot topic at the moment is the mining boom. We all hear about the large numbers of skilled people required to build and work on projects. What does this mean for those who do not have the specialised skills required, or for those towns that have virtually doubled in size overnight? Basic service roles are becoming more frequent, and harder to fill. Jobs like cleaners, extra wait staff at the local restaurant, extra housekeepers for the new hotel, and the list goes on. To be able to do these jobs, applicants do not require vast amounts of skill in a specialised area, and they are ideal for a person new to a country who has to adjust to learning a new language, establishing a new home in a new country and learning the new culture in their new community. While these jobs do not necessarily provide the large incomes that we hear about in mining, the reality is very few people in Australia earn that sort of money.


As a Job Services Australia provider and a provider of Disability Employment Services, we cater for the needs of a wide range of clients, but our underpinning principle is the same – gaining employment at the earliest opportunity. Many of our sites around Australia work with significant numbers of people recently arrived in Australia. Sites such as Cabramatta, Bankstown, Auburn and Parramatta in Sydney, Inala and Woodridge in Brisbane, Joondalup in Perth and Footscray in Melbourne have significant numbers of clients on their caseloads who have arrived in Australia as refugees. We work with clients from over 100 countries of origin and are able to share best practices and ideas on improvements to our services for specific client groups. Some clients referred to us have very limited connection with community resources, and we have established community inclusion plans and community advisory committees in all of our sites to ensure we can best link clients to the services they need. Our health services staff (psychologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists) are involved in services at every site and provide a level of additional support but always with the same focus – enabling employment as the first priority. While most clients have come through a settlement process prior to engaging with us, we are able to follow up on the practical aspects of a variety of issues that become more significant as we move towards employment: • tax file numbers, bank accounts and the required documents for employment • driver’s licence requirements and processes • public transport options • child care access • employer expectations, workplace norms, Fair Work • qualifications and the process for recognition • we provide access to courses such as the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program to assist new Aussies with their English • we provide referrals to local community organisations that can assist these new arrivals to feel more at home whilst providing them with the support that they need to integrate into the new community. We have access to some funds to assist individual clients; however, these are limited and primarily focused on things we can do that will enable employment. Assessment is on an individual basis.

Another support service that we have recently become involved in is working with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to provide Complex Case Support for humanitarian refugees. This service provides additional support for people accepted to Australia as refugees who present with a range of complex issues, which the mainstream providers find difficult to deal with, so that they are able to successfully settle in Australia. When clients are referred to Complex Case Support at MAX, we conduct an Initial Needs Assessment. This involves a meeting between the client and their family, their prospective case manager

and a health professional. The health professional is normally a psychologist, as many humanitarian refugees have issues that involve mental health, torture, trauma and domestic violence barriers. This assessment is then provided to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and they then refer the client to the appropriate organisations for further support and assistance. Our motto is ‘Finding Jobs, Changing Lives’ and we believe that employment is the best pathway to integration for new arrivals in Australia.


plenary SPEAKER LIS DE VRIES

Lis is the national manager of Migration Support Programs in Red Cross. She has a long interest in international issues, having previously worked at Australian Volunteers International and International Social Service (an international organisation focusing on tracing and protecting children). Lis has a background in social work and has completed a masters degree in international politics through Melbourne University. She has an extensive background in the community sector, both in Victoria and Tasmania. Previously, she managed the Hobart Migrant Resource Centre and, for five years, she directed the Tasmanian Council of Social Services. Lis is a Churchill Fellow studying long-term and regional unemployment in Canada and Europe.

Building service capacity Building a refugee and asylum-seeker sector In Australia, we have recently been challenged to think about how to provide durable solutions to people seeking asylum in Australia, arriving by boat. While asylum seekers have always been of concern and part of our services sector, we are now challenged about how to integrate both asylum seekers who arrive by boat and those who arrive by air into a single services approach. While their mode of arrival does not necessarily change their presenting needs, people who arrive by boat and air are treated differently by government and the community – most obviously in that while people who arrive by boat are mandatorily detained, those who arrive by air are not. This raises questions for us about what services people seeking asylum should be entitled to, how to deliver these services, and how these services should be funded. The further challenge is then how the services sector does, or should, differ from the refugee services sector. The difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker A refugee is a person who has suffered persecution and who has been recognised as meeting the definition of a refugee contained in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. An asylum seeker is a person whose claim for refugee status has not yet been recognised. For many asylum seekers, they are not able to travel to a neighbouring country and seek resettlement, possibly because that country is not a signatory to the convention, possibly because their safety is not guaranteed. Asylum seekers, then, are on a migratory pathway to reach a safe country where they can be recognised as refugees and seek protection. Regardless of their legal status, it is widely recognised that people seeking asylum, like refugees, require support and may have broadly similar needs to refugees. There is a substantial international need and demand for protection of both asylum seekers and refugees that is not currently met by countries willing to provide durable solutions for these groups. In Australia, the government has set the parameters for this debate and discussion through the Australian Migration Program, and the subset of this, the Special Humanitarian Program. International and domestic trends in people seeking asylum In March 2012, the UNHCR released a report1 on trends in asylum applications in 2011 highlighting the growth in asylum-seeker numbers internationally. It highlighted that the conflict in Afghanistan alone contributed to a 20% rise in asylum claims in 2011. The number of asylum claims rose from 368,000 in 2010 to 441,300 in 2011. We can only presume these numbers will continue to increase due to the ongoing unrest in Afghanistan, and the conflict in Syria. Only the Nordic countries and Australasia saw asylum-seeker numbers declining, with falls of 10% (45,700 claims) and 9% (11,800 claims) respectively.


However, it is important to keep these numbers in perspective. The number of asylum claims received across all industrialised countries is still smaller than the population of Dadabb, a refugee camp in northeast Kenya, which accommodates 450,000 predominantly Somali refugees. In terms of mode of arrival, in 2011 a record number of asylum seekers arrived in Europe via the Mediterranean Sea, with more than 57,000 people reaching Malta or Italy by boat, according to the UNHCR. This increase in boat arrivals in early 2011 was due in part to the collapse of the regimes in Tunisia and Libya. This followed two years of reduced arrivals in 2009 and 2010 due to tighter border control measures. The Mediterranean Sea has proven to be a deadly stretch of water; according to UNHCR estimates, more than 1,500 people drowned or went missing while attempting to cross the sea to reach Europe in 2011.2 This number surpasses the previous highest toll of 630 people reported dead or missing in 2007. In Australia, asylum trends are arguably moving towards this scenario. Historically in Australia, the trend has been for people seeking asylum to arrive by air holding a valid visa, usually a holiday or student visa. There have been occasional short trends or spikes in boat arrivals, examples of which were the periods 1977–79 and 1999–2001. In 2009, a new trend of boat arrivals commenced, with 2,726 people arriving by boat in 2009, 6,555 in 2010 and 4,565 in 2011.3 This journey is also a perilous one with unknown numbers of lives lost at sea, most recently demonstrated by the tragedy near Christmas Island on Thursday 21 June 2012 where 90 people are assumed to have drowned. Since 2009, the trend in Australia has been that more children, more unaccompanied minors, and more lone men have arrived. The common thread, as always, is that asylum seekers are keen to commence work to support family back home or seek to sponsor family after arrival. The changing trends in people seeking asylum over the past few years has prompted the Australian Government to work towards a regional cooperation framework. This still remains government policy, and it is aimed towards management of asylum flows and protection of asylum seekers in a region where the Refugee Convention is not widely embraced. This framework, loosely called the Malaysia Agreement, is an outcome of discussions through the Bali process and under the auspices of the Bali Framework. Australia’s Humanitarian Program Australia’s Migration Program for 2012–13 is set at 190,000 places, with the humanitarian component comprising 13,750 places. This includes 6,000 places under the Refugee Program for refugees referred for

resettlement through the UNHCR and 7,750 places shared between the Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) and onshore protection visa allocations.4 The changing trend in asylum claims is having an impact on the SHP. For this current year 2011–12, and for the first time since inception of SHP in 1981, onshore visa grants are predicted to exceed offshore visa grants. The test of the Humanitarian Program will be the ability to accommodate SHP immediate family grants. Therefore, many unaccompanied minors and men who are granted refugee status will be likely waiting significant periods if they are proposers for immediate family. The ongoing social challenge we are facing in Australia is the new cohort of adult men. There are many men who have arrived alone who, however, have a wife and family overseas and, as a matter of priority, are seeking reunification. There are, additionally, many young men who have arrived as unaccompanied minors, have become adults and are living in the community without immediate family support. Their priority is to either bring family into Australia or financially support their family through remittances. Currently, many men, including adult men and those who have just become adults, either await a visa outcome or have a protection visa. These men are providing support to one another, sharing private rental accommodation and attempting to get on with their lives in Australia. There remains the question of how these groups of men will fare in the longer term: alone, waiting for their family, or perhaps establishing new lives in Australia. The Australian Government’s responsibility to people seeking asylum In Australia, the government has clearly distinguished the refugee and asylum-seeker sectors, from both a policy and a practice perspective. The settlement sector has been providing services to refugees since the national refugee policy was announced in 1977 and the establishment of the first migrant resource centre in Melbourne in the same year.5 This sector is held up internationally as an example of good practice. Our support for asylum seekers is much less well developed from both a policy and a sector- based perspective. Since 1993, Red Cross has been funded by government to provide services to asylum seekers and others with unresolved visa status, primarily through the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS). Over that period, Red Cross has assisted many thousands of people seeking asylum with basic income support, assistance in finding housing, casework assistance and referrals to specialist agencies in the sector. Over these nearly 20 years, while Red Cross has been delivering these services to asylum seekers, there have been a number of small agencies and highly committed individuals working extremely hard with great determination to support asylum seekers across Australia. However, we must also acknowledge that these efforts have been

piecemeal, with extremely limited funding and have been heavily reliant on individual donations or commitment from particular groups. Networks in the sector have been established in many locations and these have been an important element for uniting our shared concerns and giving a platform for calling for greater support for asylum seekers. However, this effort has been relatively unstructured. Often the particular needs of asylum seekers have been treated as an adjunct to the better-known and understood settlement issues faced by refugees. The government clearly has obligations to provide some level of service to people seeking asylum in Australia, regardless of how they arrive. As a party to the Refugee Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that people who meet the United Nations definition of refugee are not sent back to a country where their life would be threatened or they would otherwise be at risk of persecution under the principle of non-refoulement. In addition, while asylum seekers are in Australian territory, the government has obligations under the Refugee Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various international treaties to ensure that their human rights are respected and protected. These treaties include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention Against Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. An articulation of these basic rights can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (Article 25(1)) The challenges for us as a sector is to be able to clearly articulate the needs and challenges facing asylum seekers, alongside but distinct from those facing refugees. We then should be able to articulate what we believe to be a basic set of services and entitlements for people seeking asylum. Over the coming year, it is also our challenge to build connections between the current relatively segmented service sectors for refugees and asylum seekers. Red Cross has been delivering the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, and the community detention and the Community Assistance Support programs for many years as a discrete set of services funded by government. This model is rapidly shifting to encompass a broader set of service providers. Red Cross welcomes this shift in the sector in order to sharpen our services and open debates and discussion on the future of those services.

References 1 UNHCR, Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries, 2011, www.unhcr.org/4e9beaa19.htm. 2 UNHCR, More than 1,500 drown or go missing trying to cross the Mediterranean in 2011, News Stories, 31 January 2012,www.unhcr.org/4f2803949.html. 3 Parliament of Australia, Boat Arrivals in Australia since 1976, January 2011, www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/ BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals 4 Refugee Council of Australia, 2012–13 Federal Budget in Brief: What is means for Refugees and People Seeking Humanitarian Protection, www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/ bud/2012-13-Budget.pdf. 5 Refugee Council of Australia, History of Australia’s Refugee Program, www.refugeecouncil.org.au/resources/history.php.


plenary SPEAKER DR SEV OZDOWSKI Sev is director of equity and diversity at the University of Western Sydney and honorary professor in the Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies at Sydney University. He is also president of the Australian Council for Human Rights Education. Sev worked for the Australian Government from 1980 to 1996 where he played a major role in the advancement of multicultural and human rights policies. He headed the South Australian Office of Multicultural and International Affairs from1996 to 2000. As the Human Rights Commissioner (2000–05), he conducted the ground-breaking reports, A last resort? The national inquiry into children in immigration detention and Not for service: Experiences of injustice and despair in mental health care in Australia. He has a master of laws (LLM) and a masters degree in sociology from Poland and a PhD from the University of New England. As a Harkness Fellow, Sev spent 1984–86 conducting research at Harvard, Georgetown and the University of California. Sev’s life-long commitment to multiculturalism and human rights was recognised by an Order of Australia Medal and an honorary doctorate from RMIT.

Building service capacity Education is the rock on which community capacity is built So far, the conference has discussed a range of issues, from multiculturalism to employment participation. Today I wish to mention three issues that have not yet been given prominence in our deliberations. University of Western Sydney and Greater Western Sydney First, I think it is impossible to consider issues around ‘building service capacity’ or ‘creating our future’ without talking about higher education. Tertiary education is the single most effective social service utilised by immigrant Australians to improve their quality of life and raise the prospects and expectations of their families. In fact, it is the best mechanism of upward mobility Australia offers. As we know, university graduates are paid better, they have more life choices and more control over their own destinies. Immigrant Australians understand this very well – with over 15% of Australia’s higher education students coming from non-English speaking backgrounds.1 At the University of Western Sydney, we also understand this. We have to, because the six main campuses of the University of Western Sydney are geographically located across the Greater Western Sydney (GWS) region where the vast majority of our students live. For those of you who are not from Sydney, GWS is one of Australia’s fastest growing and most culturally diverse regions. Two million people live there, a third of whom were born overseas. GWS’s cultural diversity is reflected in the diversity of University of Western Sydney staff and students. It is also reflected in legislation establishing UWS, as well as in its charter and modus operandi. The UWS stated vision is to ‘bring knowledge to life’ in GWS. The UWS role is to build the capacity of our diverse community; in fact, diversity is a part of UWS DNA. And we have very good outcomes. Over 60% of our commencing domestic students come from a background where neither of their parents have a university level qualification, so-called ‘First in the family’ students. This is not an accident. The positive outcomes result from a range of strategic initiatives that were put in place to dismantle many barriers, both cultural and economic, that impede access to tertiary education.

The role tertiary education plays in social mobility is recognised by governments that have invested significant funds to allow institutions to increase the participation rates of Indigenous Australians and Australians from low socio-economic (LSE) status backgrounds. People from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are unfortunately over-represented in this latter group.2 Access First, the UWS has developed a range of strategies to open access to tertiary education to potential students from CALD and LSE backgrounds. For example, UWS has developed the Fast Forward program. This is an initiative where UWS enters into partnerships with local schools to promote the value for students in continuing their education through Year 12 and beyond. The program encourages student to strive for their personal best and to see tertiary study as a realistic and viable option. Since 2005, over 2,700 students have been through the program and over 1,100 of those come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. As well as Fast Forward, the university’s Aspire program is gaining a reputation as a place where GWS’s most gifted and talented students can find the professionalism and support they need to live up to their potential. This program includes significant scholarship, but it is also about building on the students’ existing leadership qualities by providing workshops and internships as well as the opportunity to network and volunteer in community projects. Its participants reflect the CALD composition of the region. Retention Community engagement and access programs are only half of the story; support and assistance when a student starts their university career is of vital importance. Through the student support services unit, the University of Western Sydney has a number of programs that assist students with their transition into higher education. For example, the Transition to Success program focuses on students coming into university from the Fast Forward program, TAFE and the UWS College. First year students get a personal letter of welcome from the Vice Chancellor highlighting the support services the university can provide, and this is followed by a phone call to each student. Students with special needs are referred to the appropriate support mechanisms. Overall, the university’s retention rate has hovered around 80% for the last five years, which is below the sector average, but for students coming to university under the Aspire program for example, the retention rate climbs to 93%.


Success UWS special programs have enabled participation in quality education for many gifted and talented students of CALD and LSE backgrounds who may have otherwise flown under the radar. This has been acknowledged by the 2007 Australian Universities Quality Audit (AUQA) report, which described UWS as ‘the University of the people’ and by the 2011 AUQA report, which commended UWS for its transition and retention strategies. The appreciation of this ongoing high-level support is reflected in our student satisfaction statistics. Overall, 85% of our students are satisfied with UWS; this is significantly higher than the sector average. Tertiary education is set for more significant change, including a new free-market funding regime. Ongoing strategic government funding is the key to ensuring that programs to widen participation are viable and continue. Children in immigration detention Second, although Minister Kate Lundy spoke about services for refugees and some other speakers mentioned the recent refugee boat-sinking tragedies, the fate of some 6,000 asylum seekers held currently in immigration detention was not mentioned. The numbers are at a historic high, and the vast majority of detainees will soon become clients of the settlement services. Eight years ago, I completed my inquiry into the mandatory detention of some 2,184 children who arrived on boats over the period 1999–2003 to seek asylum in Australia. The inquiry found that many children spent a very long time in immigration detention without proper schooling and health care. The inquiry also documented

that children detained for long periods of time were at a high risk of acquiring mental illness. The inquiry also found that the vast majority of children were eventually recognised as refugees and released into the Australian community. For example, almost 98% of Afghani children were recognised as refugees. We have since discovered that children damaged by their time served in detention require mental-health support for years, and that some of them have won large government compensation payouts. Similar mental-health conclusions apply to adult detainees. Today we again have over 420 children locked up in secure detention facilities around the country. This is despite the fact that there are existing well-functioning community-based alternatives for child asylum seekers, as demonstrated by the some 690 children currently living in the community facilities. Thus, I ask you to speak against long-term, mandatory imprisonment of children, which is certainly in breach of international human rights agreements. These children, when finally released into the community will stretch the capacity of settlement and mental-health services for the years to come. Australian bill of rights Third, I wish to mention the fact that Australia does not have a bill of rights and that we badly need one. A bill of rights would provide Australia with a common set of secular standards to guide community relations in a multicultural and multifaith society. In particular, it would have an enormous educational role. The UK and Victorian bills of rights have shown that they do impact on respective public services, in particular making service delivery more responsive to the client needs.

1 www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/2010StudentFullYear.aspx 2 In 2011, UWS spearheaded an application by five of the six Sydney-based universities for a Higher Education Participation and Partnership Program (HEPPP) grant to help increase the participation rates of people from lower socio-economic status backgrounds. (UNSW declined to be involved.) The consortium was successful and over $21 million in funding was secured. The University of Western Sydney received $6.65 million to further its widening participation programs, particularly amongst potential students from low socio-economic status, culturally and linguistically diverse and Indigenous backgrounds.


plenary SPEAKER MARK CULLY Mark is chief economist at the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. He has a first-class honours degree in economics from the University of Adelaide and a master of arts in industrial relations from the University of Warwick. He was appointed head of research on employment relations for the UK government in the late 1990s, where he ran what was then the world’s largest survey of working life, the results of which were published as Britain at Work. Mark returned to Australia in 1999 to join the National Institute of Labour Studies as deputy director, and later he was general manager at the National Centre for Vocational Education Research for six years, running the centre’s statistical and then research operations. He was a speaker at the inaugural Adelaide Festival of Ideas in 1999 and chaired the advisory committee that prepares the festival program from 2003 to 2007. He is the current chair of the OECD’s Working Party on Migration.

Employment participation What does economics have to say about settlement services? Economists like to use thought experiments as a means to think through issues. Try this on for size: imagine that upon leaving this conference venue you find yourself not in the plump and stately streets of Adelaide, but instead in the midst of the Desamparados railway station in Lima. After taking time to admire its art nouveau ceiling, you wonder: ‘What now? What resources do I have to call upon?’ In all likelihood, no more than a smattering of Spanish, not a single person you know, and that credit card – well, it’s no longer valid. All you have to fall back upon is your own capabilities, and any support services that might be available to people like you in this extraordinary situation. One of the reasons Go back to where you came from was such powerful television is that it allowed Australians to empathise with the experiences that prompted refugees to flee their home country. But it is not until you find yourself alone in Peru that you can begin to imagine the next stage of their journey, to sense the vertigo of being an outsider in a foreign land trying to forge a new life with few of the resources available to all those around you. Refugees arrive in Australia with next to no resources of their own, and with varied capabilities. They need and get support from government-funded settlement services, volunteers and nongovernment organisations, and members of their home community who trod the path before them. Carving out a new life in a foreign land, even with strong support, takes time. How much support is needed, and of what type? How much time is acceptable – at what point might we, as supporters and as taxpayers, say our job is done? Is it enough that the former refugee is now free to live their life without fear of persecution – or do they and we aspire for more than this? These are the questions we must address. Besides dealing in abstractions, economists are also highly empirical. Many of the accepted insights about, for example, the benefits of early childhood education, or how to encourage poor people in developing countries to use mosquito nets, come from experimental research designs and sophisticated statistical analyses undertaken by economists that tease out cause from effect, and estimate the scale and significance of particular treatments or interventions. The Economic Analysis Unit in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is attempting to bring this style of rigorous analysis to examine what improves the prospects of former refugees to find employment in Australia and, as a result, become less reliant upon the state and others for support.


For many years, data on the settlement experience of refugees in Australia has been scant. That is beginning to change, a result of conscious deliberation within government that policy and programs in this area must be informed by evidence. There has been investment in two types of data-gathering projects. The first is to survey former refugees. The second, which is more novel, is to join up information held by different government agencies, because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Among the first type, the main difficulty is whether it is possible to identify former refugees in regular surveys, such as those done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. By and large, this is not possible, requiring bespoke studies to be developed, such as the 2010 survey on the settlement outcomes of new arrivals. This survey, by design, encompassed 5,400 refugees and humanitarian entrants from a total of 8,500 recent migrants. Valuable as this study has been, it has been a stopgap measure to plug a gaping data hole, pending a more substantial study that focuses on the settlement journey. That study, ‘Building a New Life in Australia’, is now in active development. Commencing in 2013, more than 1,500 humanitarian families in cities and towns across Australia will be followed over a five-year period; beyond the point at which they become eligible for Australian citizenship. The department is partnering with the Australian Institute of Family Studies to conduct this study. The study is overseen by a formidable reference group comprising representatives from peak bodies and service providers, as well as a technical advisory group to ensure that the study is scientifically sound. On the second type of data project, we hasten slowly, as there are complicated issues to resolve around the legitimate use of administrative data for statistical purposes, as well as data quality problems to rectify. Two important projects are proceeding. The first, in partnership with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations combines administrative records on permanent settlers, including humanitarian entrants, with information on those same individual’s benefit-support history and participation in various job seeker programs. The matched data set comprises 315,600 settlers arriving in Australia since 2000, of whom 88,500 are humanitarian entrants. A grander project still, in partnership with the Bureau of Statistics and building upon a successful pilot five years earlier, is to match the same records on permanent settlers since 2000 with responses to the 2011 Census, yielding a matched data set that is likely to be of the order of 1.5 million people, of whom around 100,000 would be humanitarian entrants.

Gathering data is necessary but not sufficient. It must also be analysed. Some important findings are beginning to emerge. It has long been recognised that migrants who hail from a country where English is not the main language struggle more in the early years of settlement than do other migrants. This is after one takes account of – that is, statistically controls for – the resources and capabilities at people’s disposal, such as proficiency in English and prior work experience. An unexplained difference remains a penalty that is borne by these migrants – in a similar way that there is a penalty, on average, to the pay or promotion opportunities of a woman relative to an otherwise comparable man. What the analysis seems to show is that refugees face an additional penalty to finding employment than an otherwise comparable migrant. The duration of this penalty also appears to be long-lived, extending well beyond the first five years of settlement. The survey on the settlement outcomes of new arrivals found that five years after settlement, 39% of humanitarian entrants were employed, compared with 56% of migrants coming through the family stream. For a further comparison, a similar survey in Canada found (coincidentally) that 56% of humanitarian entrants were employed four years after settlement. Analysis of the matched data we hold shows no improvement after this point: net exit rates from means-tested income support payments tend towards zero after around five years, and this tends to hold for each entry cohort, ones with quite varied attributes such as different countries of origin. How might we make sense of the finding of a persistent employment penalty relative to other vulnerable migrants? Using again the analogy of the refugee journey, two possibilities loom large. The first is that many refugees have been indelibly scarred along the path to arriving and settling in Australia. The second is that the cocoon of settlement support services may induce a state of dependency and work against self-reliance for some refugees. The two are not mutually exclusive – both might be in play – though the second is easier to remedy.

support of this is strong. One can view this as the price a very rich country like Australia can readily afford in meeting its international obligations and commitment to resettle refugees. That view may be generally accepted but there is a parallel obligation for this cost to be minimised for any given entry cohort. The optimal way of doing this is to maximise the opportunities for take-up of paid employment, as individuals then become fiscal contributors rather than recipients. Viewed this way, settlement support services constitute an investment in developing the capabilities of refugees to become self-reliant. Like any investment, we would expect to see a pay-off, in the form of reduced government assistance over time relative to what level of assistance would prevail had the investment not been made. So, to conclude and repeat: the two main attributes of economists are abstract thinking and empirical analysis. These are on ample display in the well-known bestseller Freakonomics, a book that has its detractors who say that it values form over substance. Had more economists been studying questions of inequality, the emergence of the Occupy Wall Street movement may have been less of a surprise. Choosing the right questions is important. There are plenty of economists who work on skilled migration, too few who work on refugees and resettlement. The Economic Analysis Unit is making its own small foray into this space – and we do so with humility and respect, and welcome opportunities to work with service providers in framing the questions and interpreting results. (by Mark Cully, Therese Smith, Kee Lim and Caroline Levantis, Economic Analysis Unit)

The Canadian comparison is instructive here. A complementary project that we are in the process of commissioning examines the fiscal pay-off to the provision of settlement services. We are used to hearing that refugees are a fiscal burden. The evidence in


plenary SPEAKER PINO MIGLIORINO After more than thirty years working in multicultural affairs across three sectors, Pino was elected chair of the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA) in October 2009. Eighteen years ago, Pino founded— and still leads—Cultural Perspectives and CIRCA Research, which are sector leaders in research and communication with culturally and linguistically diverse and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia. Prior to this, Pino held positions in the third sector and in government, including as executive officer of the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales, New South Wales regional coordinator for the Office of Multicultural Affairs, senior conciliator at the then Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and principal policy officer of the Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales. Over the last ten years, Pino has worked extensively in settlement service provision for refugees and new migrants.

Building service capacity The need for advocacy While other speakers will talk about the range of existing and potential settlement service providers, my focus will be particular to ethnic-specific organisations as the foundation unit around which both service provider and representative organisations are built. The issue of capacity is a vexed one as there are a range of issues both historic and current which have, in effect, delivered a two-tier service capacity in CALD communities. As such, my ten minutes will cover the following specific issues: • provide a short summary of the trajectory of ethnic community organisations over the past 40 years • recent developments in the CALD community sector including the re-emergence of MRCs as key service organisations • the need to rebuild visibility of ethnic communities, as well as foster a greater level of advocacy from them Development of ethnic community organisations The development of ethnic community structures as a product of the migration process is a universal phenomenon, which would be totally understood by this audience and the wider community settlement sector. The short history of these communities has been an interesting one, which has included: • The organic development of support structures designed to support migrating communities in their everyday lives as well as provide a point of reception for migrants arriving in Australia. The nature and function of these structures is wide and has covered everything from cultural life, sporting life and, probably most importantly, social life linking people by language culture, history and, to some degree, nostalgia and aspiration in equal parts. • Growing out of this was the provision of settlement services for those entering the community. Advice about where to live, where to shop and, through earlier employment practices such as factory-door recruitment, where to work. This ran as a poignant parallel to the assimilationist position of government. • During the 1970s, and as a result of a change in government attitude and the Galbally Report, there was a shift in government thinking, and resources (GIA funding) were provided to these organisations to continue to provide these services and enhance them as necessary. • A growth period followed to the turn of the century with the opening up of a wider set of function-specific funding to these communities in employment, housing disability, aged care, and so on. • The period following this was one of a decline of ethnic funding to ethnic communities, whether due to new policies, such as | 78 | Creating our Future REPORT

‘mainstreaming’ or to a reinterpretation of the settlement phase and the use of time-specific criteria. This affected both ethnicspecific and pan-ethnic structures, such as MRCs. • The marginalisation of ethnic communities in particular and multicultural policy and validity in general. Changing landscape, the re-emergence of MRCs and the development of a two-tier ethnic-specific environment The last four to five years has been quite extraordinary in terms of a number of key factors in the ethnic community sector: • the signing of the Community Accord, which I was privileged to sign on behalf of FECCA • a move away from funding mainstream organisations for CALD programs • the concentration of resources in MRCs, including the reclaiming of humanitarian settlement • significant ethnic-specific funding in the areas of aged care, tenancy, youth and children’s funding • a corresponding decline in mid-size communities where the result of the changes identified have brought about the near extinction of ethnic community organisations whose principal purpose is community services. These are significant communities and include the Balkan communities, such as the Croatian, Serbian and Macedonian, a range of Southern and Eastern European communities, such as the Spanish, Portuguese, Polish and Ukrainian, and a range of Asian communities such as the Vietnamese, Cambodian and Lao communities. Rebuilding visibility and advocacy The current challenge is to consider how to rebuild this diminishing tier, as the result of reduction in settlement-style funding has had the consequence of reducing advocacy. The key issues that need to be addressed include: • defining the role of pan-ethnic structures, such as MRCs as community builders and community developers • creating community capacity in terms of advocacy and legitimate representation • arguing for a larger share of purpose specific funding to fund the involvement of ethnic communities in broader service development and provision • supporting new communities to be able to represent themselves.

plenary SPEAKER DAVID KEEGAN

David is the HSS acting program manager for Settlement Services International, Sydney. David is a social worker with more than twelve years experience working with young people and family support programs in various parts of Sydney. He is highly motivated to develop evidence-based settlement programs that meet the complex needs of newly arrived refugees. David has a long-term interest in youth and mental-health issues.

Employment participation Engaging young people from refugee backgrounds in employment pathways through the HSS program About SSI Settlement Services International Inc. (SSI) is a state-wide and independent not-for-profit organisation committed to ensuring that refugees, humanitarian entrants and other migrants in NSW are supported and resourced to fulfil their potential as members of the Australian community. SSI has been the provider of HSS services in the Sydney and Western NSW region since April 2011. Employment challenges for young people from refugee backgrounds Finding secure and non-exploitative employment for young people from refugee backgrounds is usually very challenging. Young people seek employment for a variety of reasons. For UHMs, finding employment is often their first priority because they need money to support themselves, as well as send money to their families or help fund the migration of family members. For young people who are studying, finding employment is often driven by their need to contribute to the families’ income or to develop independence from their family (for example, to buy things for themselves that their families cannot afford). For others, employment is the main way that they will participate in the Australian community if they are not pursuing further study. Young people from refugee backgrounds face learning a new system of worker’s rights and obligations, learning how to write resumes and attend interviews, and how to translate previous skills, experiences and qualifications into trying to find employment. They also commonly face racism and discrimination from employers and are vulnerable to exploitation and working for below the minimum wage. When SSI consulted with 30 youth clients aged 15–25 in January 2012, all of them were interested in part-time or full-time employment but were struggling to find suitable employment, i.e. employment that also accommodated their need for study at TAFE or school. These clients also talked about the issue of having a lot of previous experience in their home country but no formal qualifications and that both were needed in the Australian job market. Most of these clients were also unaware of their rights as workers, and some of them were working in jobs that were paying below minimum wage. Some of these clients, particularly the UHMs, did not like depending on Centrelink for their income and wanted to be independent; they saw employment as the sole way in which to achieve this independence. Anecdotal evidence reported by SSI case managers has identified that youth clients are accepting work that is not only exploitative but is also putting themselves at risk of injury. For example, some clients

are working on construction /building sites without always having the proper insurance (this is often because they are working for cash or because the employer is not properly registered). In several cases, someone has sustained an injury, which has then left them unable to work, but they have not been able to claim compensation. One client was waiting several months without any income, as they were advised by legal advice to not claim Centrelink payments during this time. The final outcome was that they were not awarded any compensation and they now carry a debt. This is mostly due to bad advice from lawyers and an inability to really understand and negotiate the systems themselves. It was also reported that clients are working poorly paid or unpaid positions in the hope that this will lead to other work. Some clients are working salaried roles at $450 per week, but they then work three or four hours of overtime every day, making their effective wage under $10 per hour. They feel that work is so scarce they do not want to vocalise their rights on this issue in the fear they will lose the role. In other scenarios, they are offered a role where they work free for one or two weeks, after which they will be offered a job. However, often this work does not actually pan out and they end up working for nothing. These clients have made workplace complaints to the Ombudsman, but this is an administrative process they struggle with due to limited English language and they rarely see results from. The global financial crisis in Australia has had a significant impact on young people and employment, where jobs traditionally filled by young people, i.e. retail and hospitality, are being cut, limiting the number of jobs available. This has further impacted on HSS clients, because they are not always perceived as the first choice candidates by potential employers due to their often-limited language skills and knowledge of the Australian system. SSI’s approach to young people and their employment needs SSI has a client-focused approach to case management as well as a specialised approach to working with young people aged 15–25, which was developed through the HSS Youth Support and Coordination Project. The project was a joint initiative between Settlement Services International (SSI) and Multicultural Youth Affairs Network (MYAN) NSW in partnership with the Youth Action and Policy Association NSW (YAPA) (auspice of the MYAN NSW). The aim of the project was to ensure the successful implementation and delivery of the HSS Youth Sub-Plan, introduced as part of the new HSS contract in May 2011, and to achieve positive settlement outcomes for humanitarian entrants aged 15–25 in NSW. The project ran for six months between December 2011 and June 2012. Creating our Future REPORT | 79 |

DAVID KEEGAN CONTINUED Through the project, case management tools for young people aged 15–25 were developed to address their unique needs as part of the settlement process. A two-part assessment and caseplanning tool was developed – an Initial Assessment Checklist and a Comprehensive Youth Support Plan Tool. Both tools assess the client’s need for employment and education and training pathways, along with a comprehensive list of other common needs. Employment and education are located as critical components of effective settlement and are therefore emphasised in any support plan. Furthermore, SSI is actively working to develop partnerships with vocational education services and other community organisations to establish flexible learning and work experience options. Some examples of these are:


• working with Pyrmont Boat Club to establish an interactive training program for young people that will teach basic boating and social skills as well as provide opportunities to obtain basic job-site qualifications and improve English language skills • working with TAFE outreach and NSW Department of Education to integrate training/schooling and work experience opportunities with local businesses with the view to teaching local work skills and how to apply for a job whilst also providing basic English skills development • partnering with a local social enterprise to provide opportunities for 12-month traineeships as a baker with support from casework staff. Further information is available by contacting David Keegan at SSI on [email protected] (02) 8071 1050.

plenary SPEAKER TERESA CARNEY

Teresa is the operations manager for settlement services at Adult Multicultural Education Services (AMES). With 15 years experience working in International health and development Teresa brings a wealth of experience from her work in rural and remote Australia, Saudi Arabia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan, Malawi and Kenya predominately in refugee environments. Teresa has a long standing interest in the international setting, working with organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), and Australian Red Cross.

Building service capacity HSS Service delivery in Victoria: reflection on practices – future direction and strategies Introduction AMES established Settlement Services in 2005 to deliver the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS). Since October 2005, the IHSS supported almost 20,000 clients to settle across Victoria. The Humanitarian Settlement Services (HSS) replaced the IHSS on 3 April 2011 and to date has settled over 6,000 clients in the state. Funded by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), we feel the National Compact principles are reflected in the concerted efforts between DIAC and the Consortium, to work together in a respectful, collaborative and partnership approach and philosophy. Strategies for the future Through lessons learned, reflection, and a commitment to continuous improvement the following strategy directions are felt to be goodpractice models and best represent the way forward. • Build on what has worked well so far: • aligned philosophies in the delivery of quality, culturally appropriate services – we are all on the same page • a collaborative approach similar to the AMES consortium, whereby we respect and use the strengths of existing agencies to deliver services over a broad geographical area • working together to combine resources and identify gaps

• flexibility in support models to meet needs of varying partner/ subcontractor capacity (more or less as identified) • relationship building with mainstream groups to achieve best outcomes for clients (local area coordination facilitation) Continued inclusion of clients as key informants (of both strengths and needs) • Continued inclusion of and building on clients’ strengths and capacity building needs: • AMES provides employment pathways for clients in the form of volunteer, community guides, settlement information officers, housing support workers, employment information officers, youth referral support workers and case management support workers. • An open and flexible approach whereby service providers are willing to embrace and facilitate innovativeness and room to trial new approaches, building on lessons learned and linking to research and development. • A commitment to continuous improvement through acknowledgement of the value of feedback and service review. Summary The answer – a flexible, strengths-based, collaborative and innovative approach!

• identify gaps and develop relevant responses together (including orientation and mentoring)


plenary SPEAKER JOHN BEEVER John Beever is the chief executive officer of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI). A graduate of the University of Melbourne, John initially trained and worked as a journalist and government ministerial speech writer, which led to a twenty-year career in the Australian Public Service that included managing various Australian Government corporate communication operations (e.g. the Plain English Campaign) and establishing the then Trade Practices Commission’s public information operations. John left government in 1997 to help establish a boutique government affairs specialist firm, which he ran for ten years before establishing the Canberra office of the Optometrists Association of Australia. As chief executive officer, Canberra, John was involved in the establishment of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for major regulated health professions in Australia and chaired the Professional Reference Group, which, during the scheme’s establishment, represented the views of major health professions to national and state governments.

Building service capacity NAATI’s interesting times! I start by paying respect to the traditional owners of the lands on which we meet, the Kaurna people and their Elders past and present. ‘May you live in interesting times’ is reputed to be an ancient Chinese proverb or curse. When used as a curse, it can mean ‘May the government be aware of you’. But it has another meaning, more like ‘May you find what you are looking for’. It is with that last meaning in mind that I want to talk with you today about how NAATI is building capacity in interpreting services for people who do not speak English as their first language. I want to revisit briefly, why NAATI was created – and then get on to how we are creating our future national accreditation system. Alison talked yesterday about accreditation and standards for organisations – today is about accreditation and standards for individual professionals, the interpreters who you as settlement agencies employ. History NAATI was created in 1977 within the Immigration portfolio to help ensure the interpreting and translating needs of post-war migrants mainly from Europe, were met. NAATI was made responsible for professional standards, testing, assessment of overseas qualifications, course approval and for accreditation and registration for Australia’s translators and interpreters. Think of NAATI as the occupational regulator for translators and interpreters. We regulate through issuing credentials, which show the professional standing of practitioners who hold them. If the terminology is not clear, think of lawyers – lawyers study at university to get their LLB to qualify to practice. They then get a practising certificate, which as the name says is the credential that shows they are fit to stay practising. A lot has happened since, but the core reasons NAATI was created remain as they were in 1977 and are just as relevant today. As we argued in our submission to the Access and Equity Review, the languages have grown but the needs remain. NAATI is owned and part funded by all nine governments in Australia. With the support in particular of the Commonwealth Government, NAATI is now looking hard at the future of the national accreditation system. There are already two big changes happening now. INT The Improvements to NAATI Testing project or INT was launched late last year; 2012 is the first phase of what will probably be a three-stage process initially. More likely, INT will never end but will become a continuous improvement process for the national accreditation system. One of the reasons the board launched INT | 82 | Creating our Future REPORT

now is that it is time to revisit the national accreditation system in a holistic and systemic way. In recent years, there have been reviews of different aspects but not of the system as a whole. The first phase will review NAATI’s standards, testing and assessment and develop recommendations for how we might refine and renew the credentialing system. The INT working group comprises the best researchers in the field we could find in Australia and internationally, and is led by Professor Sandra Hale from University of NSW. The Hale working group has completed substantial literature reviews and examined how credentialing systems work around the world. One of the most reassuring findings so far has been to see how developments internationally in translating and interpreting credentialing are converging around a model very similar to what we are evolving here. Here I rely on research by Dr Jim Hlavac of Monash University who will soon publish his research. The traditional European model has been that graduates from longestablished translating and interpreting university courses were accepted as practitioners and were often able to join professional bodies upon graduation. This worked well, but now Europe is coping with globalisation of trade, communications and large-scale movements of immigrants and refugees. Languages of newly arrived communities are not much taught in Europe’s universities, so they are adopting testing to enable them to award credentials in those languages. In the New World and East Asia, it has been the opposite with reliance on testing for the award of credentials rather than specialised tertiary qualifications. What is fascinating is that while there are wide differences between how countries credential translators and interpreters, the New and the Old Worlds are now converging – the New World or the Anglosphere is increasingly requiring tertiary qualifications alongside their testing regimes while the Old World is adopting testing for the languages not covered by their traditional university-based system. What is striking is Australia is already converged to a degree – we already combine the traditional emphasis on qualifications with the testing of the new and emerging languages. We do not claim to have the mix right yet but are working on it. One area of particular interest is the New Interpreters Project, which NAATI runs for DIAC in which we seek to encourage new interpreters in up to 76 languages from recently arrived communities. Revalidation Since 1 January 2007, NAATI has been awarding credentials with an expiry date, and a system to revalidate these comes into comes into effect from 1 July. Suffice to say that revalidation is the means by which translators and interpreters with NAATI credentials demonstrate at

regular intervals that they remain up-to-date and committed to the highest level of competency and currency in their profession. It is generally accepted that the key values that distinguish professionals are their commitments to currency of practice, professional development and voluntary compliance with codes of ethical conduct. By showing commitment to these values through revalidation (among other ways), translators and interpreters have taken a big step towards defining their calling and defining themselves as professionals. July 2012 will be significant also in that, in time, practitioners who are registered as revalidated will come to be preferred in the market

over those who are not. We expect that in a very tangible way those registered as revalidated will be seen as offering more than those who are not. Together these changes will build capacity in translating and interpreting significantly. To conclude, the answers to the questions at page five of SCoA’s Discussion Paper are that there are national standards for interpreters; they are the ones embedded in NAATI standards. Best practice is accepted generally as being to employ the highest-level NAATI credentialed interpreter available. From July 2012, that will become the highest-level NAATI credentialed interpreter who is registered by revalidation. Thank you.


plenary SPEAKER ROXANNE RAMSEY

Roxanne is the general manager of the Indigenous, regional and remote servicing division in the federal Department of Human Services. Her responsibilities include the delivery of Centrelink, Medicare and child support programs and services across northern Australia. Her role includes hands-on operational leadership and management as well as working with policy departments to ensure that policies developed are implemented. Roxanne has held senior leadership roles in state and federal public service since 1991, including senior executive positions in Queensland Health, the Department of Health SA, the Department of Human Services SA and the Department of Communities NSW.

Employment participation Good morning/afternoon. I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land we are meeting on and pay my respects to their Elders, past and present. It’s a great pleasure to address the Settlement Council of Australia Second National Settlement Conference today. I’m the General Manager of the Indigenous, Regional and Remote Servicing Division, Department of Human Services. In line with the themes of the conference, it is an absolute imperative for the department to contribute to building sector capacity and increase employment participation. I’d like to concentrate on a few things today that touch on the themes of the conference. • Our role – as you know, Centrelink, Medicare, Child Support, CRS Australia and Australian Hearing have been brought together under the Department of Human Services. • Partnerships and pathways for refugees – we work very closely with the Department of Immigration, settlement service providers, multicultural organisations and communities to ensure a smooth transition to training and employment for new arrivals. We are the first government service that refugees see after their arrival or grant of visa in Australia.

Pre-Arrival We work with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) to achieve quality program outcomes characterised by early engagement, regular consultation, and information sharing. Information about DHS is included in the Australian Cultural Orientation Program that refugees attend prior to their departure. DHS liaises with DIAC to ascertain details of impending new arrivals to ensure timely delivery of services. Refugee servicing network We have a national network of dedicated staff who provide services to newly arrived refugees. At the local level we work with contracted Humanitarian Settlement Service providers, the Australian Red Cross and other settlement and multicultural organisations to ensure newly arrived refugees receive a tailored service. To help with our interactions with refugees and other customers who require language assistance, DHS provides a free interpreter service that uses in-house interpreters. We currently have about 3,000 interpreters on our panel covering over 230 languages. These languages include those more commonly spoken by newly arrived refugees including Chin, Farsi, Karen, Rohingya, Hazaragi, etc.

• Local initiatives– our Multicultural Service Officers have a unique role in the department and have worked hard at closing service gaps for refugees and migrant communities and supporting those with complex circumstances.

Our initial priority is to put newly arrived refugees onto payment and enrol them with Medicare. Once that is completed, we can concentrate on their transition to education and employment.

Our role The department delivers health, social and welfare payments and services through the Medicare program, Centrelink program, Child Support program, CRS Australia, and Australian Hearing. Last financial year the Centrelink program delivered $90.5 billion payments to 7.1 million customers. Around 20% of these customers were identified as being from a diverse cultural and linguistic background. The Medicare program paid in excess of $43 billion to 22.5 million customers and issued over four million Medicare cards. We also offer specialised services, for example, to Indigenous peoples, vulnerable people, new migrants and refugees, and people affected by natural disasters. These services are available at 541 service centres around Australia. We also deliver services in innovative ways, for example, in regional and rural areas through Mobile Offices and Agents and Access Points.

This is the time they will begin English classes, learn about their rights and obligations, attend important assessments and really get a feel for reporting requirements and other important transition points they will enter during their time on payment.

Partnerships and pathways for Refugees The department maintains a very strong commitment to multicultural servicing.


Our service offer to refugees – DHS Refugee Service Model The department’s Refugee Service Model incorporates all facets of the new claim process, which typically covers 13 weeks from the date of registration for payments. The first 13 weeks on payment are an important period for refugees.

A key feature of the Model is the information seminar that is conducted by our Multicultural Service Officers (MSOs). This is an important session to gain more information about the payments and services we offer, what certain requirements mean and is a mechanism to provide assurance to the newly arrived who are looking for work and/or participating in education/training. Our MSOs are a key enabler and have an important departmental role. They are the link between the department and refugee communities, they improve accessibility to our payments and services, and they are the voice for many refugees.

In recognition of the importance of learning English, we also ensure that refugees are referred to the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) and we note this as a requirement on their Employment Pathway Plan. At later times, we may refer refugees to the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program (LLNP) if required, and to a Job Services Australia provider who will assist with job search activities. In some of the department’s sites, there are place-based pilots that focus on the local community and customers’ needs. These pilots are particularly relevant for newly arrived refugees. Local Connections to Work involves local service providers delivering their services on a rostered basis from a service centre, helping job seekers get the services they need and building stronger relationships between community services at the local level. The primary objective is to assist job seekers to overcome barriers to social inclusion and economic participation, in order to move into employment or training over time. Case Coordination delivers tailored support in response to customers’ circumstances by placing the customer at the centre of the process. Staff work with customers to help them identify their support needs, goals and aspirations and establish a plan of action. The plan can involve linking a customer to a range services, such as emergency relief, housing, health services, crisis support, education and training, and family and financial support. Local initiatives Hoops4life (SA) I’ll start with an initiative local to South Australia that our MSO, Paul Schmelzkopf (who you may know very well), has been involved in, called ‘Hoops4Life’. It has received wide recognition, and Paul says his involvement with the program has provided a great opportunity to connect with newly arrived communities in the area. The program is designed to support young people between the ages of eight and 19 and their parents and carers to develop good physical and mental wellbeing and life skills through sport, in particular basketball. Participants in the program develop and grow their skills in sportsmanship, effective communication, goal-setting, problemsolving and decision-making, emotional control, positive motivation, habits, conditions and attitude – all in a team environment. This is a great program. Coffee culture – Niche barista training (SA) Another local initiative in SA that has created a bit of a buzz is the coffee culture project. Paul facilitated meetings between Para Worklinks (a local training organisation), a Gloria Jeans coffee training manager from Sydney and SA Works to explore the possibility of targeted barista skills training. New arrival communities are growing within the Playford area, and this program will help participants gain some targeted training and work experience. We’re eagerly waiting to hear where the program will head. Pathways to primary industries project (NSW) This next project is a popular one and one you may have heard a bit about it in other forums. It began in 2007, when the MSO at Penrith approached the African communities in Western Sydney to find a way to engage and support refugees to find employment and to encourage them to integrate and to feel they are part of their new society. In March 2008, the MSO brought together a network of key agencies, including TAFE, NSW Farmers Association, DEEWR, Job Network, Women in Agriculture and Migrant Resource Centres in Western Sydney. The group worked together to develop the program. Richmond TAFE developed a special agriculture course to ensure

participants had the opportunity to improve their English language and literacy skills while learning about Australian farming practices. In 2009, 11 students graduated and eight gained full-time employment. The program was replicated in other areas. The MSO in Wollongong replicated and led the project in 2009. Fourteen students graduated from the Wollongong course in 2010, four gained employment, and others have continued to focus on improving their English skills. In 2010, 18 students graduated from Campbelltown TAFE. Of these, five gained full-time employment at Galston zucchini farm and at Bargo hydroponic lettuce farm. In February 2011, 18 refugees from Burmese/ Karen, Iraqi, Pakistani and Afghan backgrounds enrolled in the PPI course at Orchard Hills farm. In mid-October 2011, the Penrith MSO negotiated employment with farmers at Orchard Hills and Rossmore. Seventeen people have been employed on a part-time basis, and are continuing their training at the Orchard Hills farm. Twenty-eight students completed a PPI course in December 2011, and 24 are now working with farmers at Orchard Hills, Rossmore and Bargo. Local initiatives: Qld and Vic A number of local programs and initiatives have involved the local MSO in the planning. These include: Logan Driving course (Qld) This program was an outcome of the Logan multicultural interagency. Refugees are able to practice driving at the PCYC and build up their driving hours. The program relies heavily on volunteers. Whittlesea Careers Employment Action Group – Refugee Forum Working Group (Vic.) The forum was attended by approximately 100 participants and 20 government and non- government representatives, including DHS, Whittlesea Community Connections, TAFE, Local Council, AMES Employment, and employment service providers. Organisations showcased their programs and services, registered people who were interested and developed contact lists for follow-up opportunities. Bhutanese community farm (Vic.) There have been a number of successful community farming initiatives in Victoria, and this new program will combine skills development with employment. The goal of the program is to establish a commercial, community farm enterprise, managed by and employing members of the Bhutanese community in Albury/Wodonga. Participants will grow food for the community and sell produce to generate cash flow sufficient for the needs of the business. Ultimately, it is hoped that the farm will generate enough income to employ community members, especially in management and key production roles. The Australian Workplace Culture Forum – Helping Multicultural Job Seekers (Vic.) – 2 July 2012 This upcoming forum will be held in the City of Casey, Victoria. Participants will receive information on job advertisements, what employers are looking for, interview techniques, pathways to the job you want, support and more. We will be presenting important payment and services information and they are expecting 150 participants, including newly arrived refugees. Conclusion The department has an important role to play in supporting new arrivals, whether it is providing payments and services while they are looking for work, studying and training or helping them navigate their way through significant challenges. I’m passionate about pathways to social inclusion for our customers, and I look forward to working with you on this. Creating our Future REPORT | 85 |

Conference Summary of Outcomes Maria Dimopoulos, director of Myriad Consultants, is a human-rights and diversity trainer providing consulting services to a diverse range of clients, including government, non-government and legal organisations. She has extensive experience in policy formulation, research for social planning, and community education. She has undertaken sensitive consultations with diverse cultural and religious communities on a range of issues. In 2001, Maria was selected to participate in a global leadership course offered to a select twenty people from around the world, which was held at Rutgers University, USA. She has participated on a wide range of boards and committees and was recently appointed by the federal government to the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. She received an Amnesty International Human Rights Award for her work on the legal and human rights of women from culturally and religiously diverse backgrounds.

Georgia Prattis is a senior consultant with MyriaD Consultants, specialising in diversity training and organisational change programs that promote inclusive workplace environments. Prior to joining MyriaD, she held management roles in adult education and training, access and equity and diversity development within the public safety sector. Georgia’s career has included over 12 years of research and policy reform experience in the field of diversity. She has experience working across the public sector with a range of federal, state and local government bodies and with communities from immigrant and refugee backgrounds. From this she has gained different perspectives on improving organisational performance through research, evaluation and policy development. Reducing inequalities in employment, access to programs, services and the justice system, and addressing social exclusion are common themes across Georgia’s work history. Georgia was also responsible for the first large scale research on how gendered professional identities shape the participation of women in male dominated fire services in Australia. Georgia’s formal qualifications include a Bachelor of Arts, Diploma in Education and Master of Educational Studies.

The second national settlement conference ‘Creating our Future’ undoubtedly demonstrated the untiring commitment of the settlement sector to continuously pursue improved and enhanced responses around supporting new communities settling in Australia. Well over 400 delegates actively participated and contributed to discussions aimed at building service capacity and employment participation within the settlement context. Conference presenters and participants included a mix of community representatives, academics, settlement practitioners, and government representatives all working together to shape pathways for ‘Creating our Future’. An atmosphere of optimism, hope and a commitment to pursuing social justice, equality and human rights was visible across formal and informal discussion throughout the two days. Delegates embraced the responsibilities involved in representing the rights and aspirations of those communities they serve and shared openly and honestly the challenges in ensuring settlement experiences that reflected social justice and equality. A permeating theme throughout the conference was that striving towards human rights and social justice within the settlement context is an ongoing journey requiring many voices and a shared vision. Delegates unanimously declared that the ongoing existence of SCoA as a representative body was vital and that the conference outcomes reflected an important milestone in our collective commitment to supporting settlement, human rights and cross-cultural harmony.


The Settlement Council of Australia is indeed our collective voice and provides the pathway to express our collective potential and pursue the idea intrinsic to our common humanity; that everyone deserves an equal chance. The conference has set a bold agenda but also one that is achievable with a commitment by stakeholders working together to ensure new communities settle with dignity, respect and equality. Summary of recommendations: • Industry standards supported by a professional development program • Collaborative approaches and partnerships involving all stakeholders • Strengths based and responsive settlement services informed by a human rights lens • Ongoing research and a national clearing house to access best practice examples • Customised employment services and strengthening of social enterprise supports • Specific youth focused employment and education support programs

Conference program DAY 1: WEDNESDAY 27 JUNE 2012 Pre-Conference Activities Community Participation Workshop Roundtable Facilitator Workshop for Conference Facilitators Adelaide City Council Conference Reception Performance by Kashkul Persian Music Duo

DAY 2: THURSDAY 28 JUNE 2012 Registration Conference Facilitator: Maria Dimopoulos Welcome to Country: Aunty Josie Agius, Kaurna Elder Welcome Cedric Manen, Chairperson, Settlement Council of Australia The Hon. Jennifer Rankine MP, Minister for Multicultural Affairs (representing the Hon. Jay Weatherill, Premier of South Australia) SESSION CHAIR Elizabeth Ho, OAM, Director, The Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre, People of Australia Ambassador KEYNOTE SPEAKERS Professor Graeme Hugo, Director, Australian Population and Migration Research Centre, University of Adelaide Who are the people of Australia and where did they come from? Professor Andrew Jakubowicz, School of Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney Learning from the past to create Australia’s future Pro-Vice Chancellor Pal Ahluwalia, Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences, University of South Australia Towards a new paradigm for settlement of humanitarian entrants and other migrants Dr Helen Szoke, Race Discrimination Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission Developing an Australia for all its people through a human-rights model Morning Tea Plenary Forums – Round 1 BEGINNING DISCUSSIONS AROUND ‘CREATING OUR FUTURE’ Stream A: Building Service Capacity This stream will consider the ‘National Compact: working together’, an agreement between the Australian Government and the not-for-profit sector to find new and better ways of working together based on mutual trust, respect and collaboration. Delegates will participate in discussions about practical approaches for improving the way stakeholders work together. They will discuss goodpractice models and identify future directions for strengthening collaboration. Stream B: Employment Participation This stream will consider issues around employment as part of the settlement context, the role of settlement service providers in facilitating employment pathways, client expectations, the reality of the labour market and the intersections between employment and affordable housing. Delegates will participate in discussions about practical approaches for improving employment participation. They will discuss good-practice models and identify future directions for strengthening employment opportunities.


Conference program CONTINUED DAY 2: THURSDAY 28 JUNE 2012 CONT. Stream A Building Service Capacity

Stream B Employment Participation

PlEnAry SESSION CHAIR Rosemary Kelada Chief Executive Officer Spectrum

PlEnAry SESSION CHAIR Dr Joseph Masika Chairperson, African Communities Council of SA

Speakers Garry Fleming First Assistant Secretary, Citizenship, Settlement and Multicultural Affairs, DIAC

Speakers

Margaret Piper Law Faculty, University of Sydney

Michael Martinez CEO, Diversitat

Alison Sinclair State Manager SA/WA/NT, Quality Management Services

Alan Tidswell Managing Director and CEO, Mining Energy andEngineering Academy

Sky de Jersey Executive Officer, SCoA

Mark Roddam Branch Manager, Migration, CoAG and Evidence Branch, Social Policy and Economic Strategy Group, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Ary Laufer General Manager Employment, AMES

Roundtable Discussion

Roundtable Discussion

Facilitated small groups with set questions

Facilitated small groups with set questions

Lunch Performance by Burmese Youth Choir SESSION CHAIR Felicity-ann Lewis Mayor City of Marion KEYNOTE SPEAKERS Genia McCaffery, President, Australian Local Government Association The role of local government in settlement and participation Michael Krafft, Executive Manager, Business Development, Access Community Services Ltd The role of Job Employment Australia and Regional Development Australia in ensuring equitable participation in the workforce The Hon. Robyn Layton AO, QC, Adjunct Professor, School of Law, University of South Australia Building capacity to ensure the inclusion of vulnerable groups Kiros Hiruy, Honorary Research Associate, School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania Empowering communities through the development of democratic governance Afternoon Tea


DAY 2: THURSDAY 28 JUNE 2012 CONT. Plenary Forums – Round 2 DEVELOPING OUR DISCUSSIONS AROUND ‘CREATING OUR FUTURE’ STREAM A Building Service Capacity

STREAM B Employment Participation

PlEnAry SESSION CHAIR Louise Olliff Settlement Coordinator Refugee Council of Australia

PlEnAry SESSION CHAIR Karina Sommers Director, Research, Evaluation and Planning Section, Settlement Branch, DIAC

Speakers

Speakers

Farida Fozdar Professor of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Western Australia

Abeselom Nega CEO, iEmpower

Dr Tahereh Ziaian, Community Health Psychologist, University of South Australia Nadine Liddy National Coordinator, Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network Lis de Vries National Manager, Migration Support Programs Australian Red Cross Facilitated Roundtable Discussion 6.30 for 7.00

Erika Vickery Mayor, Naracoorte Lucindale Council Richard Spurrell Executive General Manager, Quality Performance & Innovation MAX Employment/ Maximus Solutions Australia Ricci Bartels Manager, Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre Facilitated Roundtable Discussion

Conference Dinner GUEST Speaker

Mr Hieu Van Le, OA,

Lieutenant Governor of SA; Chair, Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission Entertainment Silk Road, South African Choir

DAY 3: FRIDAY 29 JUNE 2012 Registration Performance by Bortier Okoe SESSION CHAIR Violet Roumeliotis Chief Executive Officer Settlement Services International Guest Speaker Senator the Hon. Kate Lundy, Minister for Sport, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation KEYNOTE SPEAKERS Xavier Csar, Assistant Secretary, South East Australia Regional Development Australia Building settlement and industry alliances Simon Schrapel, President, Australian Council of Social Services Importance of cross sector partnerships in achieving national compact outcomes Judge Rauf Soulio, Chair, Australian Multicultural Council Indicators of equity for all people in Australia Creating our Future REPORT | 89 |

Conference program CONTINUED DAY 3 – FRIDAY 29 JUNE 2012 Morning Tea Plenary Forums – Round 3 DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS STREAM A Building Service Capacity

STREAM B Employment Participation

PlEnAry SESSION CHAIR Genevieve Haskett General Manager – Education Program & Service TAFESA

PlEnAry SESSION CHAIR Dewani Bakkum Manager Migrant & Refugee Settlement Services

Speakers Dr Sev Ozdowski Director, Equity and Diversity, University of Western Sydney Pino Migliorino Chair, Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia (FECCA) Teresa Carney Operations Manager AMES John Beever CEO, National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI)

Facilitated Roundtable Discussion What strategies are required for building meaningful and collaborative service capacity? Round Table Report-back Lunch Performance by the Congolese Choir SESSION CHAIR Eugenia Tsoulis OAM Chief Executive Officer Migrant Resource Centre of SA Guest Speaker Hon Kate Ellis MP Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare Minister for Employment Participation Challenges for Productive Diversity Plenary Report-back Maria Dimopoulos Myriad Consultants Georgia Prattis Myriad Consultants Closing Remarks Cedric Manen Chairperson, SCoA Performance by Rawandan Cultural Dancers | 90 | Creating our Future REPORT

Speakers Mark Cully Chief Economist Department of Immigration and Citizenship David Keegan HSS Acting Program Manager, Settlement Services International Dean Wickham EO, Sunraysia Mallee Ethnic Communities Council Roxanne Ramsey General Manager, Indigenous, regional servicing division, Department of Human Services. Facilitated Roundtable Discussion What strategies are required to address sustainable participation in education, training and employment? Round Table Report-back

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Conference Organising Committee

Program Advisory Committee

Round Table Facilitators

Eugenia Tsoulis OAM, Convenor

Eugenia Tsoulis, Convenor

Violet Roumeliotis

Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia

Sky de Jersey, SCoA Executive Officer

Cedric Manen

Adelaide City Council

Regina Betts, MRCSA Programs Manager

Maria Dimopoulos

Partners and sponsors Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Australian Government

Australian Local Government Association School of Art, Architecture and Design – University of South Australia Multicultural SA – Government of South Australia UTS Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Research Centre

Matti Spellacy, MRCSA Administration Coordinator Laura Anderson, SCoA Members Service Officer Maria Dimopoulos, Myriad Consultants Georgia Prattis, Myriad Consultants

Sky de Jersey Karina Sommers Professor Graeme Hugo Professor Andrew Jakubowicz Conference facilitators

Cedric Manen Teresa Carney Ron Mitchell Rosemary Kelada Sky de Jersey Margaret Piper Farida Fozdar Angela Malpas Mariam Hii Louise Olliff

Maria Dimopoulos

Nadine Liddy

Georgia Prattis

Cynthia Caird Danny McAteer

Session chairs

Elizabeth Ho

The Hawke Centre, University of South Australia

Elizabeth Ho, OAM

Shiree Pilkinton

Felicity-ann Lewis

Genevieve Haskett

University of Adelaide, SA

Violet Roumeliotis

Prue Hemming

Australian Human Rights Commission

Rosemary Kelada

Vahedeh Mansoury

Louise Olliff

Dewani Bakkum

Department for Education and Child Development – Government of SA

Genevieve Haskett

Regina Betts

Dr Joseph Masika

David Keegan

Karina Sommers

Dean Wickham

Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman

Dewani Bakkum

Andrew Davis Karina Sommers

Quality Management Services (QMS)

Dr Joseph Masika

Department of Human Services – Australian Government

Michelle Davies

Settlement Services International

Tahereh Ziaian

Ricci Bartels Kamalle Dabboussy

Australian Red Cross AMES

Performers

Myriad Consultants

Burmese Youth Choir

ACOSS Anglicare SA

Silk Road South African Choir Bortier Okoe Congolese Choir Rwandan Cultural Dancers


SCoA executive/steering committee Cedric Manen, Chairperson email: [email protected] phone: 03 6221 0999 mobile: 0414 698 906

Ricci Bartels, Deputy Chairperson email: [email protected] phone: 02 9727 0477 mobile: 0421 632 111

Eugenia Tsoulis OAM, Secretary email: [email protected] phone: 08 8217 9500 mobile: 0419 852 993

Rosemary Kelada, Treasurer email: [email protected] phone: 03 9496 0200 mobile: 0412 927 240

Violet Roumeliotis email: [email protected] phone: 02 8071 1069 mobile: 0434 589 493


Michael Martinez email: [email protected] phone: 03 5221 6044

Michael O’Hara email: [email protected] phone: 08 9345 5755 mobile: 0438 975 056

Dewani Bakkum email: [email protected] phone: 02 6248 8577

Ron Mitchell email: [email protected] phone: 08 8945 9122 mobile: 0412 314 517

CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi

Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute

Kyp Boucher

Life Without Barriers SA

Galila Abdelsalam

Islamic Women’s Association of Queensland

Francesca Bree

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Terefe Aborete

Catholic Care Melbourne

Teresa Brook

Public Library Services

Richard Acheson

Community Relations Commission

John Brown

Migrant Resource Centre Northern Tasmania

Michael Adamson

Mallee Family Care

Hannah Browne

Baptist Care SA

Genevieve Adzanku

Families SA – Intercountry Services

Vedrana Budimir

Migration Museum

Peter Agala

Sudanese Community

Mirsia Bunjaku

Migrant Resource Centre of SA

Yamamah Agha


Jennie Bunney

Red Cross

Bernadette Agyepong

Sydney West Multicultural Services

Julie Burdett

Limestone Coast MRC

Pal Ahluwalia

Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences, Uni SA

Alex Burns

Northern Settlement Services

Cynthia Caird

Adelaide MR

Ali Akbarpour

Anglicare SA

Imelda Cairney

Comorbidity Action in the North

Reyhana Akhy


Ferial Al Khil Khali

Middle Eastern Communities Council of SA

Kris Cala

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Settlement Policy Section

Mamtamin Ala


Teresa Carney

AMES

Assefa Alemu

Ethiopian Community of SA

Rachele Carroll

New Hope Foundation

Fatima Ali

Life Without Barriers

Mary Ceravolo

City of Salisbury

Beengul Ali

Islamic Women’s Association of QLD

Susan Chadwick

Limestone Coast MRC

Ahmad Al-Mousa

Brotherhood of St Laurence – Ecumenical Migration Centre

Brad Chilcott

Welcome to Australia

Flora Chol

Multicultural YouthLink SA

Isaac Aluong

Multicultural Youth Link SA

Antoinette Chow

St George MRC

KayAnastassiadis

Policy and Legislation, Policy, Governance and Executive Services Division SA Department for Health and Ageing

Simon Cin Zah

Northern Area MRC

Dorota Cipusev


Laura Anderson

SCoA

Archana Anil

Migrant Resource Centre – Southern Tasmania Inc.

Julie Clapham

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – CSM Research, Evaluation and Planning Section Settlement Branch

Tanya Clifford

Diversitat

Sandi Clissold

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – HSS Program Management Section

Elizabeth Colangelo

Salvation Army WA

Rita Cole

TAFE SA

Carol Collins

Baptist Care SA

Neroli Colvin

Institute for culture and society, University of Western Sydney

Joanne Constantinides

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – CSM Research, Evaluation and Planning Section

Mariae Crawshaw

Regional Development Australia Logan and Redlands Inc

Vicki Antonio Atem Atem

Australian National University

David Aung

Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre

David Ayambo

Salvation Army WA

Sidique Bah

Multicultural Communities Council of SA

Samia Baho

Department of Justice – Victoria

Dewani Bakkum

Migrant and Refugee Settlement Services of the ACT Inc.

Veronica Bannon

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Grants Section WA

Ricci Bartels


Virginia Bashford


Van Bawi Tin Hlawng


Chadi Bazzi

Drake Australia

Mark Cully

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Chief Economist

Cynthia Beare

Families SA – Intercountry Services

Kamalle Dabboussy

Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre

Tarik Beden


Nigel Dale

City of Prospect

John Beever

National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters

Barbara Dalloway

City of Bendigo

Lyda Dankha

Spectrum Vic

Peter Begg

TAFE SA

Nora Darius

African Communities Council of SA

Margie Berleman

Girl Guides SA

Madhu Dasgupta

Multicultural Council NT

Zoe Bettison

SA Parliament

Michelle Davies

Anglicare SA

Regina Betts

Regional Multicultural Communities Council of SA

Clare Davies


Louise Billett

Tasmanian Catholic Education Office

Andrew Davis

Anglicare SA

Reagan Bledee

Northern Area MRC

Meg Davis

Townsville Multicultural Support group inc

Erica Blundell

Business Affairs, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion

Danyon De Buell

Riverland Multicultural Forum

Sky de Jersey

SCoA

Sue Blyth

TAFE South Australia

Liz de Vries

Red Cross

Valentine Bope

Limestone Coast MRC

Deb Dearnley

Rainbow Coast Neighbourhood Centre

Anita Boras

Diversitat

Darrin Borlace


David Dedenczuk

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Policy and Coordination section Refugee Support branch National Office

Xavier Csar South East Australia Regional Development Australia


CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS CONTINUED Christine Deegan


Vesna Haracic

City of Salisbury

Sergio Denis

Community Connections, Community First Step

Nicole Harb

Flinders University

Cristina Descalzi

Anglicare SA

Jodie Hardman

Diversitat

Hameed Dhuha

Iraqi Community of SA

Amy Harkin

Red Cross

Michelle Dieu

MRCSA

Daniel Harris

Multicultural Council of Wagga Wagga

Said Dileri

Spectrum Vic

Sharynn Harris


Maria Dimopoulos

Myriad Consultants

Annie Harvey

Red Cross

Theresa Dorman Settlement

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Framework Section

Genevieve Haskett

TAFE SA

Steve Hebblethwaite

Melaleuca Refugee Centre

Francisco Dos Santos


Abdul Hekmat


Florina D’Sylva

MRCSA

Prue Hemming

TAFE SA

Jaclyn Dunkley

CatholicCare Canberra and Goulburn

David Edwards


Courtney Higgins


Penny Egan-Vine

Murray Valley Sanctuary Refugee Group

Mariam Hii

St George MRC

Sandra Elhelw


Leanne Hill

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Faiza El-higzi

Mercy Family Services – Romero Centre

Kiros Hiruy

University of Tasmania

Diana Elliott

Albury Wodonga volunteer resource bureau

Elizabeth Ho

Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre UniSA

Hassan Emad

MRCSA

Jo Hocking

Anglicare SA

Zanetta Figiel

Crows Nest Centre

Rae-Ann Holloway

Red Cross

Tricia Flanagan

Department of Human Services

Aileen Hough

Centacare Tasmania

Garry Fleming

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – CSMA Division

Stephanie Howard

Melaleuca Refugee Centre

Nicollette Floris

Families SA

Bryan Hughes

Baptist Care SA

Hazel Folland


Robert Hughes

Jesuit Social Services

Farida Fozdar

University of Western Australia

Peter Hughes

Access and Equity Inquiry Panel

Catherine Franklin

Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau

Graeme Hugo

University of Adelaide

Losena Fuko

Metro MRC

Sue Hunter


Mahongo Fumbelo

Wise Employment

Veronica Hunter-Riviere

Adelaide Northern Division of General Practice

Estela Funtes

Anglicare SA

Julie Fyfe

City of Salisbury

Hutch Hussein

Brotherhood of St Laurence – Ecumenical Migration Centre

Valerie Gabatazi


Ratan Gajmere

Northern Area MRC

Gauri Gajmere

Bhutanese Women’s Group

Annika Hutchins

Office of Senator the Hon. Kate Lundy, Minister for Sport, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation

Gaveen George


Fernanda Ikeda

Limestone Coast MRC

Tracey Gerhardy

SA Dental Service

Jana Isemonger

City of Salisbury

Stephanie Gheller

Office of Zoe Bettison – SA Parliament

Renae Jackson

Life without barriers

Cassandra Gibson-Pope

City of Marion

Andrew Jakubowicz

University of Technology Sydney

Jamie Godden


Warren Jansen

Migrant and Refugee Settlement Services of ACT

Denise Goldfinch

Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau

Yazdan Jawshani

MRCSA

Angeles Gomez

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Community Engagement and Multicultural Affairs Branch, ACT and Regions Office

Tony Jenkins

Diversitat

Maria Johns

Migrant Women’s Lobby Group

Frank Johnson

Albury Wodonga Volunteer Resource Bureau

Luis Gonzalez

Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman

Glenys Jones

Women’s Legal Service

Irena Gorgiev

Social Inclusion and Network Support Section Multicultural Services Branch, Indigenous, Regional and Remote Servicing Division, Department of Human Services

Tahlia Joy

Life Without Barriers NT

Jenny Joyce

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Settlement Policy

Elias Kabura

Burundian Community Association of SA

Tanya Kaplan


Jyotshna Karki


Nadia Karam

Multicultural Development Association

Robyn Grace Jenny Grey

Gymea Community Aid & Information Service

Akoi Guong

MRCSA

Zeleka Habtegiorgis

Ethiopian Community of SA

Adbul Hakimi

Limestone Coast MRC

Dan Haller

A&PHC Services, Migrant Health Services

Amy Kay


Anne Hamilton

Migrant Resource Centre – Southern Tasmania

David Keegan


Ross Hamilton

DECD

Rosemary Kelada

Spectrum Vic.

Rifaat Hanna

St George MRC

Tracey Hansen

AMEP Section

Laurine Kelson Complex Case

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Support Section


Jatinder Kaur

Nasim Khomany Svetlana King Georgia Koronis Michael Krafft Maria Krajewski Marika Krstevska La Ku Agnes Kumar Ary Laufer Prof Robyn Layton, AO, QC Carmen Lazar Roger Lean Stan Lewinski Mayor Felicity-ann Lewis Nadine Liddy James Lino Katrina Lourie Jeanie Lucas Senator Kate Lundy Affairs, Minister Fiona Lynch-Magor Dee-Ann Mace Tanya Magee Kylie Mahoney Nadia Makdadi Souzana Mallis Angela Malpas Cedric Manen Catherine Manning Hilda Mansoori Vahedah Mansoury Nuha Markus Alf Martin Michael Martinez Lailah Masiga Dr Joseph Masika Boshra Masri Lawrence Massaquoi Rukukuye Mastaky Diana Mastrantuano Christine Maudsley Martin Maya Ferdous Mazraeh Danny McAteer Settlement Kerry Mcconville Kerrie McDonald Amanda McKay Gill McPadden Karl Micek Pino Migliorino Cathy Milne

Iranian Community of SA Flinders University Quality Management Systems Access Community Services Limited Multicultural Development Association Edmund Rice Centre Regional Multicultural Communities Council of SA Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Grants Management Section AMES Vic. School of Law, University of South Australia Assyrian Australian Association Multicultural SA Regional Multicultural Communities Council of SA City of Marion MYAN

Stella Miria-Robinson

Uniting Care Community Brisbane

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Refugee Youth Support Pilot Families SA – Intercountry Services Minister for Sports, Minister for Multicultural Assisting for Industry and Innovation Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Refugee Support Branch Multicultural council of Wagga Wagga Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Refugee Youth Support Pilot CSM Research, Evaluation and Planning (REP) Section Iraqi Cultural Association New Hope Foundation ac.care Migrant Resource Centre – Southern Tasmania Inc. Migration Museum Life Without Barriers SA Middle Eastern Communities Council of SA Spectrum Vic. Health First Network Diversitat Multicultural Council NT Families SA – Intercountry Services Metro MRC Multicultural Development Association MRCSA Red Cross Anglicare SA African Communities Council of SA Middle Eastern Communities Council of SA Department of Immigration and Citizenship – SA and Multicultural Affairs Branch SA Department of Human Services Mount Gambier North Primary TAFE South Australia Department of Immigration and Citizenship – CSM Research, Evaluation and Planning Section Multicultural Community Services of Central Australia Federation of Ethnic Communities Council Australia Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Branch NSW

Ron Mitchell

Multicultural Council NT

Chris Mitchell

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – HSS Richmond Review Implementation Taskforce

Monica Montalvo

Communicare WA

Zakiyyah Muhammad

DECD, Thebarton Senior College

Heather Muirhead

Baptist Care SA

Anjali Mukund

Mercy Care

Helen Murphy TAFE English Language and Literacy Service (TELLS) Jodie Murphy

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Settlement Policy Section

Janet Murtagh


Eliza Muskett

Migrant Resource Centre – Southern Tasmania Inc

Lillian Mwanri


Angela Naumann Citizenship,

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Settlement and Multicultural Affairs Branch

Abeselom Nega

National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters

Loucas Nicolaou

Federation of Ethnic Communities Council Australia

Yves Nkoranyi


Cheryl Nolan

St Vincents de Paul NSW

Fleur Noonan

PVS Perth

Precious Norman


Litsa Nossar

St George Migrant resource centre

Donatien Ntikahavuye

City of Playford

San San Nuh Hrin

Northern Area MRC

Jim O’Callaghan

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Contract Management and Business Improvement Section

Katrina Ochan

Sturt Street Children’s Centre

Carmel O’Connell

Social Development Committee – South Australian Parliament

Louise Olliff

Refugee Council of Australia

Mike Ope

Congolese Youth Group Mt Gambier

Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM

University Western Sydney

Shama Pande


Amanda Parsons


Esta Paschalidis-Chilas

Metro MRC

Warren Pearson

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Multicultural Affairs Branch

Dr Sean Perera

Australian National University

Shiree Pilkinton

Ballarat Community Health Centre

Pam Pindral

City of Salisbury

Margaret Piper

University of Sydney

Julia Pitman

TAFE SA

Martine Pitt

Communicare WA

Bogdana Poljak

Spectrum Vic.

Georgia Prattis

Myriad Consultants

Keith Preston

MRCSA

Zeljka Prodanovic

Multicultural Services Centre of WA

Joy Puls

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Multicultural Policy Section

Ali Qambari

Afghani Youth Mt Gambier

Roxanne Ramsey


Hon Jennifer Rankine MP

Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Sindu Rao

Centacare Tasmania Creating our Future REPORT | 95 |

CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS CONTINUED Christine Ratnasingham


Nayano Taylor-Neumann

Lutheran Community Care

Hussain Razaiat


Wambui Thirimu

Spectrum Vic.

Susie Reardon-Smith


Aiah Thomas


Oxana Reed

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – HSS Program Management Section

Sheela Thomas

Catholic Multicultural Office, Archdiocese of Adelaide

Tim Ricketts

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – HSS Contract Management Section

Alan Tidswell

Mining Energy and Engineering Academy Ltd.

Grant Roberts


Thao Tran

Baptist Care SA

Amanda Robinson

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – CSM Division

Greg Trengrove

ASIC

Mark Roddam


Diana Trionfi

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – AMEP Section

Ricardo Rodriguez


Eugenia Tsoulis

MRCSA

Lesley Rogan

Drake Australia

Cindy Turner


Tia Roko

Auburn Diversity Services Inc.

Jane Turner

Mount Gambier North PS

Anneke Rook


Nicole Turvey

Equal Opportunity Commission – Attorney-General’s Department

Sebastian Ross-Hagebaum Multicultural Development Association

Elke Unger


Violet Roumeliotis


Suji Upasena


Madeliene Russell

Centacare Tasmania

HieuVan Le AO

Lieutenant Governor of South Australia

Annette Ruzicka


Adam Ryan

Anglicare NT

Manon van Zuijlen

Survivors of Torture and Trauma Assistance and Rehabilitation Service

Jill Schaefer

Canberra Institute of Technology

Karin Vasquez

Macarthur Diversity Services Initiative

Wally Scharf

Diversitat

Marianna Vecchione

Centacare Cairns

Benita Schiansky

Regional Multicultural Communities Council of SA

Saskia Vervoorn

Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sports

Erika Vickery

Naracoorte Lucindale Council

Tom Schiansky

Anne Tormey

Paul Schmelzkopf


Simon Schrapel

Uniting Care Wesley Centre, Adelaide

Robyn Schutte Australian

Social Development Committee – South Parliament

Paul Scully

Baptist Care SA

Pat Sheahan

St Vincents de Paul SA

Leonnie Sheppard

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – WA STO

Jan Sim

The Penguin Club of Australia (SA) Inc.

Alison Sinclair

Quality Management Systems

Barnaby Smith

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Multicultural Affairs, Citizenship and Settlement TAS STO

Trevor Smith

Centacare Catholic Family Relationship Services

Louise Smith South

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Australia, South Australia State and Territory Office (SA STO)

Matt Wilson

TAFE South Australia

Simon Sogora


Catherine Wood


Edward Solo

African Communities Council of NT

Toby Worswick


Karina Sommers

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – CSM Research, Evaluation and Planning (REP) Section

Nikki Wynne


Priska Wyrsch

Migrant Resource Centre Hobart

Vishal Sonule

Sydney Multicultural Community Services

Musombwa Yona


Judge Rauf Soulio

Australian Multicultural Council

Muhama Yotham

Family Services Uniting Communities

Matti Spellacy

MRCSA

Virginia Young

Vinnies NSW – SPARK

Richard Spurrell

Max Network

Violeta Sukoski

Ishar Multicultural Women’s Health Centre

Sue Young

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – CSM Research, Evaluation and Planning Section Settlement Branch

Marina Suleski

Ishar Multicultural Women’s Health Centre

Cathy Zesers

Health First Network

Frances Summers

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – CSM Research, Evaluation and Planning (REP) Section

Dr Tahereh Ziaian

School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia

Anna Ziersch

Flinders University

Dr Helen Szoke


Daniel Zingifuaboro

Access Community Services Limited

Lagaua Taala

Community Connections, Community First Step

Heidi Zwick

New Hope Foundation

Anne-Marie Taylor


Ewa Zysk

Spectrum Vic


The Hon Kelly Vincent MLC Social Development Committee – South Australian Parliament Christina Ward

Edmund Rice Centre

Adam Warzel

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Humanitarian Settlement Vic. STO

Rebecca Wessels

Australian Refugee Association

Tim West Community

Department of Immigration and Citizenship – Relations Section

Cecilia White

Equal Opportunity Commission – Attorney-General’s Department

Mandy Whitton

Edmund Rice Centre Mirrabooka

Dean Wickham

Sunraysia Mallee Ethnic Communities Council

Mary Willems

Anglicare NT

Jan Williams

A&PHC Services, Migrant Health Service

Carla Wilshire

PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK From four hundred and ten (410) attendees, two hundred and two (202) participants responded to a written survey, including eightyfour (84) anonymous responses. Two thirds of participants attended the settlement-sector capacity building plenary sessions while the remaining third attended the employment participation plenary sessions. The survey asked questions on the overall conference experience, conference materials, keynote speakers, venue and catering, and entertainment. The responses for all questions were very evenly matched with entertainment receiving the highest positive score of more than 90%. All other items scored more than 80% satisfied or very satisfied.

Summary off survey returns The most useful areas of the conference: • networking and/or sharing experiences • roundtable discussions • conference materials • up-to-date information on current practice and thinking and insight into other agencies’ practice • opportunity for advocacy • congratulations on a well-organised and great conference – there was a positive and proactive feeling throughout the conference • the community performances were fantastic

• the opportunity for those not in the field, but who work with the settlement sector, to have an insight into how the sector works • most plenary and keynote speakers were great and some were inspiring • developing recommendations that will take us into the future • social gathering, dinner and reception Suggestions made for achieving conference outcomes and for organising future conferences: • SCoA and relevant government agencies ensure they implement the recommendations • conference report and recommendations be available as soon as possible to all participants • get more employers and more employer groups on board – SCoA should set up an employment taskforce to increase the migrant and refugee workforce participation • identify the recommendations raised in the previous and this conference and report back on achievements • organise conference over three days, as there is a need for more interaction between speakers and participants • retain and expand a practice-based focus / examples of good practice • family reunion and accommodation need to be key features of any future forum • ensure a settlement conference is held every two years to keep the sector and allied partners regularly updated and informed.


FACILITATED PLENARY FORUM OUTCOMES 1. Building Service Capacity A Summary of Commonly Cited Issues Different types of visas and service eligibility are creating confusion and inequity. Problems are resulting from the current funding model, particularly in relation to the unrealistic expectations of entrants about service entitlements and the availability of employment and accommodation, etc. Problems are resulting from a lack of access and equity – mainstream agencies lack understanding of their roles and responsibilities. There is no consistency in the quality of settlement-service delivery because of a lack of national standards and consistency, particularly with the Settlement Grants Program. There is a lack of integrated, long-term, policy-consistent funding utilising non-competitive models of tendering. There is a lack of standardised national funding for the sector to focus on cultural competency and good practice. Summary of Strategies Suggested Decision-making and participation Monitor and evaluate the impacts of government policy changes, with particular emphasis on the effects on NGOs’ ability to meet funding and contractual obligations and the effects on clients and staff. Ideally, this should be done within three to six months after policy implementation. Cross government—agency development of innovative solutions are needed to address critical shortfalls in service provision, including housing shortages and the misfit between different funding arrangements leading to serious client service difficulties and gaps. Policy changes need to ensure broader, regular and ongoing consultation with the settlement sector, including consultation with ethno-specific organisations. Bridge the gaps between community advocacy groups or organisations and decision-makers and funding bodies through sharing best practices – at both policy and grassroots levels – to find the link to what works. Utilise the National Settlement Framework to address integrated funding as a standard reference point and platform The development of a National Settlement Framework should include: • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the framework for entitlements to all visa holders • articulated responsibility for services

•

an approach that is informed by: - sector collaboration - standards - self-determining communities - strength-based service models.

Advocacy and research SCoA develop action plans targeted at achieving collaboration and streamlined, meaningful service experiences for clients involving government and non-government stakeholders responsible for key settlement needs. Settlement sector workers and ethnic community organisations be directly consulted in relation to policy development, settlement service needs, and what influences effective settlement. SCoA develop partnerships with private enterprise to establish bestpractice projects to improve settlement outcomes, specifically in employment for humanitarian entrants. SCoA advocate for evidence-based practice and accountability of all players in the settlement sector, underpinned by the principles of access, equity and human rights for all visa holders, with a requirement of frequent reviews by an independent body. Identify agencies or resources that are able to consolidate research outcomes into action plans. Document settlement-service outcomes through evidence-based approaches. SCoA partner credible research to identify innovative approaches to improving critical needs, such as housing, economic empowerment, and education. SCoA publish a best-practice guide including examples of good collaboration between the sector and governments. Funding Funding models allow flexibility for service providers to use their funding according to changing demands and without having to adhere to decisions made upon application or to re-apply and enter into new and convoluted contracts. Establish long-term, flexible and ongoing funding to maintain and improve the skills of specialist settlement organisations and to ensure government resources are maximised and targeted. Change funding and contractual obligations to take into account the overwhelming growth in client loads and the localities where this is occurring.

• pathways for service delivery

Fund settlement services that prepare local communities to welcome and engage new arrivals.

• commitment to develop an interactive web portal to assist all stakeholders in the planning and delivery of services, and to share information

Fund models that are attached to people, not agencies, so clients can have access where and when they need a service, especially in employment participation.

• staff retention and development pathways, such as: - cross-sector secondments - professional development program

The government move towards a legislatively based model of investment that is reflective of need and the demographics of the sector.

• appropriate management of volunteer support

Provide funding for building capacity through self-determination, supported by a settlement framework that encourages best practice. Adequately fund SCoA to ensure the organisation is able to effectively assist sector capacity building and advocacy outcomes with respect to employment participation and access and equity.


SCoA hold a biennial conference to report to, and have input from, the settlement sector on the outcomes of the suggested strategies and key recommendations. Accommodation The expectations of clients are often described as ‘unrealistic’, but we need to ensure that we are able to respond to reasonable expectations, such as affordable and suitable housing and ready access to education. To overcome accommodation issues there is a need for cross agency coordination, collaboration, planning and new approaches involving those dealing with accommodation, such as housing authorities, real estate agents, local councils (on planning issues), housing associations and developers. This collaboration also needs to involve related services, such as public transport and local government planning bodies. Humanitarian sponsorship Addressing the gaps in humanitarian sponsorship where unsuitable, ill-equipped sponsors result in no access to services and risk of exploitation. Training Introduce national standards for settlement sector workers and encourage CALD community members to be better represented in these roles. Introduce compulsory cultural competency training and infrastructure across the government sectors to ensure that referrals from settlement services achieve equitable outcomes, and to minimise clients being sent by government agencies back to the initial settlement service provider. Establish a national clearing house for consistent, reliable and accurate information. Provide ongoing support and professional development for sector workers, including a mentoring network to support and guide new staff. SCoA investigate the long-term development of sustainable industry standards and professional-development strategies for the sector workforce, and explore the options for sourcing investment funds for those activities. Settlement locations Apply a strategic approach to where people are being settled, focusing on matching people with effective settlement areas and economic opportunities. Strengthen local capacity through local planning committees, focusing on increasing resources to settlement agencies to support generic agencies to take up their role delivering services to migrants and refugees. Build the capacity within refugee communities to play a more active role in supporting their own communities. Give 866 visa holders (especially those coming out of detention) an initial orientation period during which they can be supported to address initial settlement needs, taught life skills and supported to decide on the best settlement location (based on links/skills or other criteria).

DIAC undertake preliminary work before placing new arrivals in a proposed community of settlement, including: • building the capacity of local councils to support new arrival communities • ensure all three tiers of government are working together in the commitment of resources • engaging local media in promoting positive messages • educating the local community about the background of new arrivals • providing more orientation for, and consultation with, new arrivals to identify cultural needs and skills and what can be done to ensure people feel welcomed, comfortable and safe. Local government Local government ensure the services it delivers and the services of mainstream agencies in its locality are transparent and visible so that new and emerging communities know what services are available – for the general community and for them. Interpreters and communication Adopt mandatory requirements for some services to use interpreters – especially the legal and medical sectors. Employ people from client communities in settlement services and government-funding bodies. Partnership and collaboration Embed collaboration in programs, in identifying and addressing client needs, in the scope of tendering processes, in service delivery under contract terms, and in service evaluation, including: • consultation with a broad range of stakeholders to identify current client needs • collaboration across government departments and advocacy by SCoA and service providers across a range of portfolios and outside government • incentives for collaboration in the tendering process • community capacity building embedded in collaboration. Require tenders to demonstrate collaborative approaches between NGOs and ethnic community umbrella organisations around serving their communities. Develop a collaborative framework focused on effective service delivery to support settlement, and bring together client service providers and government with a less competitive focus. The Australian Government collaborate with local government about planned new community development and subsequent movements. Cross-sector partnerships to be built with the business sector to recognise innovative projects in the sector, including an award for the most innovative project biennially through the SCoA conference; the national award to be harnessed to share information that enhances capability. A funding model around working in partnership with the community to be established that makes client-centred funding the underpinning model for settlement agencies.


FACILITATED PLENARY FORUM OUTCOMES CONTINUED 2. Employment Participation A Summary of Commonly Cited Issues Regional areas tend to offer less support and services around employment participation. Clients often agree to take up unsuitable jobs because they desperately need access to money to send back home. Communities and family members relocate for short-term work with no real ongoing employment potential. There is much frustration resulting from a mismatch between client expectations and the reality of the labour market. Clients often do not understand occupational health and safety requirements, and some employers exploit this. Workplace expectations and cultural norms are often not understood.

There is a disconnection for clients between the different settlement programs from HSS to SGP to employment. CALD clients have been made job-ready, but employers do not have confidence around the skill sets of these clients. Many clients have not been placed in correct Job Services Australia streams in terms of the support they require. Many are classified as being in Stream 1, where the client gets minimal support. Assessment based on self-disclosure is an issue, because incorrect classification leads to an inappropriate level of support provided to jobseekers. In an attempt to meet targets, Job Search Agencies are placing jobseekers in jobs that may not be appropriate.

Employment expectations of refugee communities have fallen, and some are resigned about their ability to access the job market.

Inappropriate referrals for training are resulting due to a conflict of interest between job support agencies and registered training organisations. Some training providers are not recognised by industry.

Language is a key barrier to employment access. Even after attending the full 510 hours of the AMEP course, English language skills are still very limited. Further, this course is not pitched for employment purposes but around daily activities.

Job Services Australia are not well equipped to deal with CALD background clients who face additional disadvantage. Assumptions made are unrealistic about client understanding.

Many communities resort to low-paid cash work because they do not have any local work references needed by most employers. Newstart jobseekers enrol in migrant English-language programs as part of their employment pathway plan. Although they are effectively students, this is not recognised by Centrelink. If a ‘suitable’ job emerges, they are required to take the job and leave their language classes. A so-called suitable job can often be seasonal fruit-picking that lasts only a few weeks but may cost the jobseeker a considerable amount of money in temporary relocation, as well as isolation from their family and community. There is a high turnover of staff and a lack of case management in employment agencies. There is no clear line of responsibility around roles in employment participation. There is no coordination between settlement services, HSS and DEEWR. Employment services are not properly assessing clients, but merely ticking the boxes and trying to fill employer expectations.

Racism is still a barrier to employment in first- and second-generation CALD communities. Many second-generation refugee background communities have completed training and acquired qualifications but cannot access the job market. Clients are anglicising their names to get job interviews due to perceptions that employers are racist. Key issues for women Women often experience greater barriers to entering the job market. Many possess a wide range of skills but have spent extended periods in refugee camps and have lost these skill sets or have no evidence to prove them. They often resort to housekeeping jobs and are unable to work at the pace required. Their understanding of workplace relations is poor, as is their knowledge of their rights and responsibilities. Other issues for women include: • access to childcare • access to transport and mobility (drivers license, buying a car, affordability)

There is no employment service model to meet the specific needs of humanitarian entrants.

• domestic violence

There is pressure on existing settlement support services to fill the employment gaps without the resources and capacity to deal with the client numbers demanding services.

• lack of recognition of qualifications and experience

There is lack of recognition of overseas qualifications and references. Job Services Australia funding is based on outcomes, so agencies primarily focus on job-ready clients, which results in fewer services for new-arrival communities A lack of English language skills and the existence of pre-arrival trauma impact on access to job service agencies. Work experience opportunities are often ad hoc and limited. There is a lack of paperwork on identity and experience.


• cultural expectations of women and their role • language • lack of support structures for single women • perceptions around discrimination. Key issues for youth Youth are most at risk of exploitation and are working in low-paid and insecure jobs. To receive Youth Allowance, minors must be attending school; although they enrol, they often do not attend. Instead, they work for ‘cash’; they are underpaid, but need the money to send overseas to their families. Youth are quickly discouraged from persevering with their schooling if they have had no or little formal education pre-arrival. They are so far behind that they feel they have no chance of catching up and so exit the system. Youth also experience:

• teenage depression • lack of meaningful training opportunities • lack of family support for unaccompanied minors • lack of knowledge of services and infrastructure • tension between needing to work and schooling • lack of support networks • perception of discrimination • disconnection between parents’ expectations and young person’s interests and ability • lack of confidence • lack of role models • lack of apprenticeship opportunities • lack of employment pathways from secondary school into preemployment courses. Summary of Strategies Suggested Increase and diversify brokerage models of employment participation, where funding is attached to the client, not to the location or job agency they are registered with; this resource can be used by the agency that procures work experience and employment for the client. Adopt a holistic approach rather than a ‘meat factory’ approach to supporting clients in accessing employment pathways. Customise English language programs for specific groups, for example, women, youth and the aged. Support the settlement sector to develop linkages and partnerships with industry to gain exposure to the work context. Increase collaboration between education and employment providers and settlement services agencies. Establish a one-stop shop for newly arrived communities in settlement services that includes pre-employment preparation, employment support, and targeted entry points to employment programs and services. Tailor employment programs to engage youth and women. Fund and support social enterprise and small-business development based on market and labour needs. Engage employers around cultural awareness.

Undertake robust consultation across government, including DEEWR, DIAC and DHS, and with specialist settlement agencies, community providers and clients to determine the best approach to service coordination that achieves mutually beneficial outcomes, and incorporate this into a comprehensive settlement framework. Integrate language learning and work-ready training. Market good-practice examples around employment participation cited by participants, including in: • the agricultural industry • painting • qualifications needed in personal-care industry (aged care, in-home care) • light manufacturing, small factories • local government. Refine further the flexibility of AMEP access and curriculum to meet vocational education needs. Improve, streamline and make more meaningful the collaboration between employment providers, settlement service providers and government agencies. Develop a service flowchart focusing on areas of responsibility covered by different entities involved in the settlement pathway that unpacks roles and responsibilities of each phase and entity. Provide funded childcare places for humanitarian and refugee clients beyond the AMEP to the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program (LLNP). Build structural and sectoral support for social enterprise and make available seed funding. Build local partnerships between settlement service providers and JSAs in developing cultural awareness and understanding. Improve linkages between services such as Centrelink, JSA, HSS, SGP and AMEP to facilitate transfer of accurate, current information that affects: • the appropriate referral of clients • the provision of sound and clear information to clients. Develop alternative employment pathway programs that include settlement agencies as key stakeholders, so as to focus on specialised employment services for refugees and migrants:

Engage the media to break down stereotypes by targeting the main players in employment industries.

• tester programs

Support women to access employment pathways by providing childcare and transport to attend employment programs.

• refugee advocacy role

Minimise the costs involved in qualification recognition. Open up funding for targeted and innovative employment assistance for refugee background jobseekers. Establish a think tank to facilitate the development of strategy and improve communication between various agencies.

• employer awareness programs • mentoring. DEEWR, DIAC and other relevant government departments collaborate more closely on developing service models for employment pathways. DEEWR fund the settlement sector to deliver intensive support and training on the following topics as a precursor to work: • Australian workplace culture

Review and improve the assessment systems for job support agencies so clients are provided with appropriate resources to meet their needs.

• legal rights and responsibilities in employment

Build key performance indicators that are informed by the settlement sector into job support agency contracts to ensure accountability around working with target communities.

• communication in the workplace

• occupational health and safety • payroll – tax, superannuation, etc. • teamwork. Creating our Future REPORT | 101 |



Partners and Sponsors