Settlement geography of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland: An analysis of residential distribution and secondary migration
Elizabeth Wendy Harte BSocSc Hons (QUT) GradCert Arts (WEP) (UQ)
Humanities Research Program Kelvin Grove Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Queensland Australia
Submitted in full requirement for the award of Doctorate of Philosophy
2010
Abstract Before 2001, most Africans immigrating to Australia were white South Africans and Zimbabweans who arrived as economic and family-reunion migrants (Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999). Black African communities are a more recent addition to the Australian landscape, with most entering Australia as refugees after 2001. African refugees are a particularly disadvantaged immigrant group, which the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (in the Community Relations Commission of New South Wales, 2006) suggests require high levels of settlement support (p.23). Decision makers and settlement service providers need to have settlement data on the communities so that they can be effective in planning, budgeting and delivering support where it is most needed. Settlement data are also useful for determining the challenges that these communities face in trying to establish themselves in resettlement. There has been no verification of existing secondary data sources, however, or previous formal study of African refugee settlement geography in Southeast Queensland. This research addresses the knowledge gap by using a mixedmethod approach to identify and describe the distribution and population size of eight African communities in Southeast Queensland, examine secondary migration patterns in these communities and assess the relationship between these geographic features and housing, a critical factor in successful settlement. Significant discrepancies exist between the primary data gathered in the study and existing secondary data relating to population size and distribution of the communities. Results also reveal a tension between the socio-cultural forces and the housing and economic imperatives driving secondary migration in the communities, and a general lack of engagement by African refugees with structured support networks. These findings have a wide range of implications for policy and for groups that provide settlement support to these communities.
Keywords African refugees, settlement geography, residential concentration, secondary migration, Southeast Queensland, refugee housing, social networks, ethnic network.
i
ii
Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................ i Keywords ..................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .......................................................................................................... viii List of Tables .............................................................................................................. x Acronyms ................................................................................................................... xi Statement of original authorship ........................................................................... xiii Acknowledgments .................................................................................................... xv Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 1.1. Research aims and objectives ....................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1. Refugee .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2. Community .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.2.3. Residential concentration ......................................................................................................... 5 1.3. Outline of thesis ............................................................................................................................. 6 1.4. Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................................... 9 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Refugee international migration: An overview ........................................................................... 9 2.2.1. Migration research ................................................................................................................. 10 2.2.2. International migration .......................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2.1. Migration networks theory ............................................................................................. 12 2.2.2.2. Transnational theory of migration .................................................................................. 14 2.2.2.3. Refugee migration .......................................................................................................... 15 2.2.3. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 18 2.3. Australia’s response to refugees ................................................................................................. 18 2.3.1. An historical perspective of Australian immigration politics ................................................ 19 2.3.2. The Skilled Migration Program ............................................................................................. 20 2.3.2.1. The Humanitarian Program ............................................................................................ 21 2.3.3. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 22 2.4. Australian settlement services .................................................................................................... 22 2.4.1. Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy ........................................................................ 23
iii
2.4.2. On-arrival accommodation in the Brisbane metropolitan area .............................................. 24 2.4.3. Queensland housing market ................................................................................................... 25 2.4.3.1. Tenancy advocacy in Queensland .................................................................................. 26 2.4.4. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 27 2.5. Settlement patterns of ethnic minority communities ................................................................ 27 2.5.1. Residential segregation .......................................................................................................... 29 2.5.2. Residential concentration ....................................................................................................... 29 2.5.3. Assimilationist perspective .................................................................................................... 30 2.5.4. Pluralist perspective ............................................................................................................... 32 2.5.4.1. Ghettos ........................................................................................................................... 32 2.5.4.2. Ethnic enclaves and ethnic communities ....................................................................... 33 2.5.5. Ethnic residential concentrations in Australia ....................................................................... 34 2.5.5.1. Government policies of dispersion ................................................................................. 36 2.5.6. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 38 2.6. Residential mobility ..................................................................................................................... 38 2.6.1. Induced and adjustment moves .............................................................................................. 39 2.6.2. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 41 2.7. Refugee secondary migration ..................................................................................................... 42 2.7.1. Secondary migration to rebuild social and ethnic networks .................................................. 43 2.7.2. Accommodation issues underpinning secondary migration .................................................. 45 2.7.2.1. Housing affordability and size of housing units ............................................................. 48 2.7.2.2. Accommodation issues and Special Humanitarian Program entrants ............................ 49 2.7.3. Employment issues underpinning secondary migration ........................................................ 50 2.7.4. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 53 2.8. Chapter summary ........................................................................................................................ 54
Chapter 3 Case study communities ........................................................................ 57 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 57 3.1.1. The African diaspora: A part of Australia‘s migration mosaic ............................................. 58 3.2. African refugees in Australia...................................................................................................... 59 3.2.1. African refugees in Queensland ............................................................................................. 62 3.3. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 4 Methodology ........................................................................................... 64 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 64 4.2. Review of data sources ................................................................................................................ 65 4.2.1. Census data ............................................................................................................................ 65 4.2.2. The ABS Characteristics of Migrant Survey dataset ............................................................. 67 4.2.3. Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia dataset ....................................................... 67 4.2.4. Settlement Reports and Community Profiles ......................................................................... 68 4.2.5. Settlement Database............................................................................................................... 69 4.2.6. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 70 4.3. Data collection.............................................................................................................................. 70 4.3.1. Multi-method approach ......................................................................................................... 70 4.3.2. Secondary data ....................................................................................................................... 73 4.3.2.1. Settlement Database ....................................................................................................... 74 4.3.2.2. Limitations of the Settlement Database ......................................................................... 75 4.3.3. Primary data ........................................................................................................................... 76
iv
4.3.3.1. Sampling of communities .............................................................................................. 77 4.3.3.2. Initial meeting with African Advocacy Worker and formal introduction at Queensland African Communities Council .................................................................................................... 78 4.3.3.3. Engagement with communities ...................................................................................... 79 4.3.3.4. Focus groups .................................................................................................................. 80 4.3.3.5. Burundian community census ........................................................................................ 83 4.3.3.6. Use of bilingual community consultants in focus groups .............................................. 83 4.3.3.7. Follow-up interviews and transcript validation .............................................................. 84 4.3.4. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 84 4.4. Data analysis ................................................................................................................................ 85 4.4.1. Map design ............................................................................................................................ 85 4.4.2. Analysis of the distribution of case study communities......................................................... 86 4.4.3. Analysis of primary data ........................................................................................................ 87 4.4.4. Analysis of individual questionnaire data .............................................................................. 89 4.4.5. Triangulation of data: Data validation meeting with community leaders .............................. 89 4.4.6. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 89 4.5. Ethical considerations ................................................................................................................. 90 4.5.1. Informed consent ................................................................................................................... 90 4.6. Methodological and ethical limitations ...................................................................................... 91 4.6.1. Generalisation of focus group data ........................................................................................ 91 4.6.2. Community leaders as gatekeepers and spokespersons ......................................................... 92 4.6.3. Language barriers .................................................................................................................. 92 4.6.4. Cultural differences ............................................................................................................... 92 4.6.5. Divisions in communities ...................................................................................................... 93 4.6.6. Gender bias ............................................................................................................................ 93 4.6.7. Data accuracy: subjectivity of community knowledge maps ................................................. 94 4.6.8. Relationship between researcher and participants ................................................................. 95 4.7. Chapter summary ........................................................................................................................ 95
Chapter 5 Results ..................................................................................................... 97 5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 97 5.2. Focus groups participant profile ................................................................................................ 97 5.2.1. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 99 5.3. Settlement patterns of case study communities ........................................................................ 99 5.3.1. Population size of case study communities............................................................................ 99 5.3.2. Geographical distribution of focus group participants ......................................................... 101 5.3.3. Geographical distribution of case study communities ......................................................... 103 5.3.4. Factors contributing to geographical distribution ................................................................ 121 5.3.5. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 123 5.4. Secondary migration in case study communities .................................................................... 124 5.4.1. Frequency of moves ............................................................................................................. 124 5.4.2. Reasons for moves ............................................................................................................... 126 5.4.2.1. Housing ........................................................................................................................ 129 5.4.2.2. Access to social and ethnic networks ........................................................................... 130 5.4.3. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 131 5.5. Additional housing issues discussed in focus groups .............................................................. 132 5.5.1. Participants‘ perceptions of housing options and experience in the Australian housing market…. ....................................................................................................................................... 132 5.5.1.1. Public housing .............................................................................................................. 132 5.5.1.2. On-arrival housing assistance/MATCH community housing....................................... 133
v
5.5.1.3. Private rental housing ................................................................................................... 134 5.5.1.4. Strategies to overcome accommodation issues ............................................................ 136 5.5.1.5. Summary ...................................................................................................................... 137 5.6. Triangulation of results: meeting with community leaders ................................................... 137 5.7. Chapter summary ...................................................................................................................... 138
Chapter 6 Discussion.............................................................................................. 139 6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 139 6.2. Issues of representativeness of the sample and generalisations from the data ..................... 139 6.3. Establishing the distribution of case study communities ....................................................... 142 6.3.1. Discrepancies in key data sources........................................................................................ 142 6.3.2. Difficulties establishing population sizes ............................................................................ 143 6.3.3. Anomalies in distribution data ............................................................................................. 145 6.3.4. An alternative demographic data-gathering model .............................................................. 146 6.3.5. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 148 6.4. Defining settlement patterns of the case study communities ................................................. 148 6.4.1. Key residential concentrations ............................................................................................. 149 6.4.2. Exceptions to the general settlement pattern: Somali and Sudanese communities .............. 151 6.4.3. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 152 6.5. Factors driving secondary migration ....................................................................................... 153 6.5.1. Reconnecting social and ethnic networks ............................................................................ 153 6.5.1.1. Networks in the Somali and Liberian communities ..................................................... 155 6.5.2. Housing: A key factor driving secondary migration ............................................................ 157 6.5.2.1. On-arrival accommodation model contributing to secondary migration ...................... 158 6.5.2.2. Cost and size of accommodation in the private rental market ...................................... 160 6.5.2.3. Problems accessing public housing .............................................................................. 161 6.5.2.4. Reliance on networks to address housing difficulties .................................................. 163 6.5.3. Employment and secondary migration: an emerging factor ................................................ 164 6.5.4. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 166 6.6. The relationship between distribution, secondary migration and housing .......................... 167 6.7. Lack of engagement with services: Policy implications .......................................................... 173 6.8. Chapter summary ...................................................................................................................... 174
Chapter 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 175 7.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 175 7.2. Key findings ............................................................................................................................... 175 7.2.1. Departure from traditional data source ................................................................................ 175 7.2.2. Population size and distribution discrepancies .................................................................... 175 7.2.3. Proposed demographic data collection model ..................................................................... 176 7.2.4. Evolving geographies of African refugee settlement in Southeast Queensland................... 177 7.2.4.1. Preferred settlement pattern: Social and ethnic networks as forces of concentration .. 177 7.2.4.2. Key residential concentrations: Moorooka/Annerley and Logan/Woodridge ............. 177 7.2.4.3. Role of secondary migration in development of the Logan/Woodridge concentration 178 7.2.4.4. Exceptions to the general patterns of distribution: Somali and Sudanese communities….. ........................................................................................................................ 178 7.2.4.5. Housing: A key force of dispersion .............................................................................. 179
vi
7.2.4.6. Lack of engagement with structured settlement support .............................................. 180 7.2.4.7. Alternative model of service provision ........................................................................ 181 7.2.4.8. Communities regrouping in emerging residential concentrations: A sustainable solution to counter forces of dispersion? ................................................................................................ 181 7.2.4.9. Emerging role of employment in secondary migration ................................................ 182 7.3. Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 182 7.4. Areas of future research ........................................................................................................... 184
References ............................................................................................................... 187 Appendices .............................................................................................................. 209 Appendix 1 Letter to Queensland African Communities Council members ................................... 209 Appendix 2 Informed consent sheet................................................................................................ 210 Appendix 3 Focus group schedule .................................................................................................. 212 Appendix 4 Individual participant questionnaire ............................................................................ 214 Appendix 5 Participant profile from individual questionnaires ...................................................... 217 Appendix 6 Suburbs in which participants (including Sudanese) were living at time of focus groups………………. ..................................................................................................................... 219 Appendix 7 Suburbs in which participants (excluding Sudanese) were living at time of focus groups……………… ...................................................................................................................... 220 Appendix 8 List of postcodes and suburbs used in the research ..................................................... 221 Appendix 9 Number of people per postcode according to community members ........................... 222 Appendix 10 Duration of stay in accommodation .......................................................................... 224 Appendix 11 Reasons for moves from accommodation ................................................................. 225 Appendix 12 Participants‘ experience in the Australian housing market ....................................... 226
vii
List of Figures Figure 1.1
Map of Southeast Queensland
2
Figure 2.1
Paradigm of international population movements
17
Figure 2.2
Adjustment and induced voluntary moves
41
Figure 2.3
Typical housing pathway for refugees in Southeast Queensland
46
Figure 2.4
Conceptual model of the relationship between refugee distribution, secondary migration and housing
56
Figure 3.1
Allocation of Australian Government‘s Humanitarian Program places to African refugees 2000-2001 to 2008-2009
61
Figure 4.1
Diagrammatic representation of data collection and analysis process
72
Figure 5.1
Distribution in Southeast Queensland (SEQ) of focus group participants from all eight case study communities
102
Figure 5.2
Distribution in SEQ of focus group participants (excluding Sudanese participants)
102
Figure 5.3
Burundian community distribution in SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
105
Figure 5.4
Burundian community distribution in SEQ based on data from the Burundian Association in Queensland executive committee‘s census results
105
Figure 5.5
Congolese community distribution in SEQ based on DIAC SDB
106
Figure 5.6
Congolese community distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
106
Figure 5.7
Ethiopian community distribution in SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
107
Figure 5.8
Ethiopian community distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
107
Figure 5.9
Liberian community distribution in SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
108
Figure 5.10
Liberian community distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
108
Figure 5.11
Rwandan community distribution in SEQ based on DIAC SDB
109
Figure 5.12
Rwandan community distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
109
viii
Figure 5.13
Sierra Leonean community distribution in SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
110
Figure 5.14
Sierra Leonean distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
110
Figure 5.15
Somali community distribution in SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
111
Figure 5.16
Somali family units and single-household distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
111
Figure 5.17
Sudanese community distribution in Brisbane SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
112
Figure 5.18
Sudanese community distribution on the Gold Coast SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
113
Figure 5.19
Sudanese community distribution on the north coast SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
113
Figure 5.20
Sudanese community distribution in western SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
114
Figure 5.21
Distribution of the main residential concentrations of Sudanese in SEQ according to the Sudanese Community Association of Queensland leader
115
Figure 6.1
A proposed alternative demographic data collection model
147
Figure 6.2
Key areas of residential concentration and general trends in secondary migration of the eight case study communities in Southeast Queensland
150
Figure 6.3
Diagrammatic representation of relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the Burundian, Ethiopian, Congolese, Liberian, Rwandan and Sierra Leonean communities
169
Figure 6.4
Diagrammatic representation of relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the Somali community
171
Figure 6.5
Diagrammatic representation of relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the Sudanese community
172
ix
List of Tables Table 2.1
Household size of Queensland Humanitarian Program entrants 2002 to 2007
49
Table 3.1
UNHCR population of concern in Africa, 2008
57
Table 3.2
Source regions of Australia‘s resettlement program, 1999-2000 to 2007-2008
60
Table 3.3
Queensland Humanitarian Program entrants, main source regions 2001 to 2007
62
Table 4.1
Data sources contributing to SDB
69
Table 4.2
Focus group dates and number of participants
81
Table 4.3
Languages spoken in case study communities
84
Table 5.1
Summary profile of focus group participants
98
Table 5.2
Comparison between population data from ABS 2006 census, DIAC SDB and community estimates
100
Table 5.3
Focus group participant distribution in Southeast Queensland by region
103
Table 5.4
Residential concentrations identified by community members (excluding Sudanese)
116
Table 5.5
Suburbs with largest concentration of community members from all case study communities (excluding the Sudanese community) from community knowledge maps
117
Table 5.6
Differences between largest residential concentrations on SDB and 118 community knowledge maps
Table 5.7
Facilities, services, groups and institutions easily accessible from Woodridge-Logan and Moorooka-Annerley concentrations
123
Table 5.8
Number of times focus group participants have moved since resettling in Australia
124
Table 5.9
Length of stay in accommodation
125
Table 5.10 Reasons for moves
127
Table 5.11 Main drivers and indicators of secondary migration identified in focus groups
128
Table 5.12 Summary of public housing concerns
132
Table 5.13 Summary of strategies to address housing difficulties
136
x
Acronyms ABS ACCES AHURI ASHRAM AU BARC BCC CBD CEPGS CoMS CRC CRSS DIAC DIMA DIMIA DRC ECCQ GIS IDP IHSS IMF LFS LGA LSIA MAQ MATCH MDA OAU QACC QPASTT QUT RCOA ROC RTA SDB SEQ SHP TAASQ TAFE TUQ UNHCR USA WWII
Australian Bureau of Statistics Assisting Collaborative Community Employment Support services Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Agencies Supporting Housing for Refugee, Asylum Seekers and Migrants African Union Brisbane Actionweb for Refugees Bilingual Community Consultant Central Business District Community Education Public Grants Scheme Characteristics of Migrants Survey Community Relations Commission of New South Wales Community Refugee Settlement Scheme Department of Immigration and Citizenship Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Democratic Republic of Congo Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland Geographical Information Systems Internally Displaced Persons Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy International Monetary Fund Labour Force Survey Local Government Area Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia Multicultural Affairs Queensland Metropolitan Association Towards Community Housing Multicultural Development Association Organisation of African Unity Queensland African Communities Council Queensland Program Assisting Survivors of Torture and Trauma Queensland University of Technology Refugee Council of Australia Republic of Congo Rental Tenancies Authority Settlement Database Southeast Queensland Special Humanitarian Program Tenants Advisory and Advocacy Support networks Technical and Further Education colleges Tenants‘ Union of Queensland United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United States of America World War Two
xi
xii
Statement of original authorship The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature:
Date:
xiii
xiv
Acknowledgments My sincere go to thanks the African community members who participated in this research. Thank you for your time and for sharing your knowledge with me. To all the African community leaders, a special thank you for your valuable contribution to the study. Thank you, too, to the Queensland African Communities Council for supporting the research.
To all the other people who made this research possible, I thank you. I want to first acknowledge my wonderful, brilliant and supportive supervisors, Dr Iraphne Childs and Dr Peter Hastings. Thank you for all your guidance, your help and your friendship over the years.
Thank you to the two very special groups of people on both sides of the Indian Ocean, my South African and my Australian families. Thank you for your support and your friendship. A special thanks my Australian friends for stepping into the role of my surrogate family, my home away from home.
Thank you to Nick Burridge from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in Canberra for compiling the secondary dataset that I used in the research. I am indebted to Carly Hall for helping me with ArcGIS in the early days. I am grateful to the various service providers who gave up their time to speak to me over the course of the research. I received a Queensland Government Growing the Smart State PhD Funding grant from November 2007, for which I am appreciative. Thank you to Geoff Maloney, Sinta Windarsito and Liz Davies from the Queensland Government for giving up your valuable time for our quarterly meetings. Thank you to the panel members at my final seminar for your constructive and encouraging feedback. I would also like to thank the two external examiners for their insightful and helpful comments on how to improve the thesis.
Finally, to my husband, partner and best friend, Gary Johnson, thank you for your love, support, encouragement, belief in me, and for accompanying me on this journey.
xv
xvi
For my parents Peter and Paddy Harte
xvii
xviii
Chapter 1 Introduction … with more than fifty million refugees living in various parts of the world today, perhaps no moment in history has been this critical for examining the geography of refugee settlement and survival (Hardwick & Meacham, 2005, p.539). Australia accepts 12,000 to 13,000 humanitarian entrants each year through the federal government‘s structured refugee program (the ‗Humanitarian Program‘). Between 2001 and 2007, the government allocated a large proportion of Humanitarian Program visas to address the refugee situation in Africa. During this period, over 5,000 African refugees resettled in Queensland, most of which are located in the Brisbane-Gold Coast metropolitan area (Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), 2007b, p.22; Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), 2006c, p.12)1.
While, in general, refugees are a vulnerable population (Beer & Foley, 2003, p.1), DIMA (in Community Relations Commission of New South Wales (CRC), 2006) identifies African refugees as one of the most disadvantaged immigrant groups in Australia, requiring high levels of settlement support (p.23). Settlement services that provide this support are important for helping refugees achieve full participation in Australian society2 (Ferguson, 2009; Perrin & Dunn, 2007). Settlement information (such as geographical distribution, population size and migratory patterns) is essential for planning, budgeting and delivering these services to the geographical area in which community members are located (Beer & Foley, 2005, p.3; Wong, 1995, p.63). This information is also important for determining some of the challenges that these new communities confront in trying to establish themselves in resettlement. To date, there has been limited research on the settlement geography of African refugees in Australia3 and no research specifically on the settlement 1
The Department of Immigration and Indigenous and Multicultural Affairs (DIMIA) changed its name to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) on 27 January 2006 and again to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) on 30 January 2007. 2 Colic-Peisker and Tilbury (2003) suggest that successful settlement occurs when refugees re-establish control over their lives and a semblance of normality returns through their inclusion in the social and economic structures of the host society (p.83). 3 Geographers have examined some aspects of African refugee settlement geography in Australia, for example, Perrin and Dunn (2007) and Carrington, McIntosh and Walmsley (2007).
1
geography of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland (Figure 1.1). This gap most likely reflects the relative recency of African refugee resettlement in Australia. The present research addresses this knowledge gap. This chapter describes the aims and objectives of the research, defines key terms and provides a brief outline of the thesis chapters.
Queensland
Australia Southeast Queensland Figure 1.1 Map of Southeast Queensland (University of Melbourne, 2001)
1.1. Research aims and objectives Following are the aims and objectives of the research to address the gap identified in the settlement geography of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland: ▪ identify and describe the geographical distribution of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland: - establish the geographical distribution of each of the selected case study communities in Southeast Queensland; - determine each community‘s population size; - categorise areas of residential concentration in each community; - identify patterns of dispersion. ▪ examine the patterns and drivers of secondary migration: - investigate factors underpinning secondary migration in each community.
2
▪ assess the relationship between the population distribution, secondary migration of the communities and housing: - determine relationship between housing, secondary migration and distribution; - identify key similarities and differences in terms of distribution and secondary migration in the case study communities.
Housing is included in the research aims because housing is an integral part of the refugee settlement and integration process (Beer & Foley, 2003, 2005) and is hypothesised to be an important factor in African refugee distribution and/or secondary migration in Southeast Queensland.
1.2. Definitions The following section defines ‗refugee‘, ‗community‘ and ‗residential concentration‘.
1.2.1. Refugee The United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is the leading international agency to co-ordinate the system of protection of the world‘s refugees. The most widely used international definition of ‗refugee‘ is from Article 1 of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Convention), which defines a refugee as a person who: … owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his [her] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself [herself] of the protection of that country, or … is unable or … unwilling to return to it (UNHCR, 1996, p.16). Because the UNHCR‘s original mandate was to resolve the refugee problem in Europe after World War Two (WWII), countries that ratify the Convention can choose to limit the definition to events that occurred in Europe before 1951. The 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Protocol) overcomes these geographical and temporal restrictions by extending the definition to include
3
displaced people around the world at any given time (UNHCR, 1996). Australia is a signatory to both the Convention and the Protocol. Despite amendments to the Protocol, the UNHCR‘s definition has major shortcomings for refugees in Africa. Protection is limited to people who can show that they fear persecution on the grounds outlined in the definition, while it excludes people fleeing situations more common in Africa, such as aggression and violence, foreign occupation and domination, civil disorder, famine, disease and natural disasters. The term ‗well-founded fear of persecution‘ is also problematic because, while the plight of millions of displaced people in Africa is obvious, not many can demonstrate an objective and personal well-founded fear of persecution4 (Crock, Saul, & Dastyari, 2006, p.20 & p.85; Davies, 2008, p. 703 & p.728; Millbank, 2000, pp.9-10; Pittaway, 2002, p.2).
Recognising these limitations in the African context, the former Organisation of African Unity (OAU)5, adopted the Convention Governing the Specific Aspect of Refugee Problems in Africa (the OAU Convention) in 1969 (Black, 1993; Browne, 2006; Hyndman, 2001). The OAU Convention states that: The term “refugee” shall also apply to every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his [her] country of origin or nationality is compelled to leave his [her] place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his [her] country or origin or nationality (OAU, 1969, Article 1.2.). The OAU definition addresses some of the shortcomings of the UNHCR‘s definition by including people who have fled their country of origin or nationality not only because of persecution, but also because of various forms of conflict. This definition is widely accepted to be more appropriate for less developed countries and is particularly relevant in Africa because of the many conflicts and civil wars that have resulted in large flows of displaced persons on that continent who would not otherwise have qualified as refugees. The UNHCR uses the OAU definition in its 4
Other shortcoming of the UNHCR definition include that a person is only recognised as a refugee once they have crossed an international border. This excluded the millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Africa who have been forced to flee but have not crossed a national border. 5 Now the African Union (AU)
4
operations in Africa (Black, 1993; Browne, 2006). The present research uses the term ‗refugee‘ to refer to African humanitarian entrants who have resettled in Australia through the offshore component of the Humanitarian Program, including Convention refugees, Women-at-Risk entrants and Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) entrants.
1.2.2. Community Gregory et al. (2009) recognise that the term ‗community‘ has multiple meanings. For example, the Chicago School of Sociologists‘ understanding of ‗community‘ was as the basis for social organisation in an urban area; in other words, closely aligned with the broader concept of a neighbourhood. In post-industrial, capitalist societies, ‗community‘ has largely lost the sense of support and social responsibility implied by the Chicago School (pp.103-104). Hillery (in Pacione, 2005) instead found 94 definitions of ‗community‘ in the literature with three common characteristics, including that communities are groups of people that: 1) live in a geographical area; 2) are bound by common characteristics, such as culture, norms and language; and 3) engage in social interactions (p.376).
African populations from the same birthplace are diverse in terms of ethnicity, culture, language and political affiliations (Batrouney, 1991; Nsubuga-Kyobe & Dimock, 2002). Therefore, using a common birthplace to define an African refugee community is problematic. The present research uses the three characteristics identified by Hillery to develop an operational definition of ‗community‘ as a group of people who immigrated to Australia from Africa on humanitarian visas. They share a common ethnicity, engage in social interaction based on familiar characteristics, such as language, culture and norms, and live in Southeast Queensland.
1.2.3. Residential concentration ‗Residential concentration‘ refers to the relative concentration of a group within an urban area. Ethnic residential concentration, primarily the product of chain and secondary migration, is common among newly arrived immigrant communities (Burnley, 1982, 1989; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Glavac & Waldorf, 1998; Massey &
5
Denton, 1988; Waldorf, 1990). Some ethnic minority communities disperse over time while others remain concentrated. Section 2.5 provides a more in-depth discussion on ethnic residential concentration.
1.3. Outline of thesis Chapter 2 presents a review of literature relevant to the present thesis. The chapter begins by providing an overview of Australia‘s response to refugees and then discusses literature on refugee international migration. The third section presents literature on settlement patterns of ethnic minority communities, including assimilationist and pluralist models of ethnic minority integration. It then focuses on ethnic residential concentrations in Australia and Australian government policies of dispersion. The fourth section of the literature review outlines the provision of settlement services in Australia, including government settlement services, the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy, various housing options, housing services and advocacy groups in Queensland. Literature on residential mobility and refugee secondary migration are discussed in the fifth section of the chapter, with a focus on refugee secondary migration to rebuild social and ethnic networks, to address housing issues and for employment purposes. The chapter closes by setting out the research questions for the thesis.
Chapter 3 provides a brief background of African refugee migration within the context of literature on the African diaspora. The second section of the chapter presents data on African refugee intake to Australia, and specifically, to the state of Queensland. The chapter concludes with a list of the largest African refugee communities within Southeast Queensland and the selection of the case study communities for the study.
Chapter 4 outlines the research methodology. It begins with a critical analysis of secondary data sources. The second section of the chapter outlines the multi-method approach to data collection for the present research. The third section describes the data analysis techniques, including comparing mapped secondary data to primary data gathered from community members, and analysis of qualitative data from focus groups, interviews and individual participant questionnaires. The fourth section
6
discusses methodological limitations and ethical considerations of the research, including issues with generalisation of focus group data, the use of community leaders as gatekeepers and spokespersons for their communities, language barriers and cultural differences between the researcher and the participants, divisions in communities, gender bias and issues of data accuracy.
Chapter 5 presents the results of the research. The first section provides a summary profile of focus group participants. The second section reports on results that address the research aim of identifying and describing the distribution of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. This includes population size data, geographical distribution data and factors contributing to geographical distribution. The third section of the chapter reports the results that address the research aim of examining the patterns and drivers of secondary migration in the case study communities, including the frequency of moves and reasons for moves. The fourth section reports results addressing the research aim of assessing the relationship between distribution, secondary migration and housing. The final section reports the results from the final data validation meeting with community leaders.
Chapter 6 discusses the research findings. The first section of the chapter outlines issues of data generalisation and sample representativeness. The second section discusses issues of distribution of the case study communities, including discrepancies of key data sources, difficulties establishing population size and anomalies in distribution data. It also proposes an alternative demographic datagathering model. The third section of the chapter identifies settlement patterns of the case study communities, including key residential concentrations and exceptions to the general patterns. The fourth section discusses the factors driving secondary migration. The final section of the chapter summarises the evolving geography of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. The community leaders‘ recommendations, made at the data validation meeting, are integrated into the relevant sections of this chapter. Chapter 7 summarises the key research findings, makes recommendations based on the findings and offers suggestions for future research.
7
1.4. Summary A knowledge gap is identified in the settlement geography of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland, which the present research aims to address. Settlement information is important for groups that provide services to these communities and for the decision makers who formulate policy that affect the communities. It is also useful to determine some of the challenges that African refugees encounter in resettlement.
8
Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1. Introduction The present research addresses a gap in the settlement geography of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland, a relatively recent addition to the diverse range of ethnic minority groups in Australia. This chapter provides a review of literature that is relevant to addressing this gap. The first half of the chapter provides a context within which to position international refugee migration and discusses Australia‘s response to refugees. The second half of the chapter reviews literature on ethnic residential distribution, including residential concentration and dispersal of ethnic communities, secondary migration, and settlement service provision, focusing specifically on housing. The chapter concludes with a resolution of the research questions and outlines the aims and objectives of the study.
2.2. Refugee international migration: An overview A review of international migration literature is undertaken here to provide a context within which to position African refugee immigration to Australia. Migration is generally defined as the permanent or semi-permanent movement of people from one place to another (Johnston, Gregory & Smith, 1994, p.380). There are several types of migration divided according to scale, which broadly fall into the two categories of ‗international migration‘ and ‗internal migration‘. Migrants are divided further into voluntary migrants and forced migrants6. Voluntary migrants7, the larger of the two categories, are motivated mainly by economic considerations. Forced migrants include refugees, asylum seekers and people trafficked for purposes of exploitation. Political motivation is a common factor in refugee and asylum seeker migration (Castles & Loughna, 2004, p.180; Koser, 1997, p.591).
6
Other categorisations include: time (temporary or permanent), distance (long or short), numbers involved (individual or mass), social organisation of migrants (family, clan, or individuals), political organisation involvement (sponsored or free), causes (political, economic or social) and aims (conservative or innovative) (Johnston, Gregory & Smith, 1994, p.380). 7 Voluntary migrants include temporary labour migrants, family reunion migrants, highly-skilled migrants, business migrants, permanent labour migrants, undocumented migrants and return migrants.
9
While population movements have been documented throughout human history, the study of large-scale migration tends to focus on the period beginning with the early modern era (1600s onwards), which coincided with the increase in long-distance trade and the opening of global lines of communication (Cohen, 1996, p.xi). ToroMorn and Alicea (2004) identify three major eras of migration during this period as: (i) when trade links were developed between Europe, Africa, India, Asia and the Americas starting from the 1600s; (ii) the industrial revolution era in Europe, North and South America in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; and (iii) the postindustrial period after World War II, often referred to as ‗the age of migration‘, within which the era of the ‗globalisation of migration‘ is positioned (Castles & Miller, 2003). The globalisation of migration refers to the growing number of countries significantly affected by migratory movements and the diversity of source areas and economic, cultural and social backgrounds of migrants (Shandy, 2007, p.7). It is within this third era that African refugee movements, relevant to the present research, have occurred. The following section briefly introduces migration research before focusing on aspects of international migration theory that are relevant to the African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland.
2.2.1. Migration research The earliest systematic study of migration was undertaken by German geographer Ravenstein (1885; 1889) at the Royal Geographical Society of London. Ravenstein published the papers ‗The Laws of Migration‘ in the Journal of the Statistical Society in which the relationship between mobility and distance is a central focus. This work forms the basis of much modern migration theory. Some of Ravenstein‘s laws still hold, for example, most migration occurs over a short distance and migration increases in areas of increased development. However, others have been challenged, for example, urban-dwellers are less migratory than rural-dwellers; most migration from rural areas proceeds in a stepped process; and women are more migratory over short distances than men (Richmond, 1996, p.333).
Since Ravenstein, a number of unrelated but influential principles, theories and models of migration have been developed, including Stouffer‘s (1940) ‗theory of intervening opportunities‘, Zipf‘s (1946) ‗principle of migration‘, Petersen‘s (1958)
10
‗typology of migration‘, Lee‘s (1966) ‗push-pull model of migration‘ and Zelinsky‘s (1971) ‗hypothesis of the mobility transition‘. Zolberg (in Hugo, 1994) argues, however, that these early works are ‗little more than a formal model of voluntary individual movement in response to unevenly distributed opportunities‘ (p.7). Nevertheless, these theories formed a base for much research of both international and internal migration.
Together with fertility and mortality, migration determines the population growth and demographic profile of any given location. Migration is also important in determining cultural and social change at all scales and, therefore, is a fundamental aspect of population and cultural studies within the discipline of geography (Johnston, Gregory & Smith, 1994, p.380). Migration is a complex phenomenon, thus migration research has a strong interdisciplinary approach (Greenwood & Hunt, 2003, p.4). Geographers, demographers, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, historians, economists, anthropologists and practitioners of law are all particularly interested in causal factors, processes and outcomes of migration. As the various disciplines employ different perspectives and methodologies, there are distinctive strands of research that focus on different aspects of migration, which led Arango (2004) to observe that: Efforts at theory building have not been cumulative: the relative short history or theorising about migration takes the form of a string of separate, generally unconnected theories, models or frameworks, rather than a cumulative sequence of contributions that build upon previous blocks (p.15). There is no single comprehensive theory that encompasses all aspects of migration, but rather a set of building blocks that assist in our understanding of the subject (Arango, 2004, p.15; Brettell & Hollifield, 2000, p.3; Castles & Miller, 2003, p.21; Cohen, 1996, pp.xi-xii; Hugo, 1994, p.7; Massey et al., 1993, p.432; Papastergiadis, 2000, p.5). With this in mind, the following section discusses select theories of international migration relevant to the present research, particularly focusing on migration network theory, transnational migration theory and refugee migration. These theories provide a framework within which to conceptualise international refugee migration.
11
2.2.2. International migration Contemporary migration research builds on the earlier principles, theories and models of migration discussed above. In terms of international migration, useful categorisations of contemporary research include economic perspectives (for example, neo-classical economic perspectives, ‗new economics of migration‘, and dual labour market theory), the historical-structural approach, the migration systems approach, world systems theory, migration network theory and transnational theory of migration (Arango, 2004; Basch, Glick-Schiller & Blanc, 1994; Castles & Miller, 2003; Hugo, 1994; Massey et al., 1993; Wallerstein, 1974). The migration networks theory and transnational theory of migration are the most relevant to African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland and are discussed below, followed by theories of migration relating specifically to refugees.
2.2.2.1. Migration networks theory International migration is initiated for a variety of economic, social and political reasons. The force that perpetuates continuing population movement in the same direction is commonly attributed to social or migration networks, called chain migration. Chain migration is particularly common among migrants ‗from societies in which family loyalty [is] strong and in which familial ties beyond the nuclear family unit [are] also important‘ (Burnley, 1982, p.90), as is the case in many African cultures.
Migration networks are the interpersonal relations that link migrants and nonmigrants in the source and destination regions. These networks play an adaptive role providing vital information, resources and security that are necessary in the migratory movement; they also reduce the cost of migration. For this reason, families and communities are often recognised as playing a vital role in the migration decision and the choice of settlement location in the receiving region (Arango, 2004; Burnley, 2005; Castles & Miller, 2003; Hardwick, 2003; Hugo, 1995; Koser, 1997; Massey et al., 1993; Price, 1963). According to migration networks theory, once the number of migrants reaches a critical threshold, the costs and risks of movement are reduced, which results in further in-migration. This self-perpetuating theory accepts that the decision-making process of international migration occurs at an individual or
12
household level, but argues that the process is systematically altered by the act of migration itself (Arango, 2004, p.28; Massey et al., 1993, p.449).
Once initial migration has begun, the network in the sending region tends to diffuse widely, giving many people the opportunity to migrate without too much difficulty. Eventually the reason for the initial migration is no longer as important as the falling costs and reduced risks created by the growth of the migrant network in the new country. Over time the flow of new migrants will be less socio-economically selective and more representative of the sending society as a whole. Immigration policies that promote family reunification further reinforce migrant networks (Arango, 2004, pp.28-29; Hardwick, 2003, p.169; Koser, 1997, p.600; Massey et al., 1993, pp.449-450).
In Australia, networks are largely responsible for the formation of ethnic concentrations including, Southern and Eastern Europeans in Sydney and Melbourne (Burnley, 1982, 1989, 2005; Price, 1963), Ethiopians and Somali in Melbourne (Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999) and Vietnamese in Brisbane (Glavac & Childs, 1993; Glavac & Waldorf, 1998). Significantly, networks have an important role in the increase of African communities in Southeast Queensland through the sponsorship of Special Humanitarian Program entrants, a category of the federal government‘s Humanitarian Program (Nsubuga-Kyobe & Dimock, 2002; Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA), 2008b; Taylor & Stanovic, 2005) (see Section 2.3.2.1).
13
2.2.2.2. Transnational theory of migration Transnationalism is an emerging field (Dunn, 2008, p.4) described as an interconnection of social and material relationships that blur the importance of borders (Hyndman & Walton-Roberts, 2000, p.246). Transmigrants are defined as immigrants who: …develop and maintain multiple relationships – familial, economic, social, organizational, religious and political – that span borders … [they] take actions, make decisions, and develop subjectivities and identities embedded in networks or relationships that connect them simultaneously to two or more nation states (Basch, Glick-Schiller & Blanc, 1994, p.7). Improved transport and communication technologies attributed to globalisation have enabled migrants to maintain links with their country of origin, creating ‗transnational communities‘ that cross previously constraining geographic, cultural and political boundaries. Transnational theory of migration examines the networks between sending and receiving nations (Basch, Glick-Schiller & Blanc, 1994, p.7; Castles & Miller, 2003, p.30), focusing on flows, relations, social fields and identities (Dunn, 2008, p.1).
Recent research of international refugee movements has used transnational theory to explain important networks that span the refugees‘ countries of origin and resettlement (for example, During, 2006; Hardwick, 2003, 2005; Hardwick & Meacham, 2005; Hyndman & Walton-Roberts, 2000). Castle and Miller (2003) caution that most migrants do not fit this category unless transnational activities are a central part of their life (p.30). Dunn (2008) more recently suggests, however, that transnationalism instead provides a framework for understanding relevant connections in immigrants‘ lives: Transnationalism is a paradigmatic term that facilitates researchers to maintain a holistic interest in all the mobilities and other links (such as communication) which immigrants and their descendents undertake, and upon the multiple allegiances and senses of belonging that they experience (p.2). Transnational theory has thus moved beyond reconceptualising the migration process to focus on the conditions and practises of transnationalism (Dunn & Ip, 2008, p.81-
14
82). Transnational theory provides an explanation of the important linkages that African-Australian communities have with their networks, not only in their country of origin, but also in the context of the wider African diaspora (see Section 3.2.1).
2.2.2.3. Refugee migration Refugee migration theory moves away from individual to collective decisions, because, as Jupp (1994) states, ‗the element of free choice which is so important for most modern migrants does not apply in the same way to refugees‘ (p.5). Black (1991) provides a useful summary of various geographers‘ and other social scientists‘ analyses of refugee migration during the 1980s and early 1990s. While this body of research provides a platform for the study of refugee migration, its focus is on specific refugee flows (for example, Afghan refugee migration to Pakistan and Salvadorian migration to the United States of America (USA). Building on these specific examples, some scholars (for example, demographer, Kunz (1973; 1981) and sociologist, Richmond (1996) recognise that refugee migration involves a bundle of economic, political and social factors (Koser, 1997, p.593) and that many of the contemporary ‗thematic‘ theories for explaining international migration do not appropriately explain international refugee movements. In an early attempt, Kunz (1973; 1981) built on Petersen‘s typologies of migration and Lee‘s push-pull factors of migration (Section 2.2.1) to develop a ‗kinetic model of refugee movements‘. The model distinguishes between motivational and kinetic factors of refugee movements and differentiates between anticipatory refugee movements and acute refugee movements. Anticipatory refugees, the more individualistic of the two, leave their country of origin in an orderly manner before the political and/or economic situation deteriorates to the point of mass exodus. The pull factor of the destination country is an important element of migration for anticipatory refugees. In contrast, acute refugees flee their country of origin as individuals, groups or en masse when a point of crisis is reached, with the primary purpose of reaching safety in a neighbouring country. In this case, the pressure of the original push from the country of origin is greater than the pull from the eventual country of asylum or resettlement (Kunz, 1973, pp.131-133). Kunz further categorised acute refugee movement by the waves of refugees with similar
15
backgrounds (‗vintage-wave patterns‘) and by the nature of the displacement (‗displacement by flight‘, ‗displacement by force‘ and ‗displacement by absence‘).
More recently, Richmond (1996) developed a paradigm of migration that attempts to rank all migrants on an economic and socio-political scale (pp.343-344). Richmond argues that an absolute distinction between economic and socio-political determinants of migration is not possible and that a distinction between voluntary and involuntary migration is untenable: In the modern world where states, religious leaders, multinational corporations and supra-state agencies (such as the [International Monetary Fund] IMF and the Word Bank) are involved in decisions which affect the lives of millions of people, the majority of population movements are a complex response to the reality of a global society in which ethnoreligious, social, economic and political determinants are inextricably bound together (p.344).
16
Richmond, therefore, developed a new paradigm for understanding international migration in which economic and socio-political determinants are on a continuum and decisions about migration are classified as proactive and reactive, rather than voluntary and involuntary (Figure 2.1). The paradigm is presented diagrammatically in the form of a matrix, with the vertical axis representing decision-making on a continuum from maximum to minimum autonomy. The horizontal axis represents the interaction between economic and socio-political forces. The closer the categories to the vertical axis, the more significant are the economic determinants, while those closer to the horizontal periphery are in the more political sphere (Richmond, 1996, pp.344).
Spies and defectors
Spies and defectors
Proactive Retirees Transilients Returnees Family reunion
Terrorists
Emigrants Dissidents
Draft evaders Socio-political
Guest Workers
Illegal Economic workers Repatriated Workers
Relocated Workers Discrimination victims Ethno-religious conflict Civil war victims Exiles and mass expellees
Economic refugees
Forced labour
Political persecuted
Natural disaster victims External war victims Slaves
Stateless persons Conventional Refugees
Socio-political
Reactive
Displaced persons Conventional Refugees
Figure 2.1 Paradigm of international population movements (Richmond, 1996, p.345)
17
According to the matrix, Convention refugees, civil war victims, exiles and mass escapees, victims of ethno-religious conflict, the politically persecuted, stateless people and displaced people are reactive migrants, because their decision to migrate has occurred with minimum autonomy. All of these groups are on the horizontal periphery, with Convention refugees at the furthest point, indicating that their decision to migrate is influenced by socio-political forces rather than economic forces. Proactive migrants who are motivated by economic forces include emigrants, retirees, family reunion migrants, guest workers and illegal workers. Spies, terrorists, dissidents and draft evaders are proactive migrants who are motivated by sociopolitical rather than economic forces (Richmond, 1996, p.345).
2.2.3. Summary This section reviewed literature of refugee international migration and focused on three key areas relevant to the present research: ▪ migration network theory, because of the many African refugees who have resettled in Southeast Queensland through a process of chain migration as sponsored Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) entrants (see Section 2.3.2.1); ▪ transnational theory of migration, because it provides an understanding of the important linkages between African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland and their networks in rest of the world; ▪ Richmond‘s (1996) paradigm of international migration, because it provides a framework within which to conceptualise African refugee immigration to Australia.
2.3. Australia’s response to refugees Immigration has accounted for approximately 40% of population growth in Australia since the end of World War Two (WWII). By 1991, Australia had the second largest number of immigrants per capita in the world, surpassed only by Israel (Burnley, 1998, p.49). Cultural diversity in the Australian immigrant population is only a relatively recent phenomenon, however, and the current influx of African refugees needs to be considered within the historical context of changing migration politics and policies in Australia. This is discussed below.
18
2.3.1. An historical perspective of Australian immigration politics The so-called ―White Australia Policy‖ came into effect with the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, which was established to secure ‗a White Australia against unwelcome non-white intrusion from overseas‘ (de Lepervanche, 1984, p.170). The publicly sanctioned assimilation policy controlled the racial and ethnic character of immigrants, during which time immigration was strongly biased towards Europeans and the intake of immigrants was confined mainly to those of Anglo-Celtic origin (de Lepervanche, 1984; Jupp, 1991). Migrants were expected to reject their language, heritage and traditional values and, instead, merge with Australian society. The policy also influenced the federal government‘s lack of response to refugees during the first half of the twentieth century (Blackeney, 1985, p.132; Hughes, 2002, p.29; Jupp in Maley et al., 2002, p.32; National Population Council, 1991, p.65). The first significant intake of refugees to Australia occurred between 1947 and 1952 with the arrival of over 170,000 Europeans displaced by WWII (DIMIA, 2005b, p.18; Jupp in Maley et al., 2002, p.32; National Population Council, 1991, p.66). Labour shortages and the perceived threat of invasion from regions to Australia‘s north resulted in a shift in immigration policy in the 1950s and 1960s. Over these two decades, Australia accepted over 300,000 displaced persons from Eastern Europe, including from the 1956 Hungarian- and the 1968 Czechoslovakianuprisings. The Eastern Europeans were followed by waves of immigrants from the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Greece and the Middle East. Public sentiment towards assimilation began to change by the late 1960s and, in 1973, the Australian federal government adopted a multicultural model of ethnic group acceptance (de Lepervanche, 1984; Taylor, 2004; Williams & Batrouney, 1998). Australian borders were only opened to immigrants from the rest of Asia and others of non-Anglo-Celtic backgrounds after 1973. Even with the increase of non-English speaking immigrants after WWII, and as Asia became a major source of immigrants from the 1970s (Poulsen, Johnston & Forrest, 2004, p.357), the United Kingdom remained the main source of immigrants until the 1990s (Hugo, 2004, pp.3-4). The multicultural model supports groups retaining their ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural identities and co-existing in a pluralistic society (Burnley, 1982, pp.86-87). The federal
19
government‘s Multicultural Policy reflects these ideals with the stated aim to ‗build on our success as a culturally diverse, accepting and open society, united through a shared future, a commitment to our nation and our democratic institutions and values‘ (DIMIA, 2003a). Debates about immigration have continued to centre on fear of the ‗other‘, however, particularly with regard to ethnic residential concentrations. This resulted in renewed calls for assimilation over acceptance of multiculturalism (Ellis & Goodwin-White, 2006, p.902). The conservative Howard government (1996 to 2007) contributed significantly to this ‗race debate‘8 (Dunn, 1998; Klocker & Dunn, 2003; Perrin & Dunn, 2007), consistently reinforcing notions of ‗Australian values‘, akin to those of the assimilationist era9 (Dunn, 1998, p.512). During his time in office, Mr Howard introduced a number of anti-immigration measures, including repressive asylumseeking laws.
2.3.2. The Skilled Migration Program Two major shifts in the immigration policy occurred in the 1970s. The first was the move away from the ―White Australia Policy‖ in 1973, which, for the first time, opened the way for non-Anglo-Celtic migrants to immigrate to Australia with relative ease (Hugo, 2004, pp.3-4). The second was a move away from recruiting foreign workers for the manufacturing industries to a more complex Skilled Migration Program (the Migration Program), which is focused on selecting immigrants on the basis of their human capital (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006, p.204). Previously, refugee migration to Australia ‗tended to merge into the overall strategy of increasing the labour force‘ (Jupp in Maley et al., 2002, p.33). The Migration Program has two distinct categories: the non-humanitarian migration stream for skilled/economic and family migrants, and the humanitarian stream.
8
Other examples are Pauline Hanson‘s attack on Asian migration in the 1990s, the targeting of people of Islamic faith since September 2001 and, most recently, the vilification of Africans by the thenMinister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Kevin Andrews, in October 2007, which directly affected African refugees in Southeast Queensland (see Section 4.3.3.2). 9 For example, the term ‗multicultural‘ was dropped from the title of the federal Immigration Portfolio in 2007 under John Howard‘s leadership when the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs became the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
20
The Humanitarian Program, introduced in 1977, was the first comprehensive refugee migration program in Australia. It moved away from selecting refugees based on race or nationality and, instead, adopted the definition of refugees as set out in the Convention and the Protocol10 (Blackeney, 1985; Hugo, 2002, 2004; National Population Council, 1991; Pittaway, 2002) (Section 1.2.1). Changes to Australian policy may reflect the increased scale in number of refugees at the time (global refugee numbers nearly doubled in the late 1970s and early 1980s to 15 million) and the strength of public opinion for Australia to become involved in finding a solution to the crisis. The outbreak of the Lebanese civil war in 1975 and the first arrival of Vietnamese ‗boat people‘ on Australian shores in 1976 were also important contributing factors (National Population Council, 1991, p.68). The Keating government decided to separate the Humanitarian Program from the general Migration Program in 1993. The Howard government brought about further changes in 1996 with the introduction of onshore and offshore categories for assessing refugee status (Phillips, 2005, p.1). The Humanitarian Program is discussed further in the following section.
2.3.2.1. The Humanitarian Program The Minister for Immigration announces the size and composition of the Humanitarian Program each year following recommendations by the UNHCR, based on global resettlement needs and consultations with Australian stakeholders (DIAC, 2007a). The annual quota of between 12,000 and 13,000 places comprises two categories: offshore resettlement and onshore protection for people seeking asylum in Australia. The onshore category is largely irrelevant to African refugees in Southeast Queensland because most enter Australia though the offshore component of the program, as discussed below.
People identified by the UNHCR as refugees, and who are referred to an overseas Australian post, can apply under one of the offshore resettlement categories of the Humanitarian Program for refugee status in Australia. The main permanent offshore visa categories11 are: 10
Australia ratified the Convention on 22 January 1954 and the Protocol on 13 December 1973. The other permanent offshore visa categories, which are rarely used, include: In-country Special Humanitarian (visa subclass 201) and Emergency Rescue (visa subclass 203). 11
21
▪ visa subclass 200 (‗Convention refugees‘) for people referred to Australia through the UNHCR; ▪ visa subclass 204 (‗Women-at-risk‘) for especially vulnerable women and children.
The federal government introduced the SHP (visa subclass 202) in 1981 to assist people who are not classified as refugees under the Convention and the Protocol, but who are in need of humanitarian assistance and have links to Australia. The SHP was changed in the 1990s to allow humanitarian visa holders to propose family members as a means of reuniting families (DIAC, 2009), thus contributing to chain migration of refugee communities (Section 2.2.2.1). Before 2004, more places were allocated to SHP entrants and fewer to the offshore category. The offshore category has since increased to roughly half of the quota (DIAC, 2007a).
Convention refugees and SHP entrants are entitled to different levels of settlement support (see Section 2.4.1). This distinction is problematical because it is difficult to differentiate between the pre-settlement experiences and settlement needs of refugees and SHP entrants (Community Relations Commission of New South Wales (CRC), 2006). The present research, therefore, refers to people who have entered Australia through the offshore component of the Humanitarian Program (Convention refugees, Women at Risk entrants or SHP entrants) as ‗refugees‘.
2.3.3. Summary The literature in this section is relevant to the present research because it outlines and provides a background to contemporary Australian refugee policy and the humanitarian visa categories through which African refugees enter Australia. Disparities in settlement support access based on visa type are discussed further in the following section.
2.4. Australian settlement services This section relates to issues of settlement service provision after refugees have resettled in Australia. It provides a brief historical context to Australian settlement services and then focuses specifically on housing, because other settlement needs can
22
only be fulfilled once accommodation needs are met. Housing may also be a factor in secondary migration in African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. ‗Settlement needs‘ are described as the challenges that all migrants face when settling in Australia (DIMA, 2006c, p.5). Refugees often have the additional burden of being perceived as the ‗unwelcome other‘ in resettlement countries where they compete for essential resources such as employment and housing (Danso, 2002b, p.3). Support provided by settlement services, therefore, is critical for successful settlement and longer-term integration of refugee communities (Perrin & Dunn, 2007, p.262). In a submission to the CRC (2006) report, DIMA notes that new and emerging African communities have higher settlement needs because of preresettlement experiences, including ‗experiences of prolonged civil war, high incidence of torture and trauma, displacement and long-term residency in refugee camps‘ (p.23). This has prompted some (for example, Jupp, 2008) to call for an improvement of settlement services offered to African refugee communities in Australia, including to SHP entrants.
As previously discussed, the federal government made no distinction between the needs of general migrants and refugees before the 1970s. The Community Refugee Settlement Scheme (CRSS), a network of volunteer groups established in 1979, was the first distinct settlement support for humanitarian entrants. CRSS provided assistance with accommodation, employment, social support and general orientation (DIMIA, 2003b, pp.164-166). The Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS) replaced the CRSS in 2000 as a national framework of services delivered by community-based providers and commercial organisations through competitive tender on a five-year contract12.
2.4.1. Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy The contract to deliver IHSS services in the Brisbane metropolitan area was awarded to a group comprising the Multicultural Development Association (MDA),
12
The Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services (Ferguson, 2009) announced in September 2009 that a new framework of integrated service delivery networks will replace the IHSS in 2010.
23
Metropolitan Association Towards Community Housing (MATCH)13 and Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma (QPASTT) in 2005. IHSS services are delivered by Assisting Collaborative Community Employment Support services (ACCES) in the Logan, Woodridge and Beenleigh areas and by Anglicare Southern Cross in Toowoomba.
The aim of the IHSS is to assist refugees to gain access to mainstream services (DIMA, 2006d, p.22). IHSS services include on-arrival reception and assistance, six months of access to accommodation services, 510 hours of English tuition and shortterm torture and trauma counselling. The Settlement Grants Program provides subsequent settlement services on a needs-basis for up to five years. Convention refugees are entitled to access all of the IHSS services and the federal government covers the expenses of their health checks and airfares. SHP entrants only receive partial assistance with health checks and airfares; SHP proposers who sponsor SHP entrants are expected to pay the difference. Proposers are also responsible for providing SHP entrants with accommodation and access to the necessary services (DIMIA, 2003b) (Section 2.3.2.1).
2.4.2. On-arrival accommodation in the Brisbane metropolitan area Convention refugees are entitled to six months on-arrival accommodation assistance. MATCH is responsible for providing on-arrival accommodation to Convention refugees in the Brisbane metropolitan area. Until recently, refugees were placed in short-term accommodation before entering the private rental market independently. MATCH (2005) recognised that two-thirds of their waiting list for community housing consisted of refugees who had been in Australia for less than two years. Of these, one-third was ‗in housing crisis‘ due to: ▪ possible eviction over matters such as overcrowding; ▪ breaches of lease because of unfamiliarity with tenancy laws; ▪ discrimination; ▪ lack of references; ▪ unfamiliarity with the Australia housing system preventing them from accessing the private rental market (MATCH, 2005, pp.8-9). 13
MATCH changed its name to 4walls Ltd in mid-2009, after completion of the research fieldwork. The research, therefore, uses the name MATCH throughout this thesis.
24
MATCH (2005) argues that ‗[t]he majority of these families would not have required access to Community Housing had their housing needs been met appropriately at the beginning of their settlement‘ (p.8).
Under a new on-arrival accommodation model, MATCH places refugees in a property that they have head-leased for six months. The model was developed to reduce secondary migration by giving refugees the option of extending the lease privately at the end of the initial six months, thereby providing them with accommodation in the medium-to-long-term (MATCH, 2005, pp.8-10). The model is support by the RCOA (2007, p.9).
A recent study of Sudanese and Karen refugees in Brisbane (Hayward & Burgett, 2008) found that most of the respondents were not confident enough in their ability to deal with the private rental market after only six months residence in Australia (p.6). This criticism was repeated by participants at a meeting of Agencies Supporting the Housing of Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants (ASHRAM) held in July 2008. Hayward and Burgett suggest using a sliding scale for exiting refugees who are moving into the private rental market, based on their communication and life skills rather than imposing the current, blanket six month timeframe (p.6).
2.4.3. Queensland housing market The Queensland housing market is divided into the following categories: ▪ private home ownership (62%); ▪ private rental housing (26%); ▪ social housing (4%); ▪ other (for example, caravan parks) (6-7%) (Department of Housing, 2005). Social housing, which includes public rental housing and medium- to long-term community housing, is funded by the Queensland Government‘s Department of Housing14. Public housing is supplied directly by the Queensland Government, while community housing is provided by community-managed housing organisations (for 14
The Department of Housing became Housing and Homelessness Services within the Department of Communities after completion of the research fieldwork and therefore is referred to by its original name throughout the thesis to reduce confusion.
25
example, MATCH in Brisbane and ACCES in Logan), and funded by the Department of Housing (2005, pp.5-6). In 2008, the Department had 65,456 social housing units across the state and 30,000 households on the waiting list for this accommodation (Schwarten, 2008).
Queensland Shelter is the peak housing policy and advocacy organisation that represents low- to moderate-income households and the community sector, including ASHRAM (Queensland Shelter, 2008, p.4). ASHRAM is convened by the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland (ECCQ), a peak body representing and advocating ethnic communities and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in Queensland. ASHRAM‘s objective is to ‗improve access to suitable housing for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants‘ (ASHRAM, 2005b, p.2).
2.4.3.1. Tenancy advocacy in Queensland People from new refugee communities may have difficulties understanding and advocating their legal rights and responsibilities as tenants (ECCQ, n/d, Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007). Much is done at both local and state levels to address tenancy education and advocacy in these communities. Examples of these initiatives in Southeast Queensland include: ▪ the ECCQ‘s ‗Stronger tenancies: A research project to document effective practices and models in providing tenancy information, advocacy and advice to new and emerging communities‘ conducted in 2009; ▪ ASHRAM‘s ‗Towards tenancy education for diverse communities‘ forum, held in April 2008; ▪ Tenants‘ Union of Queensland‘s (TUQ) ‗Accessibility Service Delivery project‘, a short-to-medium term project (ended in June 2009) that provided accredited tenancy and advocacy training to ten members of culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The project provided short-term casual employment to trainees to deliver community education sessions, as well as developing tenant education resources and support to mainstream tenant advice services on culturally appropriate service delivery (McCormack, 2008); ▪ TUQ‘s ‗Know your tenancy rights and responsibilities workshops‘, which were conducted between March and May 2009 in nine different languages;
26
▪ Tenants Advisory and Advocacy Support network (TAASQ), which receives its funding from the Residential Tenancies Authority (RTA) through the Department of Housing and operates in 28 regions in Queensland; ▪ RTA funded programs through the Community Education Public Grants Schemes, for example, the Townsville Multicultural Support Group‘s ‗Sustainable tenancy … rights and responsibilities for newly arrived migrants and refugees‘; Interlink‘s ‗The key to your door‘; ECCQ‘s ‗Community Partners in Tenancy Program‘; ▪ other RTA initiatives, such as the translation of RTA information booklets into four African languages and training African bilingual workers on tenancy laws in Queensland (Department of Communities, 2008, p.18).
While these projects are likely to benefit the communities at which they are aimed in the short-term, many at the ASHRAM forum voiced their concerns that the lack of access to recurrent funding was negatively affecting the longer-term sustainability of these projects.
2.4.4. Summary This section identified the settlement support available to African refugees once they have arrived in Southeast Queensland. It focused on housing, firstly, because of the importance of housing in settlement and, secondly, because housing may play a part in secondary migration and distribution of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. Various services, on-arrival housing models and advocacy initiatives designed to support refugee housing were discussed. The literature, however, does not explain the relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in these communities.
2.5. Settlement patterns of ethnic minority communities The following section relates to the research aim of identifying and describing the geographical distribution of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. Roseman, Laux and Thieme (1996) coined the term ‗EthniCities‘ to describe how ‗various combinations of ethnic groups often compete for housing, employment, educational resources and political representation‘ and are ‗confronted by residential segregation, discrimination, xenophobia, and conflict‘ in host societies (p.xx). Boal
27
(1999) provides a framework of intra-urban ethnic minority relations based on five separate scenarios: ▪ assimilation of groups when cultural and other differences disappear, leading to an homogenous society (p.588); ▪ pluralism in which co-existing groups retain some ethnic distinctiveness and maintain their cultural identity (pp.588-589); ▪ segmentation, which leads to a divided and fractured urban environment with weak inter-ethnic relations, conflict, insecurity and mistrust (p.590); ▪ polarisation, which occurs when ethnic nationalism results in ‗a dichotomised environment of societal and political division‘ (p.590); ▪ cleansing occurs when one group flees, is expelled or exterminated as the result of inter-ethnic relations (p.590).
The assimilationist and the pluralist models of ethnic minority integration are two overarching perspectives on how ethnic minority groups integrate into the host society. Both perspectives agree that the settlement pattern of ethnic minority groups will initially be segregated and concentrated (Logan, Zhang & Alba, 2002, p.299). The assimilationist perspective suggests that members of ethnic communities will eventually become culturally assimilated and spatially dispersed in the host society (Bråmå, 2008; Massey, 1985). The pluralist perspective, in contrast, suggests that segregation and spatial concentration of ethnic communities will continue and be reinforced by immigration, particularly chain migration and internal secondary migration (Peach, 1999; Quintero, 2005).
Other perspectives, which have also been used to explain ethnic group relations within an urban environment, include transnationalism and social capital theories, for example, contact theory and conflict theory. Contact theory argues that ‗diversity fosters inter-ethnic tolerance and social solidarity‘, while conflict theory argues that ‗diversity fosters out-group distrust and in-group solidarity‘ (Putnam, 2007, pp.141142). In recent research in the USA, Putnam has suggested that ethnic diversity in geographic areas causes isolation, as people ‗hunker down‘ (a ‗turtling‘ effect in which people withdraw like a turtle pulling its head into its shell) because of distrust of other ethnic groups (p.149). Putnam‘s research found that the more diverse the community, the less people trusted and participated in civic society, while there was
28
increased trust and community engagement in less diverse communities. The extent of the degree to which this relates to Australian society is unclear.
2.5.1. Residential segregation Ethnic residential segregation is ‗the degree to which two or more groups live separately from one another, in different parts of the urban environment‘ (Massey & Denton, 1988, p.282). Ethnic residential segregation is most often greatest for recently arrived immigrant and refugee groups (Burnley & Hiebert, 2001, p.137). The way in which residential segregation facilitates or impedes integration into the host society has long been contested (Bilodeau, 2009, p.134). In some cases, researchers consider ethnic residential segregation to be the result of discrimination and exclusion from, for example, the housing and labour markets. Others argue that segregation may be beneficial to members of ethnic minority groups, and the result of a considered decision, providing minority groups with access to social, economic and political opportunities and the ability to retain and protect their culture (Bilodeau, 2009; Dunn, 1998; Johnston, Forrest & Poulsen, 2001a; Portes & Bach, 1985).
2.5.2. Residential concentration Residential concentrations of ethnic minority groups, as defined in Section 1.2.3, generally occur as a result of chain migration and secondary migration (Burnley, 1982, 1989; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Glavac & Waldorf, 1998; Massey & Denton, 1988; Waldorf, 1990). They are normally located near key institutional facilities in areas of cheap accommodation. The initial place of settlement upon arrival is a particularly important influence on the formation of ethnic residential concentrations because migrants are more likely to find accommodation in an area with which they are familiar. Social networks and the subsequent development of institutions such as ethnic schools, churches and mosques are ‗pull‘ factors attracting others into the community, further reinforcing residential concentration (Burnley, 1982, 1989; Dunn 1993; Glavac & Childs 1993; Glavac & Waldorf 1998; Viviani, Coughlan & Rowland 1993; Wilson 1987, 1990).
29
Earlier research on ethnic residential concentrations in Australia focused on the perceived negative aspects of the concentrations (for example, Birrell, 1990; Blainey, 1988, 1993, 1994). Other researchers (Burnley, 1982, 1998; Dunn, 1993, 1998; Poulsen, Johnston & Forrest, 2004) emphasise the social capital that residential concentrations provide to ethnic communities, including: ▪ assistance for members who do not speak the host society‘s language; ▪ social support from the community; ▪ relative safety from which to integrate into the host society; ▪ appropriate services in a geographically concentrated area; ▪ a site for community leisure and religious activities; ▪ economic and employment opportunities; ▪ a visible expression of the familiar culture in, for example, the architecture, food, shops, cultural practices and clothes.
2.5.3. Assimilationist perspective The Chicago School of Urban Sociology devised the ecological theory of spatial assimilation in the USA in the early twentieth century. Assimilation theory contends that segregated and concentrated ethnic groups are assimilated into the dominant population and replaced by more recent immigrant groups (Massey, 1985). A ‗melting pot‘ is another term used to describe this model, where members of ethnic minorities are expected to ‗mix‘ with the host society and lose their discrete cultural identities to produce a culturally homogenous society. Proponents of the assimilation model thus legitimise the cultural hegemony of the dominant ethnic group and expect that minority groups should conform through assimilation (Dunn, 1998, p.504). Other theoretical models of ethnic concentrations that espouse assimilation include socio-biology, the Weberian and Marxist theories (see Dunn, 1998).
Classic assimilation theory contends that the initial residential segregation and concentration of ethnic minority groups is transitory and that these concentrations will decrease with a corresponding increase in human capital, acculturation and socioeconomic mobility (Gordon, 1964; Peach, 1999). According to the theory, increased human capital (for example, educational qualifications and language skills) and acculturation will result in an eventual loss of ethnic attachment, while
30
socioeconomic mobility will result in residential mobility away from ethnic concentration to areas of better housing among the host society (Ellis & GoodwinWhite, 2006; Gordon, 1964; Massey & Mullan, 1984; Skop, 2001). Therefore, from the point of view of the classic assimilation perspective, ethnic residential segregation and concentration will decrease over time.
Strands of assimilation theory that move away from the classic perspective include: ▪ segmented assimilation theory (Portes & Zhou, 1993), which identifies that some members of ethnic minority communities ‗at the bottom of the racial hierarchy‘ may find it difficult to ‗translate socioeconomic gains into less segregated housing outcomes‘ (Ellis & Goodwin-White, 2006, p.903); ▪ heterolocalism (Zelinsky & Lee, 1998) in which ethnic bonds remain strong despite dispersed residential patterns. Heterolocal communities maintain strong ethnic community ties via telecommunications, visits and travel that have been possible only with the technological advancements of the late twentieth century; ▪ ethnohubs (Li, 1998), which are formed when immigrants bypass the traditional central city residential concentration to live in suburban middle-class ethnic concentrations. Compared to segmented assimilation theory, heterolocal communities and ethnohubs involve relatively privileged people (Zelinsky & Lee, 1998). The Italian and Greek communities in Sydney are examples of heterolocal communities (Burnley, 2005, p.390), while middle-class South African communities in suburbs such as Chapel Hill in Brisbane and St Ives in Sydney might be considered examples of ethnohubs.
Assimilationists suggest that residential segregation and concentration of ethnic minority groups have a wide range of negative social, economic and political consequences. Moreover, assimilation theory represents mainstream society as a singular reference group with singular residential patterns and creates ‗jeremiads about immigrants whose mobility and residence do not follow theorized expectations of ethnic deconcentration‘ (Ellis & Goodwin-White, 2006).
31
2.5.4. Pluralist perspective Johnston, Forrest and Poulsen (2002a) question the ‗wholesale transference of the American model of assimilation to all societies … implicitly using the American ethnic experience as the norm in Western countries‘ (p.592). The pluralist perspective, often referred to as the multicultural perspective/multiculturalism (or the ‗cultural mosaic‘), offers an alternate view of ethnic minority integration. Pluralists acknowledge that there may be considerable social and economic integration, but argue that there is also most likely some maintenance of separate ethnic institutions, cultural attributes and ethnically distinctive neighbourhoods because of the important influence that ethnicity exerts upon immigrants‘ lives (Skop, 2001, p.452). Upward social mobility, increased human capital and acculturation, therefore, do not necessarily result in dispersal of the community over time, but, instead, in continued levels of residential segregation and concentration (Peach, 1999, p.320). Some groups may, in fact, become more geographically concentrated over time (Belnage & Rogers, 1992, p.1363; Hou, 2005, p.5).
There are two types of pluralism: enforced and voluntary. The spatial manifestation of enforced pluralism is ghettos, the most common example of which is the hypersegregated African-American communities in North American cities. One of the spatial manifestations of voluntary pluralism is ethnic enclaves, for example, ‗Chinatown‘ and ‗Little Sicily‘ neighbourhoods where Chinese and Italian immigrants have settled in cities around the world (Peach, 1999, p.320). Another manifestation is ethnic communities (Logan, Zhang & Alba, 2002). Ghettos are different from ethnic enclaves and ethnic communities by virtue of choice: ghettos are imposed upon residents by the host community or through exclusion, whereas ethnic enclaves and ethnic communities are formed through voluntary membership (Johnston, Gregory & Smith, 1994, p.231).
2.5.4.1. Ghettos The term ‗ghetto‘ originated from the segregation of Jews in the Jewish quarter outside the city walls of Venice in 1516 (Jupp, McRobbie & York, 1990). The contemporary definition of ‗ghetto‘ is a segregated area in which a large proportion of the population is of one ethnic, cultural or racial origin and a high percentage of
32
the total group is found in that particular area (Burnley, 1989, p.130; Peach, 1996, pp.216-217; Peach, 1999, p.320). Most of the recent literature concerning ghettos describes and discusses the African-American hyper-segregation of the early to midtwentieth century (Massey & Denton, 1988; Peach, 1996) and refers to concentrations of poverty and disadvantage, or ‗poverty traps‘ (Massey, 1990). Ghetto residents are unlikely to disperse with socioeconomic mobility, increased human capital or acculturation because of discrimination and/or constrained choices in the housing market elsewhere (Johnston, Forrest & Poulsen, 2001a).
2.5.4.2. Ethnic enclaves and ethnic communities The term ‗ethnic enclaves‘ has been used to refer to the geographic concentration of an ethnic economy, labour market, place of residence and linguistic group or a combination of these factors (Chiswick & Miller, 2005; Ellis & Goodwin-White, 2006; Logan, Zhang & Alba, 2002; Portes & Jensen, 1987; Sanders & Nee, 1987; Zhou & Logan, 1989). Ethnic enclaves traditionally refer to a single ethnicity living in a geographic area. They may also support multiple ethnicities, however, for example, Vietnamese businesses and people living in Chinatown, Toronto, or the multi-ethnicities in the Sydney suburb of Cabramatta (Burnley & Hiebert, 2001; Chiu & Phan, 2005).
While ghettos tend to be viewed negatively, enclave theory and the ethnic resource perspective argue that ethnic residential concentrations have positive socioeconomic benefits for the community (Burnley, 1989, p.131; Ellis & Goodwin-White, 2006, p.902). Ethnic enclaves and ethnic communities are consolidated by chain migration and secondary migration (Quintero, 2005) and residential dispersion is unlikely because of the proximity to ethnic networks and institutions (Fang & Brown, 1999; Portes & Bach, 1985; Skop, 2001). One explanation used to distinguish between ethnic enclaves and ethnic communities is that enclaves may develop out of necessity because of constraints in the housing and labour markets, whereas ethnic communities usually develop by choice (Logan, Zhang & Alba, 2002, p.301; Walks & Bourne, 2006, p.276).
33
2.5.5. Ethnic residential concentrations in Australia After WWII, refugees were accommodated in rural camps in Australia for two years before they moved into urban residential areas. This changed in the 1970s, when they were provided with short-term accommodation in migrant hostels in major Australian cities (Jupp, 1994, pp.34-36). These early refugees were mainly from Indo-China and represented the first intake of Asian humanitarian entrants since the dismantling of the ‗White Australia Policy‘ (Jupp, 1994, p.40) (Section 2.3.1). Much research was undertaken on the resultant ethnic residential concentrations in Australian cities (for example, Burnley, 1982, 1989; Dunn, 1993, 1998; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Glavac & Waldorf, 1998; Viviani, Coughlan & Rowland, 1993; Wilson, 1987, 1990).
The location of the migrant hostels played a significant role in the formation of IndoChinese residential concentrations in Australian cities. Short-term accommodation in these hostels provided refugees (and migrants) with time to become familiar with the area in which they were located and to establish links to the local schools, shopping, employment and housing markets. Since most hostels were located close to industrial plants and in areas of low-cost housing, refugees and migrants had employment and housing opportunities in the local area (Burnley, 1982, 1989; Burnley & Hiebert, 2001; Dunn, 1993; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Glavac & Waldorf, 1998; Jupp, 1994; Viviani, Coughlan & Rowland, 1993; Wilson, 1987, 1990). The location of public transport routes was also important in the site of the concentrations because many of the refugees and migrants relied heavily on public transport as their main means of travel (Burnley, 1982; Dunn, 1993; Wilson, 1987, 1990). Ethnic businesses and institutions eventually developed as the communities became more established (Burnley, 1982; Jupp, McRobbie & York, 1990). The concentrations of ethnic communities and resources drew other members to the area through chain migration (Burnley, 1989, 1998; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Hugo & Fellow, 2005; Johnston, Forrest & Poulsen, 2002b; Jupp, 1994; Price, 1963; Waxman, 1999) and secondary migration (Glavac & Waldorf, 1998; Poulsen, Johnston & Forrest, 2004; Waldorf, 1990).
34
The Indo-Chinese residential concentrations were highly visible on the predominantly Anglo-Celtic landscape and elicited strong criticism from some quarters in the 1980s and early 1990s (for example, Birrell, 1990; Blainey, 1988, 1993, 1994). Blainey (1988) first raised the issue of ethnic ghettos in Cabramatta and suggested that they were a ‗particularly Asian phenomenon‘ (Jupp, McRobbie & York, 1990, p.57). Indeed, Cabramatta and Fairfield in Sydney‘s western suburbs were labelled ‗Vietnamatta‘ and ‗Saigon City‘ at the time (de Lepervanche, 1984, p.213). In reaction to popular sentiment, the 1988 Fitzgerald Report recommended a reduction of family reunification, which allowed sponsored relatives to join migrants in Australia (Burnley, 1989, p.130). Against this backdrop, it is interesting to note that Australian cities actually have some of the lowest levels of segregation in the developed world (Carrington, McIntosh & Walmsley, 2007; Poulsen, Johnston & Forrest, 2004). Indeed, researchers have found that there are: ▪ no evidence of ghettos (Burnley, 1982, 1989; Johnson, Forrest & Poulsen, 2001b; Jupp, McRobbie & York, 1990; Poulsen, Johnston & Forrest, 2004; Viviani, Coughlan & Rowland, 1993); and ▪ little or no evidence of ethnic enclaves in Australia (Adhikari, 1999; Burnley, 1982, 1998; Johnson, Forrest & Poulsen, 2001b). Furthermore, although recent arrivals are slightly more concentrated than established residents (Burnley, 1982, 1989, 1998), there are low levels of segregation relative to equivalent immigration countries (Johnson, Forrest & Poulsen, 2001a, 2001b; Poulsen, Johnston & Forrest, 2004).
More recently, other ethnic groups have been the focus of racist attacks. For example, the targeting of people of Middle-Eastern origin in Cronulla in 2007; a statement by the former Minister for Immigration, Kevin Andrews, about African refugees‘ ‗failure to integrate‘ into Australian society before the 2007 election and subsequent vilification of African refugees in general; protests against a mosquedevelopment in Campbelltown, Sydney, in 2008; and attacks against Indian students in various Australian cities in 2009.
35
2.5.5.1. Government policies of dispersion Comparing Australia and Canada is useful to the present research because similarities exist between the two countries in terms of immigration (Castles & Miller, 1993, p.5, Hugo & Fellows, 2005, p. 1; Johnston, Forrest & Poulsen, 2001a, p.571; Roseman, Laux & Thieme, 1996, p.xix), refugee settlement programs (Millbank, Phillips & Bohm, 2006) and multicultural policies of cultural group acceptance (Burnley & Hiebert, 2001, p.132). The Canadian Government has implemented a program to reverse the trend of immigrants concentrating in metropolitan areas by channelling more to regional centres (Krahn, Derwing & AbuLaban, 2005, p.873). A similar settlement policy exists in the USA, where refugees are dispersed across the various states in a ‗scatter approach‘ (Shandy, 2007, p.136). While Australia does not have such an overt policy of dispersion, regional settlement initiatives have contributed to refugee settlement in areas outside the capital cities.
Two reports in 2003 suggested that migrants and refugees should be used to meet skills shortages and bolster population and economic development in regional Australia (DIMIA, 2003b; Withers & Powall, 2003). Consequently, in 2004, the federal government announced that it would increase the number of migrants and refugees to regional areas. Part of this regional initiative has been to settle refugees in: ▪ Logan/Beenleigh/Woodridge, Toowoomba, Townsville, Cairns and the Gold Coast in Queensland; ▪ Coffs Harbour, Goulburn, Wagga Wagga in New South Wales; ▪ Shepparton in Victoria; ▪ Launceston and the northwest coast of Tasmania; ▪ Mandurah in Western Australia (DIMA, 2006b).
DIMIA (2003b) states that refugees will only be settled in regional centres if employment opportunities and appropriate services exist or can be developed in these locations. Taylor and Stanovic (2005) argue, however, that the government‘s regional settlement ‗equation‘ is not as simple as refugees filling jobs in regional centres. Despite the government‘s initiative to meet the regional skills shortages, a lack of employment opportunities remains a major challenge for refugees in regional
36
centres (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006; CRC, 2006; Nsubuga-Kyobe & Dimock, 2002; Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2004; Taylor & Stanovic, 2005), as does access to appropriate services and, in particular, housing (Nsubuga-Kyobe & Dimock, 2002). The contemporary regional settlement initiatives to address labour shortages in areas unattractive to Australians is comparable to earlier immigration policy that directed migrants to low skilled jobs that were unattractive to Australians (de Lepervanche, 1984). The British Refugee Council (in Robinson & Coleman, 2000) suggests ‗that to [embark on a policy of dispersion] would be exploiting the vulnerability of newly arrived and desperate people and would consign them to many years of wasteful secondary migration‘ (p.1226). Other studies have found that refugees who settled in regional areas are likely to move in order to access better employment opportunities (CRC, 2006, pp.39 & 111; Jupp, 1994, p.63; Shepley, 2008, p.59). This debate is not new: previous research in Australia (Burnley, 1982; Wilson, 1987, 1990) found that refugees placed in regional centres tend to move to larger urban areas, leading Dunn (1993) to observe that policies of refugee dispersion have been unsuccessful and misguided.
Unlike in Canada, DIAC only has the power to directly influence refugees who do not have links in Australia (DIMA, 2006b) (that is, they are not sponsored-SHP entrants and/or do not have family in Australia). These refugees are, however, arguably the most vulnerable of this already disadvantaged group because of the lack of established social networks. Without these networks of support, adaptation and opportunity, refugee groups in regional centres tend to become isolated, which may have longer-term, negative effects, for example, on their mental health (Koser, 1997; Simich et al., 2005). Policies that direct refugees to regional centres are suggested to work only if those with close ties are clustered together (Hou, 2005, p.8), such as the United Kingdom ‗clustered dispersal‘ program of Bosnian refugees in the late 1990s (Krahn, Derwing & Abu-Laban, 2005, p.891; Robinson & Coleman, 2000, p.1217).
Nsubuga-Kyobe (2004) and Robinson and Coleman (2000) suggest that these regional initiatives are contrary to the general desire among refugees to live in urban centres. Most choose to live in large urban centres because of employment
37
opportunities, a variety of accommodation options, proximity to ethnic communities, the range of refugee and ethno-specific services and institutions, and the likelihood of a more tolerant multicultural society (Burnley, 1982, pp.92-93; Robinson & Coleman, 2000, p.1241). Studies of Vietnamese refugee regional settlement in the United Kingdom confirmed that most moved from their initial settlement location to concentrations of like-ethnic groups (Robinson in Black, 1991). This secondary migration created what the government was trying to avoid, a lack of control over secondary migrants in sub-standard, overcrowded housing in large cities (Dalglish, 1989, p.77).
2.5.6. Summary This section reviewed literature on the settlement patterns of ethnic minority communities, ethnic residential concentration in Australia and the Australian federal government‘s policy of ethnic residential dispersion. In Southeast Queensland, African refugee communities‘ settlement patterns most likely conform to models of voluntary pluralism, that is, they are likely to be relatively concentrated because of the recency of their arrival and through choice rather than through exclusion or force. The geographical distribution of the communities is not known, however, presenting a gap in the literature that needs to be addressed.
2.6. Residential mobility The following two sections introduce literature relating to residential mobility before discussing secondary migration to address the research aim of examining the patterns and drivers of secondary migration in African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland.
Residential mobility, or intra-urban mobility, is a form of internal migration involving short moves within an urban area and is the most common form of migration. Most residential mobility is voluntary and individuals who choose to move make relatively predictable decisions based on characteristics such as household composition, income and employment situation. The size, price, type and tenure of dwelling and its proximity to work opportunities and services are also important in the mobility-decision process (Australia Housing and Urban Research
38
Institute (AHURI), 2006, p.33; Baker, 2002, p, 39; Dieleman, 2001, p.250). Geographers traditionally use push-pull models to explain these factors (for example, Dorigo & Tobler, 1983; Hartshorn, 1992; Pacione, 2005). For example, a lack of space due to changing composition of the household, undesirable structural changes to the neighbourhood and loss of employment opportunities in a geographic region might be push factors of residential mobility, while better employment opportunities, access to education opportunities and social networks might be pull factors.
Various explanations have been proposed for the underlying behavioural processes associated with voluntary residential mobility. Clark and Onaka (1983) formulated a model that includes lifecycle changes (‗induced moves‘) or housing adjustment factors (‗adjustment moves‘). Mobility to match housing consumption to the household stage and structure (‗induced moves‘) was first suggested by Rossi (1955), and is considered by some (for example, Baker, 2002; Dieleman, 2001; Pickvance, 1974; Stimson, 1982) to be the most important driver of residential mobility. Others (for example, Hartshorn, 1992) suggest that housing adjustment factors (‗adjustment moves‘) are the most important factor.
2.6.1. Induced and adjustment moves Rossi (1955) pioneered the concept of housing transition motivated by lifecycle stages. He proposed that housing needs are determined by the composition of the household and that mobility is the way in which housing is brought into adjustment to a household‘s needs (Rossi, 1955, p.178). Clark and Onaka (1983) further develop Rossi‘s concept by identifying that changes in the demographic characteristics of a household affect the household lifecycle, therefore distinguishing between changes and stages of a household lifecycle (p.48). The household lifecycle stage—based on age of household members—dictates the type of lifestyle changes (for example, progress from education to career, cohabitation and the arrival of children) that are most likely to affect housing needs. Mobility outcomes, based on individual or family composition and age, have more recently been discounted as inadequate because of the changing structure of households and families, the increased age of marriage and the emergence of alternative family compositions (Clark, 2008, p.263). A life course explanation has been proposed instead, which links together multiple
39
processes, such as family change, job change and housing change (Clark, 2008; Clark & Dieleman, 1996).
Grimes et al. (2006) proposed a shift away from focusing on household lifecycles to individual lifecycles, in which ‗each person undergoes a life-cycle and their housing needs change over that life-cycle‘ (Grimes et al., 2006, p.67). These authors suggest that refugees can be considered similar to young adults who are starting out on their housing career—that is, they are highly mobile and face discrimination in the rental market (p.68). Beer and Foley (2003) note, however, that ‗there is … no single housing career, either within a birthplace group, or for all immigrants/refugee arrivals‘ (p.6), thus contesting Grimes et al.‘s argument.
40
Adjustment moves alter the type and quality of the housing unit and are divided into housing factors, neighbourhood factors and accessibility factors. Space is said to be the main housing-related factor for adjustment moves (Clark & Onaka, 1983, pp.4950), although housing cost is almost certain to have risen in importance in recent times. Accessibility to family and friends, workplace, schools and shopping are also a factor in adjustment moves (Figure 2.2).
Move
Forced
Voluntary
ADJUSTMENT Housing Space Quality/design Cost Tenure change Neighbourhood Quality Physical Environment Social composition Public services Accessibility Work place Shopping/school Family/friends
INDUCED Employment Job change Retirement Lifestyle Household formation Change in marital status Change in household size
Figure 2.2 Adjustment and induced voluntary moves (Clark & Onaka, 1983, p.50)
2.6.2. Summary The literature in this section provides a general overview of residential mobility. The literature contributes to the present research by providing a) a brief explanation of the push-pull model of residential mobility that may be useful to explain the underlying factors governing secondary migration, and b) a framework within which to categorise reasons for secondary migration of African refugees in Southeast Queensland.
41
2.7. Refugee secondary migration This section reviews literature that specifically relates to refugee secondary migration, because the factors that precipitate secondary migration in refugee communities might be different to the factors that trigger residential mobility in the general population.
Secondary migration is the movement of migrants from one settlement location to another location. In the context of the present research, secondary migration refers to the movement of African refugees within or between suburbs, towns, cities or regional areas in Australia. Refugees have inevitably experienced severe disruption and dislocation in their lives because of the reasons that precipitated their flight and the very nature of forced migration (Beer & Foley, 2003; Brough et al., 2003; Westoby, 2008). The original flight from their country of birth, particularly for many African refugees, is often followed by subsequent moves from or within the country of asylum due to the outbreak of civil war or conflict in that territory (Browne, 2006; Shandy, 2007). Despite this, refugees have a high rate of secondary migration in resettlement (Beer & Foley, 2003, 2005; Hou, 2005; CRC, 2006; Newbold, 1999; Simich, 2003). DIMA (2006c) acknowledges that it knows little about refugee secondary migration in Australia, however, and is collecting and storing data through the Settlement Database (p.9) (see Section 4.2.5.) to enable the Department to track refugee movements within Australia. In a submission to the CRC (2006) report investigating African humanitarian settlement in New South Wales, DIMA notes that ‗assessment of secondary migration [of Humanitarian Program entrants] is inherently difficult to verify through available statistics‘ (p.40).
Economic and labour factors are key reasons underpinning internal migration decisions of the general population (Greenwood, 1985). Previous research on refugee secondary migration suggests, however, that refugees move mainly to: ▪ rebuild social and ethnic networks; ▪ address housing issues; ▪ access better employment opportunities. Literature from the USA also identifies access to better welfare payments as a key factor underpinning secondary migration in that country (Finck, 1986; Lieb, 1996).
42
Welfare payments (through Centrelink) in Australia are controlled by the federal government, and although might be better delivered across place, do not differ between the states and territories. Access to better welfare entitlements, therefore, is unlikely to be a determining factor in refugee secondary migration in Australia. The following sections focus on literature relating to the three main triggers of refugee secondary migration outlined above.
2.7.1. Secondary migration to rebuild social and ethnic networks Putman (2007) defines social capital as ‗social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness‘ (p.137). He further differentiates between bonding social capital (ties to people that have similar important attributes, such as kinship, ethnicity, language and religion) and bridging social capital (ties to people who do not share similar important attributes, for example with colleagues and neighbours) (p. 143). The following literature unpacks how networks (bonding social capital) might influence refugee secondary migration, first considering social and then ethnic networks.
In the context of refugee studies, social networks usually consist of kinship systems (for example, nuclear and extended family) and social groups (for example, religious groups) (During, 2006). These networks provide refugees with emotional and material support, advice, information and assistance with finance, housing and childcare. They also help refugees develop education, language and employment skills, enable them to maintain cultural practices and familiar relationship patterns, and help in times of crisis (Ager & Strang, 2008; Cottrell, 2008; Danso, 2002a; During, 2006; Hume & Hardwick, 2005; Koser, 1997; Simich, 2003; Simich, Beiser & Mawani, 2002; Simich et al., 2005). Social networks, therefore, are an integral factor in helping refugees with the challenges and adjustments of resettlement.
Refugees place more value on the social support that they receive from social networks than on the safety net provided by service providers (Wilkinson & Marmot in Simich et al., 2005, p.259). Relying on social networks may also be a ‗cultural reflex‘, in that people of African background tend to place a high value on community life and turn inwards to their social networks for support in times of need
43
and crisis (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2003, p.64, Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999, p.51).
Ethnic networks are defined as ties that are based on shared commonalities such as language, culture, religion and country or region of origin, which provide members with ‗ethnic social capital‘ (Hardwick, 2003, p.169). Mitchell (2003) suggests that ‗ethnic networks help to extend the group‘s identity spatially, and are an important facet of social and economic organization, particularly within migrant communities‘ (p.392). Not all ethnic groups are homogenous, however (Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999; During, 2006; Hume & Hardwick, 2005), and it is important to remember that some of the conflicts that precipitated refugee migration in Africa in the first place are based on ethnic divisions.
Many studies have found that close location to social and ethnic groups is an important factor in the successful resettlement of refugees (Ager & Strang, 2008; Burnley, 1989; Dalglish, 1989; Dunn, 1993; During, 2006; Forbes, 1984; Hardwick, 2003; Hardwick & Meacham, 2005; Hume & Hardwick, 2005; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007; Simich, 2003; Wahlbeck, 1998). Language, cultural barriers and discrimination direct refugees to ethnic residential concentrations (Beer & Foley, 2005; Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2003, 2006; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999) as they actively seek out people from a familiar cultural background with similar experiences to ‗bridge the ways of two worlds‘ (Simich, 2003, p.587). Beer and Morphett (2002) suggest that new arrivals who speak the same language should be settled close together so that they can access support from one another. For example, childcare is a particularly important settlement need for which African refugee families seek support from within their ethnic networks. Many African families bypass Australian childcare facilities in favour of leaving their children with members of their own ethnic community (Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999, p.43) because of prohibitive costs, culturally inappropriate care, culturally insensitive childcare workers and language barriers (Batrouney, 1991; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999; CRC, 2006; Nsubuga-Kyobe & Dimock, 2002).
44
According to the group affinity hypothesis, ‗pre-existing ethnic communities have a strong effect in both attracting and retaining immigrants‘ because ethnic networks and ethnically-based institutional resources (for example, schools, religious institutions and media) are more likely to flourish in large, viable ethnic communities (Hou, 2005, p.6). Given the pull of ethnicity, it is apparent that initial settlement decisions (Bartel, 1989; Burnley, 1982, 1989; Castles et al., 1998; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Hardwick, 2003; Hou, 2005; Kritz & Nogel, 1994; Withers & Powall, 2003; Zavodny, 1999) and secondary migration decisions (Burnley, 1982, 1989; Glavac & Waldorf, 1998; Gurak & Kritz, 2000; Kritz & Nogle, 1994; Newbold, 1999; Waldorf, 1990; Wilson, 1987, 1990) are influenced by the location of pre-existing ethnic networks. Robinson and Coleman (2000) suggest that where there is no preexisting community, limited secondary migration takes place (p.1237). Similarly, Simich (2003) states that where pre-existing communities are present, refugees are more likely to engage in secondary migration to ‗maximise opportunities for social support in a meaningful way, irrespective of the logistical problems associated with moving‘ (p.582). Consequently, refugees who are not initially accommodated close to these important networks are at a higher risk of becoming secondary migrants (Simich, 2003; Simich, Beiser & Mawani, 2002), however, this is not true for all groups. For example, Shandy (2007) found that Sudanese refugees of Nuer-ethnic origin were more likely to disperse as a means of diversifying the community‘s access to resources (p.132).
2.7.2. Accommodation issues underpinning secondary migration It is widely accepted that access to appropriate15, safe and affordable housing is an important part of the refugee settlement and integration process because participation in social institutions, such as education and employment, can only be realised once refugee housing needs are met (Bartlett, 2009; Beer & Foley, 2003, 2005; Beer & Morphett, 2002; Carr, 2009; Jupp, 1994; Kissoon, 2006; Ley et al., 2001; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007; Murdie, 2005; Tuohey, 2001). Housing is especially important in the initial settlement stage to provide a secure base from which to re-orientate and to navigate a myriad new 15
Indicators of appropriate accommodation include physical size, quality and facilities, financial security of tenancies (and ownership, if appropriate), perception of neighbours and neighbourhoods, and perception of safety and security (Ager & Strang, 2008, pp.171-172).
45
systems and bureaucracies (Beer & Foley, 2005; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007). Ideally, refugee accommodation should be of an appropriate size, in affordable neighbourhoods, close to reliable public transport options, local institutions, services and members of the same ethnic group (Hardwick & Meacham, 2005; Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2004; Taylor & Stanovic, 2005). In reality, accommodation is often relatively expensive due to chronic unemployment and under-employment, too small and, therefore, overcrowded, and poorly located relative to the household‘s needs (Beer & Foley, 2005, p.32; Carrington, McIntosh & Walmsley, 2007, p.83; DIMIA, 2003b, p.78; Ley & Murphy, 2001, p.142).
In Australia, refugees are initially housed either by IHSS service providers (such as MATCH in Brisbane or ACCES in Logan) in the case of Convention Refugee entrants or, in the case of SHP entrants, by their proposers (Figure 2.3) (Section 2.4.2 and see Section 2.7.2.2).
Arrival in Australia Initial settlement housing provided by proposer/IHSS service provider (e.g. MATCH or ACCES) Secondary migration: Movement into the private rental housing stock after arrival Typically into low-cost housing Subsequent moves within the rental market Commonly moving to larger housing, which may be cheaper or closer to friends, relatives, and other members of their community Possible exit to public housing Otherwise longer-term accommodation in private housing market
Figure 2.3 Typical housing pathway for refugees in Southeast Queensland (Adapted from Beer & Foley, 2005, p1)
Most refugees enter the private rental market when they leave their initial accommodation and make a series of secondary moves (Beer & Foley, 2005). Ley et al. (2001) found that newly arrived immigrants (including refugees) are
46
disproportionately represented in the private rental market (p.143). The RCOA (2007) states that ‗the task of finding accommodation for new arrivals is becoming increasingly difficult … RCOA is concerned that the pressure to find accommodation is already resulting in refugees being placed in accommodation which is unaffordable and inappropriate‘ (p.58). As a consequence, the search for cheaper, larger and better housing is a factor driving secondary migration in some refugee communities (Beer & Foley, 2005, pp.31-32).
The overall dissatisfaction with private rental accommodation among refugees is high (Beer & Foley, 2005). Beer and Foley (2005) and the Migrant Information Centre and South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre (2007) found that a large proportion of refugees want to move into public housing accommodation because they perceive it to be cheaper and more secure. The public housing sector was able to support newly arrived refugees in the past, however a critical shortage of housing stock in the public system has forced refugees into the private rental market where they are more vulnerable to market forces, including increased rental prices and low rental vacancy rates (Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999, p.42; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007, pp.1-2; RCOA, 2007).
The following is a summary of key points from a large a large body of literature on refugee experiences in the private rental market: ▪ there is a lack of housing support for refugees following the initial six-months of housing assistance; ▪ refugees often have difficulties understanding the Australian housing system, competing in the housing market and meeting the expectations of real estate agents and landlords; ▪ language barriers create additional difficulties and refugees are often subject to racial discrimination and prejudice while trying to navigate the market on their own; ▪ refugee households often have difficulties accessing rental bond money. High levels of unemployment and underemployment in refugee communities also create difficulties finding affordability housing;
47
▪ transnational remittance to family members might also play a part in the difficulties of housing affordability in refugee communities; ▪ there is a lack of suitable housing stock to accommodate large refugee households, and as result, they are often accommodated away from services, facilities, networks and public transport routes; ▪ refugees are often not aware of their legal rights and responsibilities as a tenant, and unaware of how and where to access tenancy and advocacy information. (ASHRAM, 2005b, 2007; Atem & Wilson, 2008; Beer & Foley, 2003, 2005; CRC, 2006; Department of Communities, 2008; Foley & Beer, 2003; Hayward & Burgett, 2008; MDA, 2007; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007; Murdie, 2005; Nsubuga-Kyobe & Dimock, 2002; Perrin & Dunn, 2007; Queensland Shelter, 2008; RCOA, 2007; Shandy, 2007).
Social and ethnic networks play a significant role in helping refugees in the housing market (Beer & Foley, 2005; Beer & Morphett, 2002; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007; Murdie, 2005). Most refugees rely primarily on family and friends to assist with information about the housing market, with community leaders and information centres as a secondary source of information (Beer & Foley, 2005; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007).
2.7.2.1. Housing affordability and size of housing units Housing affordability is defined as ‗the ability of households to meet their mortgage or rent obligations without sacrificing the ability to meet other necessities‘ (Cooper, 2006, p.13). ‗Housing stress‘ is the term used to describe housing costs that are greater than 30% of a household‘s combined income (RCOA, 2008b, p.4). The present federal government established the Housing Affordability Fund in 2008 to help address housing affordability problems. The government proposes to invest $512 million over five years to lower the cost of building new homes (Australian Government, 2008). While this initiative will not help African refugees in the shortterm, it will increase the housing stock and help reduce the rental shortages in the medium to long term. Additional low-cost housing that can accommodate large families and investments in social housing are also recognised as priority issues to be
48
addressed (DIAC, 2007b; Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia, 2008). Additional larger low-cost housing will benefit African refugee households in Southeast Queensland. Table 2.1 shows that between 2002 and 2007 (more-or-less the peak of African refugee intake to Australia), over 40% of all Humanitarian Programs entrants‘ households in Queensland consisted of between five and seven people.
Table 2.1 Household size of Queensland Humanitarian Program entrants 2002 to 2007
Number 2002/03 of people
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Total / percentage
1
87
79
152
163
91
572 / 9%
2-4
289
304
565
431
457
2046 / 33%
5-7
367
451
538
624
665
2645 / 42%
8-10
136
194
201
176
163
860 / 14%
11+
24
11
12
57
20
124 / 2%
Total
903
1039
1468
1451
1386
6247 / 100%
(Adapted from DIAC, 2007b, p.33)
2.7.2.2. Accommodation issues and Special Humanitarian Program entrants SHP proposers, who are often themselves relatively recent refugee arrivals, are required to cover the costs associated with resettlement of SHP entrants (CRC, 2006) (Section 2.4.1). In the case of large African families, the cost of the airfares alone is a significant burden. The federal government, through the International Organization of Migration, provides money for interest-free loans to proposers to cover the costs of airfares. Recent research indicates, however, that large deposits and prohibitive restrictions applied to the government loans, direct most proposers to access highinterest, short-term loans from informal sources, which are often transferred to the SHP entrants once they arrive in Australia. The debt incurred by these loans commonly forces new SHP entrants to live with their proposers, frequently in overcrowded conditions (RCOA, 2008b). Repaying airfare debts causes significant financial hardship and sometimes results in poverty, malnutrition, separation of families across households, discontinuation of schooling, bad credit ratings, bankruptcy, evictions, housing stress and homelessness (RCOA, 2008a, p.8; RCOA, 2008b, p.5).
49
The distinction in the assistance provided by the federal government to Convention refugees and SHP refugees has also resulted in different settlement patterns of African refugees in New South Wales. The CRC (2006) report states that ‗refugees are typically settled by DIMA in places that are suitably located in terms of access to services and employment opportunities. SHP proposers, however, do not necessarily live in such suitable locations‘ (p.39). Perrin and Dunn (2007) found a similar result in a study of Sudanese in Sydney (p.261). The lack of on-arrival housing assistance to SHP entrants has the potential to cause disruptive secondary migration and ongoing hardship.
2.7.3. Employment issues underpinning secondary migration The two distinct categories in the Skilled Migration Program (Section 2.3.2.) have predictably resulted in immigrants in the skilled and economic streams tending to be well-represented in the higher classes of society with low rates of unemployment, while refugees are over-represented among the poor and tend to have greater difficulty entering the labour market (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006; Hugo, 2002, 2004). There is said, however, to be heterogeneity in the refugee community caused by two recruitment forces at work in offshore resettlement selection process: selection based on ‗integration potential‘16 or based on ‗the greatest need‘ (Aristotle, 2007). While the former tends to attract highly educated urban middle-class, the latter process draws mostly illiterate rural people, some of whom have spent years in refugee camps (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006, p.210).
Employment opportunities are critical for the survival and adaptation of refugees in resettlement countries. Research in Australia (CRC, 2006) and USA (Ugbe, 2006) suggests that unemployment is one of the main issues that concern African refugees in resettlement. Refugee unemployment and under-employment17 rates and welfare dependency remain high in all resettlement countries regardless of refugees‘ previous social and educational standing (Ager & Strang, 2008; Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006; Dalglish, 1989; Danso, 2002a; Hume & Hardwick, 2005; Jupp, 1994; 16
Jupp (1994) uses the term ‗settlement potential‘ to describe the same selection process among earlier refugee groups (p.55). 17 Under-employment is defined as ‗holding a job which does not require the level of skills or qualification possessed by the jobholder‘ (Ager & Strang, 2008, p.170).
50
Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2004; Taylor, 2004; Ugbe, 2006; Wilson, 1987, 1990). For example, most refugees in Australia are concentrated in low-skilled jobs, including cleaning, aged care, taxi driving and the building industry in major urban areas, and abattoir work and agricultural labour in rural areas. African refugees are particularly concentrated in aged care, the security industry and food processing (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006, pp.204-205; 215). Black African humanitarian entrants, in particular, are the most vulnerable group with the highest unemployment rate, the lowest fulltime employment rate and the highest under-employment rate of all immigrant groups in Australia (Atem & Wilson, 2009, p.8; Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006, p.222; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999, p.37). Colic-Peisker and Tilbury (2006) found that: … working below qualifications is endemic among black Africans … doctors and engineers are driving taxis, previous lecturers work as teacher’s assistants, a sociologist works as an underground miner, a helicopter pilot becomes a courier, economists, accountants and teachers work as cleaners and an engineer holds a semi-skilled job in the building industry (p.213). Furthermore, black Africans encounter high levels of racism when looking for work in Australia, regardless of whether or not their qualifications are obtained or updated in Australia (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006; Nicholson, 2008).
The result of systemic unemployment and under-employment is typically a loss of status and decrease in socioeconomic mobility (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006; Danso, 2002a) and acculturation stress due to long-term unemployment (ColicPeisker & Tilbury, 2003), poverty and social exclusion (Taylor, 2004). Unemployment also undermines traditional patriarchal roles, which is linked to incidents of domestic violence and family breakdowns in African refugee communities (CRC, 2006, p.128). The factors perpetuating high levels of unemployment and under-employment in refugee communities include: ▪ non-recognition of qualifications gained at overseas institutions; ▪ institutional and community discrimination; ▪ institutional and community racism; ▪ the recency of arrival or relatively short period of residence;
51
▪ lack of proficiency in English; ▪ characteristics such as age, gender and educational attributes; ▪ low levels of literacy, numeracy and computer skills; ▪ limited former schooling or educational opportunities; ▪ lack of Australian work experience. (Ager & Strang, 2008; Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999; CRC, 2006; Danso, 2002a; Department of Communities, 2008; Dunn, 1993; Jupp, 1994; Middleton, 2008b; Nsubuga-Kyobe & Dimock, 2002; Shepley, 2008; Simich et al., 2005; Taylor, 2004; Viviani, Coughlan & Rowland, 1993).
Ugbe (2006) found that the perceived availability of better paid employment was a key factor underpinning the secondary migration of hundreds of refugee families in New Hampshire, USA (p.4). Similarly, Shandy (2007) found that employment was both a push and pull factor in the secondary migration decisions of Nuer refugees in USA (pp.144-145). In Australia, Beer and Foley (2005) found that access to employment was a reason why refugees move in both the first and subsequent moves (p.28). As discussed in Section 2.5.5.1, resettlement in regional areas is also likely to result in secondary migration towards better employment opportunities (CRC, 2006, pp.39 & 111; Jupp, 1994, p.63; Shepley, 2008, p.59). For example, a DIMA submission to the CRC (2006) notes secondary movements between Coffs Harbour, Inverell and Newcastle for seasonal local employment opportunities (p.40). Consultations with African communities by the CRC (2006) in regional New South Wales confirm that refugees move in search of better employment opportunities (p.40). Jupp (1994) notes that refugees placed in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania in times of high unemployment gravitated towards Sydney (p.63). Taylor and Stanovic (2005) found, however, that some refugees move from larger cities to regional areas because of employment opportunities.
The role of networks in finding employment in the general population is well documented in sociological literature (Putnam, 2007, pp.137-138). As with housing, refugees‘ social and ethnic networks also play a key role in disseminating information about employment opportunities, increasing employment prospects and a means to labour market integration (Abu-Laban et al., 1999; Burnley, 1989; Drever & Hoffmeister, 2008; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Simich, 2003; Taylor & Stonvic,
52
2005; Wahlbeck, 1998). A German study found that almost half of all jobs secured by immigrants are through networks (Drever & Hoffmeister, 2008). This finding supports Australian (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2007d) data, which shows that networks were also the most commonly used form of assistance that Australian immigrants in their job searches. Other studies have found that an absence of ethnic networks is a greater determinant of higher unemployment rates among refugees than a lack of vacancies in the labour market, because refugees may find it more difficult to use formal employment-search mechanisms (CRC, 2006; Drever & Hoffmeister, 2008; Hardwick, 2003). Consequently, employment opportunities are pull factors, drawing refugees to existing residential concentrations in some communities (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006).
Some suggest that a negative outcome of securing employment through ethnic networks is the development of ethnic employment niches or ethnic economic enclaves, often in ‗3D‘ (dirty, difficult and dangerous), low-status, low-paid jobs (Burnley, 1989; Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2003, 2006; Drever & Hoffmeister, 2008; Ugbe, 2006; Zhou & Logan, 1989). For example, Colic-Peisker and Tilbury (2006) argue that the Australian labour market has forced recently arrived refugees into work that is ‗low status, low-paid, dead-end, insecure jobs and, in many cases, also physically taxing and unhealthy‘ (p.217). This phenomenon is not new, however. The Indo-Chinese refugees who arrived in Australia in the 1970s also worked in lowpaid, low status jobs when they first arrived (de Lepervanche in Viviani, 1984, p.228). On the other hand, Shandy (2007) argues that ‗these attitudes are not necessarily shared by those who may see this work as the most attractive means available to generate income within a limited set of options‘ (p.77).
2.7.4. Summary This section contributes to the present research by identifying three key factors in the literature that underpin refugee secondary migration. The degree to which these factors affect the movement of African refugees in Southeast Queensland, however, is unknown and presents a gap in the literature.
53
2.8. Chapter summary This chapter reviewed literature relating to the following areas: ▪ relevant theories of international refugee migration; ▪ Australia‘s response to refugees; ▪ the settlement services available to refugees in Australia, with a focus on housing; ▪ the settlement patterns of ethnic communities; ▪ residential mobility and refugee secondary migration.
The following research questions are posed subsequent to this review:
1.Where are African refugee communities located in Southeast Queensland? What are the geographic settlement patterns of these communities? Are there particular patterns of concentration or dispersal of this refugee population? What factors contribute to these spatial patterns? Is there a degree of homogeneity or differentiation among the African refugee communities in terms of settlement patterns?
2.What are the drivers of secondary migration among the African refugee communities? Are there differences between the communities in terms of drivers of secondary migration?
3.What are the relationships between the distribution of the communities, secondary migration and housing?
The aims of the present research are to: ▪ identify and describe the geographical distribution of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland; ▪ examine the patterns and drivers of secondary migration; ▪ assess the relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the communities.
54
The objectives of the research are to: ▪ establish the geographical distribution of each of the selected case study communities in Southeast Queensland; ▪ determine each community‘s population size; ▪ categorise areas of residential concentration in each community; ▪ identify patterns of dispersion; ▪ investigate factors underpinning secondary migration in each community; ▪ determine the relationship between housing, secondary migration and distribution; ▪ identify key similarities and differences in terms of distribution and secondary migration in the case study communities. Following a ‗sifting‘ of the relevant literature, the chapter concludes by proposing a conceptual model of the relationship between geographic dispersion, secondary migration and housing (Figure 2.4). The degree to which this model applies to the African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland will be investigated, the results of which will be discussed in Chapter 6.
55
Location of African communities in Southeast Queensland
Drivers of secondary migration influencing concentration/dispersal of communities Housing Lack of space/overcrowding Quality/design unsatisfactory High cost of rent Tenure change Neighbourhood Quality unsatisfactory Physical environment unsatisfactory ▪ Social Cost of accommodation ▪ Size of accommodation ▪ Social and ethnic networks Employment Change in employment/employment status
Accessibility to Family/friends Like ethnic groups Other social networks Adequate public services, e.g. schools and hospitals Employment opportunities Workplace Religious institutions Shopping precincts Public transport networks Evictions due to Overcrowding Breach of lease/tenancy agreement Discrimination
Secondary migration
Barriers to obtaining satisfactory private rental accommodation Discrimination in rental market Lack of references Unfamiliarity with Australian rental system Unemployment or under-employment Lack of sufficient funds for bond Unable to meet expectations of landlord/ real estate agent Shortage of appropriate housing stock High rental costs
Barriers to obtaining satisfactory public rental accommodation Shortage of appropriate housing stock Long waiting lists
Most commonly used assistance to overcome obstacles Social and ethnic networks Tenancy education/advocacy bodies
Most commonly used assistance to overcome obstacles Social housing providers
Location of new accommodation
In existing residential concentration
In new residential concentration
Dispersion into host population
Figure 2.4 Conceptual model of the relationship between refugee distribution, secondary migration and housing
56
Chapter 3 Case study communities 3.1. Introduction This chapter provides a brief framework within which to conceptualise refugee flows from Africa and introduces the case study communities for the study. European powers imposed artificial boundaries on Africa in the late 1800s and began the process of colonising the continent (Batrouney, 1991, p.6). The only two African countries that were not colonised for an extended period were Liberia, which was never colonised, and the ancient kingdom of Abyssinia, now Ethiopia, which was only colonised by Italy for a relatively short time during World War Two (WWII). The decolonisation of Africa occurred in the 1950s and 1960s during which time some states changed their names, for example, Portuguese East Africa became Mozambique. Some states broke away from larger colonial units, for example, Gabon achieved independence from French Equatorial Africa. Some nations changed their boundaries, which is still a cause of contemporary conflict in Africa (Batrouney, 1991, p.6). The independence wars that accompanied the mass decolonisation created the first large-scale waves of refugees on the African continent. The situation worsened over the two decades of the Cold War when worldwide refugee numbers increased from eight million in the 1970s to 17 million in 1991. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2009) recorded over 10 million people of concern in Africa, of which 2,400,770 were refugees (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 UNHCR populations of concern in Africa, 2008
Refugees
Asylum seekers
Returned refugees
2,400,770
257,400
302,640
IDP1 and returned IDP 7,557,850
Stateless people
Other
Total
100,000
470
10,619,140
(Adapted from UNHCR, 2009, pp.110-111) 1
Internally displaced persons (IDP)
57
These data provide a perspective on the scale of refugee movements in Africa. Over 80% of refugees are hosted in neighbouring countries in their region of origin (UNHCR, 2008, p.2) and only a small percentage are resettled in third countries, such as Australia, every year. The present research focuses on African refugees who have resettled in Southeast Queensland. The chapter first briefly introduces a debate about the African diaspora. The second half of the chapter focuses on African refugees in Australia and in Queensland, and lists the selection of case study communities for the study. 3.1.1. The African diaspora: A part of Australia’s migration mosaic The word ‗diaspora‘ is derived from the Greek term diasperien, dia- means ‗across‘ and -sperien ‗to sow or scatter seeds‘ (Braziel & Mannur, 2003, p.1) and refers to the dispersion or geographical relocation of a group from a nation-state or territory (Durham, 1999, p.20). The first suggested use of the term ‗diaspora‘ was between 250BC and 3BC to describe Jews exiled from Palestine (Durham, 1999, p.20; Tölölyan, 1996, p.11). The contemporary use of the term moves beyond historical events to include large movements of various populations including, for example, Armenian, Chinese, Indian, Irish, Greek, Lebanese, Vietnamese, Korean and African communities (Durham, 1999; Koser, 2003; Lucas, 2002; Tölölyan, 1996).
Palmer (1998) identifies many historic streams of what he suggests was the original African diaspora, the first of which he contends began over 100,000 years ago (p.1). Other authors (for example, African Union (AU), 2003; Gilroy, 1993; Pybus, 2006; Tölölyan, 1996) suggest that the African diaspora began with the African slave trade from the fifteenth century. Shepperson (1993) argues that, as a concept, ‗African diaspora‘ only gained popularity between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s at the time of mass decolonisation of the continent (p.41). While these authors disagree about its origin and history, there has been a recent shift towards calling the movement of large numbers of African refugees (both internal and international) a new African diaspora (for example, the African Research Institute, 2004; African Think Tank, 2007; During, 2006; Koser, 2003). Hume and Hardwick (2005) caution against labelling contemporary refugee movements ‗diasporas‘, however, for fear of romanticising the forced migration flows that are taking place (p.191). The present
58
research acknowledges the debate, but does not contribute to it; instead it focuses on a sector of this contemporary migration stream: the settlement of nine selected African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland.
3.2. African refugees in Australia In the first half of the twentieth century, Australia‘s immigration policy largely discriminated against people of non-Anglo-Celtic origin (Section 2.3.1). The intake of refugees after WWII, however, began to reflect changing domestic attitudes and international circumstances. For example, Australia accepted displaced people from Europe after WWII, the Hungarian Uprising (1956), the Czechoslovakia Uprising (1968), the Lebanese War (1975), the Vietnamese conflict (1970s), Tiananmen Square (1989), the Balkan crisis (1991), Kosovo (1999) and more recently from Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma and Africa (DIMIA, 2005b, p.18).
59
The first intake of African refugees to Australia occurred in the 1980s (Community Relations Commission on New South Wales (CRC), 2006, p.29). The numbers steadily increased during the 1990s to approximately 16% of the Humanitarian Program quota in 1998-1999 (DIAC, 2009, p.24). By 2001-2002, the focus of the Humanitarian Program had shifted from Asia and the Middle East, as the major source regions, to Africa. The proportion of Humanitarian Program entrants from Africa increased from 25% in 2000-2001 to 48% in 2002-2003 and to 70% between 2003 and 2005 (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2 Source regions of Australia's resettlement program, 1999-2000 to 2007-2008 Rank 2000-2001 Europe 43.32% 1
3
Middle East & SW Asia Africa
4
Asia
5
Americas 0.34%
2
26.96%
25.43% (2,032) 3.95%
Rank 2004-2005 1 Africa 70.15% (8,486)
2001-2002 Africa 33.12% (2,801) Middle 32.43% East & SW Asia Europe 32.03%
2002-2003 Africa 48.30% (5,628) Middle 39.96% East & SW Asia Europe 9.94%
2003-2004 Africa 70.78% (8,353) Middle 24.29% East & SW Asia Asia 3.00%
Asia
Asia
Europe
1.78%
1.87%
Americas 0.19%
Americas 0.03%
Americas 0.06%
2005-06 Africa 55.65% (7,100)
2006-2007 Africa 50.9% (5,695)
33.97%
27.94%
9.87%
Middle East & SW Asia Asia
2007-2008 Middle 35.25% East & SW Asia Asia 33.66%
20.69%
Africa
0.43%
Europe
0.44%
Europe
30.47% (3,291) 0.54%
-
-
America
0.05%
26.24%
3
Middle East & SW Asia Europe
3.43%
Middle East & SW Asia Asia
4
Asia
0.16%
Europe
5
Americas 0.008%
2
2.23%
Americas 0.06%
(Adapted from DIAC, 2007a, 2008: DIMIA, 2005a, p.4, 2005b, p.34) (Numbers in parenthesis are actual number of African Humanitarian Program entrants)
60
In 2005-2006, the proportion of African Humanitarian Program entrants decreased to 55%, while those from the Middle East and Southwest Asia increased in line with resettlement priority recommendations made by the UNHCR (Section 2.3.2.1). In August 2007, the proportion of refugees from Africa was reduced to 30% (Andrews, 2007) (see Section 4.3.3.2). In the 2008-2009 intake year, the regional allocations were divided equally (33%) between Africa, Asia and the Middle East (Evans, 2008). The peak of African refugee intake to Australia occurred between 2001 and 2006 (Figure 3.1).
Allocation of Humanitarian Program places to African refugees
Percentage of Humanitarian Program places allocated in year
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
African refugees
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00% 2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Intake year
Figure 3.1 Allocation of the Australian Government's Humanitarian Program places to African refugees 2000-2001 to 2008-2009 (Adapted from DIAC, 2007a; DIMIA, 2005a, p.4, 2005b, p.34; Evans, 2008)
61
3.2.1. African refugees in Queensland A rise in the number of African refugees in Queensland from 2001 reflects the regional shift in the Humanitarian Program. The Department of Immigration‘s records show that 5,168 African Humanitarian Program entrants resettled in Queensland between 2001 and 2006 (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3 Queensland Humanitarian Program entrants, main source regions 2001 to 200718
Region of birth Africa Middle East Asia (including Afghanistan) Europe
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Total 265 118 107
613 195 104
861 116 94
1233 71 98
1202 100 97
994 290
212
108
30
6
1
Data unavailable
Data unavailable
5168 600 500
357
(DIAC, 2007b, p.22; DIMA, 2006c, p.12)
The African refugee population in the state is small relative to other more established ethnic communities. According to the Queensland Government (2010), there were 699,400 overseas born people living in Queensland in 2006, of which, for example, communities from the Philippines, China, Italy, Vietnam and Papua New Guinea ranged between 1.8% and 2.7% of the total. In comparison, the African refugee population is less than one-tenth of a percent of all overseas born people in the state (p.5). Following is a list of the case study communities for the present research, also the largest African refugee communities in Queensland: ▪ Burundi ▪ Eritrea ▪ Ethiopia ▪ Democratic Republic of Congo ▪ Liberia ▪ Rwanda ▪ Sierra Leone ▪ Somalia ▪ Sudan 18
There are discrepancies between the DIMA 2006c and DIAC 2007b data for the intake years: 200203, 2003-04; 2004-05; 2005-06. The data used for these years in Table 3.3 are from DIMA 2006c.
62
The settlement locations of Humanitarian Program entrants in Australia are influenced by a number of factors, including: ▪ the agreement between federal and state governments on the number of ‗unlinked‘19 refugees that the states will accept; ▪ the location of an established link or SHP sponsor in Australia; ▪ post-arrival secondary migration, including interstate and intrastate movement.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of all Humanitarian Program entrants who resettled in Queensland between 2002 and 2007 went to the Brisbane Local Government Area, 15% to Logan City and approximately 10% to Toowoomba. The remaining 13% were resettled in Cairns, Gold Coast, Townsville, Ipswich, Gatton, Pine Rivers and Redcliffe under the federal government‘s regional settlement strategy20 (DIAC, 2007b, p.24).
3.3. Summary Political persecution, violence, civil war and environmental degradation have caused large-scale refugee flows in Africa and resulted in the UNHCR identifying over ten million ‗people of concern‘ on that continent. Australia accepts African refugees through the Humanitarian Program, a subset of the Australian Government‘s Immigration Program. African refugee intake to Australia peaked between 2001 and 2006 when the regional focus of the Humanitarian Program shifted from Asia and the Middle East to Africa. The largest African refugee groups to settle in Queensland during this time include people from: Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Sudan. These nine communities, located primarily in the southeast of the state, are selected as the case study communities for the present research. The following chapter outlines the methodology to address the research aims of identifying and describing the distribution of these case communities in Southeast Queensland, examining the patterns and drivers of secondary migration in the case study communities and assessing the relationship between distribution, secondary migration and housing.
19
Refugees with no established ties in Australia. Logan is considered a regional centre under this strategy although it is part of the greater Brisbane area. 20
63
Chapter 4 Methodology 4.1. Introduction The availability of data on refugee numbers, residential locations and movements is critical for an analysis of the settlement geography of African refugee communities. Refugee data at all scales, however, are notably inaccurate, riddled with inconsistencies and not readily available (Wong, 1995, p.64). Wong explains that: Conceptual and pragmatic problems associated with data collection result in the proliferation of disparate statistics released by various agencies, many of whom are unaware of these problems. These statistical problems are exacerbated during analysis of the data. Thus, attempts to describe patterns, magnitudes, and trends confront the problem that almost all published data on forced migration, including those generated by “official” refugee agencies, are rough estimates as best (p.67). Wong‘s words echo those of Forbes (1984) who, a decade earlier, encountered similar difficulties in researching refugee communities. Although Wong‘s and Forbes‘ research was based in North America, their observations are relevant in contemporary Australia. This chapter describes the availability of data on African refugee settlement in Australia, identifies a significant gap that exists and provides a conceptual framework to address this gap.
As previously outlined, the objectives of the research are to: ▪ establish the geographical distribution of each of the selected case study communities in Southeast Queensland; ▪ determine each community‘s population size; ▪ categorise areas of residential concentration in each community; ▪ identify patterns of dispersion; ▪ investigate factors underpinning secondary migration in each community; ▪ determine relationship between housing, secondary migration and distribution; ▪ identify key similarities and differences in terms of distribution and secondary migration in the case study communities. This chapter outlines the methodological approach, methods and data collection techniques used to achieve these objectives. The first section reviews key secondary
64
data sources that have the potential to establish geographical distribution and secondary migration patterns of ethnic minority groups. The second section outlines the data collection and data analysis strategies used to address the research objectives. The methodological limitations and ethical considerations of the present research are identified and discussed in the final section of the chapter.
4.2. Review of data sources The following section reviews key data sources and assesses the relevance of these to the present research.
4.2.1. Census data The national census, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) every four years, provides comprehensive data on the internal migration of the Australian population (ABS, 2007a). Indicators from census data used to identify the distribution of ethnic minority groups include ethnicity, birthplace, home language, ancestry, and as Gale (2007) notes, more recently, religion, particularly Islam.
Census data have been used in much previous research to identify the distribution and migratory patterns of ethnic minority and immigrant groups in Australia and elsewhere (for example, Burnley, 1998, 2005; Dunn, 1993; Ellis, Wright & Parks, 2004; Hardwick & Meacham, 2005; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Hou, 2005; Johnston, Forrest & Poulsen 2001a, 2001b, 2002b; Logan & Zhang, 2004; Logan, Zhang & Alba, 2002; Massey & Denton, 1988; Peach, 1996; Perrin & Dunn, 2007; Poulsen, Johnston & Forrest, 2001, 2004; Quintero, 2005; Rogers & Raymer, 2005; Skop & Li, 2005; Zhang, 2004). Two common methods used to measure ethnic residential concentration and residential segregation from census data are the indices of dissimilarity and segregation (for example, Burnley, 1982, 1989; Burnley & Hiebert, 2001; Johnston, Forrest & Poulsen 2001a, 2001b, 2002; Poulsen, Johnston & Forrest, 2001; Quintero, 2005). The index of dissimilarity is the percentage of an immigrant group that would have to redistribute to have the same distribution as the host population; the index of segregation compares the immigrant group to the rest of the host population (Burnley, 1982, p.102). Johnston, Forrest and Poulsen (2002b) provide a typology to identify the degree of ethnic mixing with the following
65
categories: areas of assimilation-pluralism, mixed minority areas, polarised areas, ghettos, non-isolated host communities and isolated host communities (pp.213-214). The group affinity hypothesis has also previously been used to examine changes in geographic concentrations of immigrant groups by assessing the absolute and relative size of the groups, thus determining secondary migration (Hou, 2005, p.11).
A number of limitations preclude the use of census data as the key secondary data source in the present research. Firstly, the ABS census does not collect data on visa type, making it difficult to differentiate African refugees from economic migrants (Bloch, 1999; Jupp, 1994, 2008; Middleton, 2008b; Perrin & Dunn, 2007). Secondly, prior to the 2006 national census, the ABS aggregated African birthplace data into regional categories making it impossible to identify settlers from individual countries. For example, Sudanese migrants were classified as ‗North African‘ along with migrants from Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and the Western Sahara. A further complicating factor is that birthplace data for many African refugees do not necessarily reflect their ethnicity, because refugees born to displaced parents are more likely to associate their ethnicity with that of their parents‘ birthplace than the country in which they, themselves, were born (Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), 2007b; Middleton, 2008b). Thirdly, Dale and Marsh (in Bloch, 1999, p.369) highlight that people who live in temporary accommodation and those that are not literate in English, both features of which are common to many of Southeast Queensland‘s African refugees, are undercounted in national census data. Linked to this is the strong suggestion that African refugees generally do not complete census forms (J Cochran, Multicultural Development Association Representative, pers. comm., 24 July 2006) resulting in further underenumeration of this immigrant cohort. Finally, because most African refugees arrived in Australia between the 2001 and 2006 national census, it will not be possible to track changes in geographic concentrations or internal migration of the case study communities by using census data. Due to these limitations, the present research chose not to use ABS census as the main secondary data source, instead using data from the 2006 national census only to compare to data from other sources (see Section 4.4.1), a technique supported by Bloch (1999).
66
4.2.2. The ABS Characteristics of Migrant Survey dataset The ABS Characteristics of Migrants Survey (CoMS) was a potential alternative data source for identifying the distribution and secondary migration patterns of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. CoMS is a triennial survey, supplementary to the ABS Labour Force Survey (LFS), which was previously conducted in 1993, 1996, 1999, 2004 and 2007. It is not a longitudinal survey, but rather a snapshot of migrant cohorts. CoMS questions are only asked of LFS participants who meet special criteria (for example, they were born in a country other than Australia, New Zealand, Norfolk Island or Australian External Territories; they arrived in Australia after a specific date; they have lived in Australia for at least 12 months; and they were at least 15 years old upon arrival). In 2004, of the 31,312 eligible CoMS participants nationwide, only 70 were Humanitarian Program entrants (A Middleton, manager of the Australian Bureau of Statistics National Migrants Statistics Unit, email correspondence, 2008a). CoMS, therefore, could not provide sufficient data to address the objectives of the present research.
4.2.3. Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia dataset Longitudinal survey data have also been used to establish the settlement and secondary migration patterns of immigrant groups. For example, Newbold (2007) used the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada to identify secondary migration trends and Bråmå (2008) used longitudinal data to establish residential segregation in Sweden. The Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA) is a dataset comprising two LSIA surveys conducted with immigrants that arrived in Australia between 1993 to 1995 and 1999 to 2000 (DIAC, n/d-a). The LSIA includes cross-tabulated data, for example, on the migrants‘ personal circumstances, type of housing, attitudes to neighbourhoods and reasons for secondary migration. The LSIA for the period between September 1999 and August 2000 does include some information on migrants from East Africa. This information is of limited use to the present research because of the small size and also because it does not include the period in which most African refugees arrived in Australia (2001 and 2007).
67
4.2.4. Settlement Reports and Community Profiles The DIAC Settlement Reports website (DIAC, n/d-b) is a publicly available database of refugee and migrant information. Data available on the website relevant to the present research includes migrant and refugee arrival numbers from 1996 and the distribution of migrants and refugees by state. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Community Profile series, published in 2006, includes data on arrivals and distribution by state and territory. Settlement Reports and Community profiles were not available for all of the case study communities or in the detail necessary to address the research objectives, however, and, therefore, were not considered as a secondary data source for the present research.
68
4.2.5. Settlement Database The DIAC Settlement Database (SDB) contains over one million entry records of settler arrivals since January 1991, including data on country of birth, age, gender, migration stream, main language spoken, English proficiency and location of residence in Australia (DIAC, 2007b; DIMA, 2006c). Data from the SDB are used to generate the publicly available Settlement Reports. The SDB is updated regularly with migrants‘ details from a number of sources (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 Data sources contributing to SDB
Data source Immigration Records Information System and Integrated Client Services Environment visa processing systems Movements Reconstruction Database
Explanation of data Provides addresses/intended addresses for initial settlement in Australia
Form 886
Settlement details form on which a contact address or intended contact address is requested Provides updated addresses, main languages and English proficiency
Adult Migrant English Program Reporting and Management System
Contains information of arrivals to and departures from Australia
Citizenship or Return Residence Visa
Information collected from applications are forwarded to the SDB
Medicare
Provides address updates at the end of every month
(DIAC, 2007c)
The SDB was the most comprehensive data source of African refugees in Southeast Queensland and was consequently selected as the key secondary data source to address the research objectives of establishing the geographical distribution, determining population size, categorising areas of residential concentration, identifying patterns of dispersion and key similarities and differences in terms of distribution and secondary migration in the case study communities. A submission to the Community Relations Commission of New South Wales (CRC) (2006) report by the Department of Immigration notes, however, that ‗assessment of secondary migration [of Humanitarian Program entrants] is inherently difficult to verify through
69
available statistics‘ (p.40), including the SDB. The SDB data, therefore, could not address the research objective relating to secondary migration in the case study communities. Instead, it was necessary to gather these data directly from community members (see Section 4.3.1). Limitations of the SDB are discussed further in Section 4.3.2.2.
4.2.6. Summary This section reviewed key secondary data sources and established that the SDB provided the most comprehensive dataset of African refugees‘ geographic locations in Southeast Queensland. The SDB, therefore, was selected as the key secondary data source for the study.
4.3. Data collection The following section discusses the data collection approach used to address the research objectives of the present research (Section 4.1).
4.3.1. Multi-method approach Following the move away from the quantitative revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, qualitative data and qualitative methods of data collection have become common features in human geography. Qualitative methods are useful to explore social processes and the individual experiences that they produce in specific settings. Human geographers also have increasingly turned to multi-method approaches that combine quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques to explain factors that are not possible to generate from quantitative data alone (Hay, 2005). As Hugo (2003) notes: … explanation is to be found in variables which defy quantification … Understanding population problems involves us in going beyond census and other secondary data sets, as useful as they may be. We have to understand the context in which decisions relating to population dynamics are made and people’s motivations, values, attitudes etc. which influence those dynamics (pp.296 & 301) Many studies in Australia and abroad have combined census and interview/ questionnaire data to establish the distribution patterns and residential concentrations
70
of ethnic minority groups (for example, Burnley, 2005; Dunn, 1993; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Hardwick, 2003). Many studies of secondary migration also have a multi-method approach (for example, Abu-Laban et al., 1999; Hardwick & Meacham, 2005; Robinson & Coleman, 2000; Simich, 2003). In Canada, Abu-Laban et al. (1999) combined semi-structured interviews and census data in their research on refugee secondary migration. Simich (2003) conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups to explore reasons for secondary migration to Ontario, Canada. In the United States of America (USA), Hardwick and Meacham (2005) overlayed interview and focus group data for spatial analysis on a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) mapping system. In the United Kingdom, Robinson and Coleman (2000) conducted in-depth interviews to assess the success of a government policy to cluster refugees in resettlement, measured by the amount of secondary migration the families undertook.
The present research adopted a multi-method approach to data collection for a number of reasons. The quantitative data from the SDB had to be verified, a process in which community members checked the mapped data and provided qualitative feedback during focus group discussions. A survey targeting individuals from the case study communities would not have been an effective way to gather these data because of difficulties gaining access to individual community members. In addition, community-wide surveys of the eight case study communities were not practical nor would they have been likely to yield robust data because of African refugees‘ reportedly low participation rate in surveys (Section 4.2.1). Focus groups instead provided opportunity to collect the level of data that were required to address the research objectives. Focus groups also prevented potential researcher bias that closed-response questions might have introduced to the research. Responses from individual participant questionnaires were an additional means to validate these data and gain a profile of focus group participants (see Section 4.4.3).
71
Figure 4.1 is a diagrammatic representation of the data collection and analysis process used in the present research, which involved both secondary and primary data sources.
Secondary data sources
Compile research database of contacts
Identify key secondary data source: DIAC SDB
Map DIAC SDB data of community distribution ‗DIAC maps‘
Select case study communities and identify leaders including key contact at QACC Primary data collection through focus groups and individual participant questionnaires
Official introduction to leaders and endorsement of research by QACC
Follow-up interviews with community leaders to check and validate focus group data
Map data of community distribution from focus groups and interviews ‗community knowledge maps‘
Identify secondary migration patterns and examine differences between communities
Community leaders check and validate ‗community knowledge maps‘ and results from focus groups and interviews
Data analysis and recommendations
Figure 4.1 Diagrammatic representation of data collection and analysis process
72
4.3.2. Secondary data Contact details of groups, individuals and organisations that deal with refugees or refugee issues in Southeast Queensland were obtained from the following key sources: ▪ Multicultural Affairs Queensland (MAQ) Queensland Multicultural Resource Directory 2005-06 (MAQ, 2005); ▪ Agencies Supporting Housing for Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants (ASHRAM) ASHRAM 2005 Directory (ASHRAM, 2005a); ▪ Brisbane Actionweb for Refugees Collaboration (BARC) website and database (BARC, n/d); ▪ Refugee Action Collective Queensland Organisational Contacts in Queensland database (Refugee Action Collective Queensland, 2004).
These contact details were entered into a research database under the following headings: ▪ individual country support groups/organisations (18 entries); ▪ pan-African support groups (1 entry); ▪ resettlement service providers Queensland (5 entries); ▪ housing services (2 entries); ▪ settlement support (2 entries); ▪ employment services (4 entries); ▪ literacy, English as a Second Language (ESL) and education services (6 entries); ▪ family tracing services (1 entry); ▪ refugee awareness websites (1 entry); ▪ local community support groups (24 entries); ▪ counselling (4 entries); ▪ health services (3 entries); ▪ legal services (2 entries); ▪ other services, groups and organisations (20 entries). The initial database had 93 entries and this was updated as new contacts came to hand.
73
A selection of key service providers, groups and organisations from the database were contacted, including: ▪ Multicultural Development Association (MDA); ▪ Multicultural Affairs Queensland (MAQ); ▪ Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA); ▪ Metropolitan Association Towards Community Housing (MATCH); ▪ Assisting Collaborative Community Employment Support services (ACCES); ▪ Queensland Program of Assistance to the Survivors of Torture and Trauma (QPASTT); ▪ Queensland African Communities Council (QACC). These groups were prioritised because they have substantial ongoing contact with African refugees in Southeast Queensland. Informal face-to-face or telephone meetings were organised with key informants from these groups.
4.3.2.1. Settlement Database DIMA (now DIAC) in Canberra was approached to provide a dataset of African refugees in Southeast Queensland from the SDB. This was a critical step to gain access to the level of data that was required to address the research objectives of 1) establishing geographical distribution, 2) determining population size, 3) categorising areas of residential concentration and 4) identifying patterns of dispersion. Data obtained from the SDB included: ▪ country of birth by ▪ postcode in Southeast Queensland by ▪ year of arrival (January 1996-February 2007) by ▪ visa class 200, 201, 202, 203 and 204 (Section 2.3.2.1).
These data were provided in the form of a spreadsheet consisting of four columns (visa subclass, country of birth, financial year of arrival, postcode of residence) and 4815 rows. The data included all African Humanitarian Program entrants (from 26 different African countries of birth) who arrived in Australia between 1996 and 2007 in all Queensland postcode boundaries21.
21
Most Queensland African refugees live in Southeast Queensland.
74
Pivot tables were created, which enabled the data to be manipulated to isolate variables and select the data pertaining to each individual case study community. For example, it was possible to identify: ▪ the postcode boundaries in which refugees from a particular birthplace lived in Southeast Queensland, their visa type and their year of arrival in Australia; ▪ the birthplaces of all African refugees within a particular postcode boundary in Southeast Queensland, their visa type and their year of arrival. These manipulated data confirmed the selection of the case study communities for the present research based on these being the largest African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland.
4.3.2.2. Limitations of the Settlement Database While the SDB was the most comprehensive data source of African refugees in Queensland, the data also had limitations. Firstly, similar to census data (Section 4.2.1), country of birth on the SDB may not be an accurate representation of ethnicity and children born to refugees are more likely to identify with their parents‘ ethnicity rather than their own birthplace. For example, people born in Ghana to Liberian refugees are more likely to identify themselves a Liberians rather than Ghanaians (DIAC, 2007b, p.41). Secondly, refugees‘ addresses in Australia are updated on the SDB when DIAC receives this information from a variety of sources (DIAC, 2007b) (Table 4.1.). DIAC has no other method of recording and updating these data if the refugees do not access these sources (DIAC, 2007b, p.27). The ABS Migrant Research Unit was testing packages to match SBD and ABS census data to overcome this issue. At the time of the fieldwork for the present research, however, the Migrant Research Unit had identified problems with the accuracy of the packages (A Middleton, manager of ABS National Migrants Statistics Unit, email correspondence, 2008a).
Thirdly, DIAC is progressively date-stamping data entered into the SDB to create a record of migrants‘ movements, however, retrospective date stamping is not possible. For the present research, individual maps were produced for each year (1996 to 2007) and one map for the entire period (January 1996 to February 2007) for each of
75
the nine communities. Initially, it was anticipated that mapping data for each intake year would allow temporal analysis of residential distribution as a way of examining secondary migration—how distribution changed over time. It became apparent that the data represented a ‗snapshot‘ of distribution at the time that the dataset was created, thus making an analysis of secondary migration trends impossible.
Finally, DIAC (2007b) states that the data exchange arrangements with Medicare Australia, which began in February 2007, has significantly improved the SDB‘s capacity to reflect settlement locations of migrant and refugee communities (p.6). The data used to create the SDB maps for the purposes of this study were current at February 2007. Time and resource constraints prevented mapping further updates from DIAC. It was not possible within the constraints of the research to continually update the DIAC data, so a decision was made to proceed with the February 2007 dataset.
Data from the SDB was used to map the distribution of the case study communities in Southeast Queensland, despite these limitations, because they remain the most comprehensive available data of African refugee geographical locations. Having noted problems with refugee secondary data, Wong (1995) made a similar decision to use the most reliable data source available in a study of African refugees in the USA, despite various inconsistencies and limitations with that dataset (pp.71-75). Additional data that could only be obtained directly from the communities, were used to compare distributional characteristics with the SDB data and to examine secondary migration patterns in the case study communities. The following section discusses this process of primary qualitative data collection.
4.3.3. Primary data Temple and Moran‘s (2006) edited book ‗Doing research on refugees: Issues and guidelines‘ focus on participatory (‗action‘) research, in which refugees themselves are involved with the agenda formation, research design, data gathering, data interpretation and the final presentation process. Participatory research is resource, labour and time intensive (Temple & Moran, 2006, p.6) making the use of this method difficult with the large number of case study communities. Instead, the
76
second stage of the present research borrowed important aspects of participatory research, including liaising with communities regarding recommendations, and used an interpretive research or analytical induction approach. While the theoretical setting of the research was underpinned by previous studies (see Chapter 2), elements of a grounded theory approach (for example, moving from open coding to selective coding of core categories) (Robinson, 1998, p.425) were adopted for the primary data. In other words, general patterns were generated from empirical data rather than tested empirically (Cope, 2005, p.224).
4.3.3.1. Sampling of communities Nine communities (from Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)22, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Sudan) were selected on the basis that these were the largest African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. Each of the nine communities was considered as a separate case study (Kitchin & Tate, 2000, p.225). This selection was supported by data from the DIAC SDB dataset and members of QACC.
Representative sampling of the nine communities as a whole group was not possible because, as discussed in Section 4.2, there is no complete database from which to draw a sample. The research is consequently indicative rather than representative, thus limiting the ability to generalise the results outside of the case study communities. This limitation is not unique to the case study communities as previous research in Australia (Beer & Foley, 2003; 2005) and elsewhere (Vigneswaran, 2009) encountered similar problems with sampling frameworks of other refugee groups. Vigneswaran (2009) suggests that ‗… the character of migrant geographies … tends to confound attempts to develop generalisable claims through conventional methodological techniques‘ (p.17).
22
People from DRC and Republic of Congo (ROC) both call themselves Congolese, making it difficult to differentiate between those from DRC and ROC. While Australia has settled a small number of refugees from ROC, most of these are likely to be children born to parents who were refugees from DRC (DIMA, 2006a, p.3). For this reason, both ‗Congo‘ and ‗DRC‘ data were used in compiling the dataset from the SDB.
77
4.3.3.2. Initial meeting with African Advocacy Worker and formal introduction at Queensland African Communities Council In June 2007, the researcher approached the MDA African Advocacy Worker, a much-respected figure within the African communities in Southeast Queensland, to discuss the research and request a formal introduction to the community leaders. At the time, the leaders were meeting once a fortnight to form the QACC, with the African Advocacy Worker acting as the interim chairperson. This phase of the research was considered critical in order to gain the trust of community leaders, despite the fact that the researcher had met many of them previously at various African community functions and meetings (see Section 4.3.3.3). A major consideration throughout the research project was to ensure that cultural sensitivities were observed at all times, including respecting the established hierarchies within QACC and within the individual case study communities.
A request to address the leaders was first tabled at a QACC planning meeting on 18 August 2007 accompanied by a letter of explanation of the research from the researcher (Appendix 1.). Permission was granted on 1 September 2007 to address the next scheduled meeting on 15 September 2007, however, this meeting was postponed until 29 September 2007. In the interim, Kevin Andrews, the then Minister for Immigration, announced that the African quota of the Humanitarian Program would be cut because of a supposed ‗high‘ crime rate among African youth and an alleged lack of integration potential of African refugees in general. These comments and the subsequent negative media attention directed towards African Australians received widespread public criticism and also drew the QACC members‘ attention away from the research to more immediate concerns. QACC held meetings most nights during the week of 4 October 2007 onwards, formulating a response to Mr Andrew‘s comments. As a result, the researcher‘s address to the QACC members was postponed again until 9 October 2007.
At the October meeting, the researcher outlined the research proposal and research aims, provided examples of focus group questions, individual survey questions and GIS maps, explained expected outcomes and provided a commitment to present the leaders with the maps of the individual communities once the research was completed. The leaders voted to endorse the research and agreed to allow focus
78
groups in their communities. As previously stated, this process was critical for gaining the trust of the community leaders, the critical ‗gatekeepers‘ into the case study communities.
4.3.3.3. Engagement with communities The researcher‘s engagement with the case study communities began before, and continued after, the steps outlined above and included attending community events, participating in and assisting with community activities, for example, at Independence Day, World Refugee Day and Queensland Multicultural Day celebrations, inter-community soccer games, community weddings, dinners and fundraising initiatives. These steps to gaining the confidence and trust of community members were important to build rapport and a relationship between the researcher and the communities members.
Preparations began for the focus groups following the QACC meeting and the community leaders‘ endorsement of the research. Contact was first made with the community leaders by telephone to arrange a time to meet or to discuss focus group arrangements. Most leaders worked during the day, often making contact difficult and necessitating multiple calls before the appropriate arrangements were secured. At the initial individual meetings or telephone calls, the leaders were asked if it was necessary to translate consent forms and the individual questionnaires into languages spoken in their community. All chose to translate these documents verbally at the meeting, possibly reflecting the level of literacy among community members, or their own time constraints imposed by active community engagement and employment. The researcher consulted the individual leaders about refreshments for focus group participants, giving each leader the option of receiving funds for participants to prepare a traditional meal to share at the meetings or the researcher to provide the food and drinks. All leaders chose the latter. All leaders were asked if it was appropriate to conduct separate meetings for women and men. This is discussed further in Section 4.6.6.
A cross-cultural approach to research with an understanding and respect of cultural differences was critical during the research fieldwork and participants‘ needs had to
79
be accommodated accordingly. For example, flexibility and an understanding of ‗African time‘ was essential as all focus groups began late, some hours after the scheduled start time. Meetings also tended to be fluid, with some participants arriving late, some coming and going during discussions and others tending to young children who accompanied them to the meeting. In one case, participants rescheduled their meeting for the following week without informing the researcher. One of the other case study communities had a gathering at the same venue so, in a gesture of goodwill, the researcher donated the refreshments to that group‘s meeting instead.
4.3.3.4. Focus groups Winchester (2000) identifies oral, textual analysis and participant observation as three broad categories of qualitative methods. Focus groups, which fall into the first of Winchester‘s categories, are a useful technique used to gather rich qualitative data from research participants. They are also ‗a highly effective vehicle for exploring the nuances and complexities associated with people-place relations‘ (Cameron, 2005, p.120). Focus groups are common in the fields of human geography, population geography and demography (Hugo, 2003, p.296) and, in particular, in research with refugee groups (for example, Carrington, McIntosh & Walmsley, 2007; ColicPeisker & Tilbury, 2003; Hardwick & Meacham, 2005; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007). For example, geographers Carrington, McIntosh and Walmsley (2007) used focus groups to supplement data on the social costs and benefits of migration (including refugee migration) in Australia. The Migrant Information Centre and South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre (2007) conducted focus groups with refugee and migrant groups in Melbourne and interviewed community leaders and real estate agents in their research on refugee housing in Melbourne.
80
The focus groups were organised through community leaders affiliated with QACC and held either before or after regularly scheduled meetings with members of the Burundian, Congolese, Ethiopian, Liberian, Sierra Leonean, Somali and Sudanese community associations between October 2007 and September 2008. Three Eritrean community leaders were approached in an attempt to include the Southeast Queensland Eritrean community in the research. These leaders chose not to participate in the research, however, thus reducing the number of case study communities from nine to eight. In total, there were 57 community members, including the community leaders, who participated in the focus groups (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2 Focus group dates and number of participants
Case study community Burundian
Community association
Congolese
Congo-Konexion (Congolese community association) n/a23
8
09/02/08
4
24/02/08
Liberian Women‘s Association of Queensland Rwandan Association of Queensland
10
20/04/08
4
24/05/08
Sierra Leone Descendants Association of Queensland Somali Women‘s Association of Queensland Sudanese Community Association of Queensland
5
08/06/08
6
13/06/08
11
25/09/08
Ethiopian Liberian Rwandan Sierra Leonean Somali Sudanese Total number of participants
Burundian Association of Queensland
Number of Date participants 9 28/10/07
57
23
The participants were meeting regularly around the time of the focus group to discuss the formation of an Ethiopian community association in Southeast Queensland.
81
The purpose of the focus groups was to address the research objectives (Section 4.1) by: ▪ comparing community members‘ knowledge of geographical distribution and population size to data from the SDB; ▪ identifying areas of residential concentration and patterns of dispersion24 for each community; ▪ identifying factors underpinning secondary migration and patterns of secondary migration in the communities; ▪ determining the relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the communities.
Focus group meetings started with the researcher explaining the informed consent sheet (Appendix 2), research aim and objectives and the expected outcomes of the research. The focus group discussions began by showing and explaining to participants the SDB map(s) of their community. Participants were asked to comment on the maps (for example, on the number of people per suburb and the distribution of the community). They were also asked specific questions about residential concentrations on the map(s) or those identified by the participants. During these discussions, the participants‘ knowledge/ estimates of the numbers of refugees per suburb and the distribution of their community was recorded. Focus group discussions were then directed towards secondary migration with some prompts with questions about how often households move, why they move and what they considered to be the most important reason for households to move, and how housing influences secondary migration (Appendix 3).
Participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire at the end of the focus group meetings (Appendix 4). The questionnaire consisted of a combination of openended and closed questions, including questions on their year of arrival, visa type, the number of people in their household, the number of times they had moved since resettling in Australia, the suburbs in which they had lived and the reasons they had moved, and their general experience in the Australian housing market. Questions relating to the participants‘ education, qualifications, employment status and 24
Dispersion is defined here as households moving to suburbs in which few, if any, other community members lived.
82
occupation were not included in the questionnaire. While these data would have been valuable to build a more comprehensive profile of the participants, the nature of the information was considered too intrusive and sensitive in a population that is already suspicious of survey work.
4.3.3.5. Burundian community census A deviation from the procedure of asking participants to comment on population numbers and locations occurred during the Burundian community focus group. During the meeting, members of the executive committee of the Burundian Association of Queensland told the researcher that they wanted to conduct a community census to answer the questions about the community‘s population size and distribution in Southeast Queensland. The census was conducted over a five month period between 24 May and 25 October 2008 and involved nominating representatives from the community to collect demographic data for households in their suburbs. The representatives reported their findings to the community leader who recorded and collated the data into a table format of community members per suburb, which was then presented to the researcher at the end of October 2008.
4.3.3.6. Use of bilingual community consultants in focus groups Bilingual community consultants (BCC) were employed as interpreters for each focus group25. In all cases, the BCC was the community leader through whom the meeting was organised; this role was negotiated in each of the communities. BCCs interpreted where necessary, often in multiple languages. In some focus groups, interpretation was not necessary, as all participants spoke English. Table 4.3 illustrates a list of the home languages spoken in some of the case study communities and highlights the need to have a BCC who is competent, not only in English, but also in the languages spoken by community members participating in the focus groups.
25
Money from the Queensland Government Growing the Smart State PhD Funding Program grant was used to pay the BCCs. In most cases, the BCCs asked that the money be donated to the community association.
83
Table 4.3 Languages spoken in case study communities
Case study community Burundian Congolese Ethiopian Rwandan Liberian
Sierra Leonean Somali Sudanese
Languages spoken French; Rundi/Kirundi, Swahili/Kiswahili English, French, Lingala, Nyanga, Swahili/Kiswahili Amharic, Harari, Oromo, Tigrigna Rwanda/Kinyarwanda, French, English Akan/Ashante, Bassa, English (including Liberian and Standard English), Gio/Dan, Grebo, Kissi, Kpelle, Krahn, Krio, Kru(men), Loma, Mandigo, Mano, Vai Fula/Pular, Krio, Temne Arabic, Italian, Maay, Oromo, Somali Acholi, Anuak, Arabic (including Juba, Standard and Sudanese Arabic), Bari, Dinka, Fur, Kakwa, Lopit, Luwo, Ma‘di (Maadi), Moro, Murle, Nuer, Otuho (Lotuko), Shilluk, Tingal
(Adapted from Borland & Mphande in Ndhlovu, 2009, p.22; Lewis, 2009)
4.3.3.7. Follow-up interviews and transcript validation The researcher organised follow-up, unstructured interviews with community leaders shortly after each focus group meeting. At these interviews, the researcher sought to clarify with community leaders any ambiguities, and to explore key issues, that arose in focus groups. The interviews also provided an opportunity to confirm the numbers and distribution of the communities elicited from focus group participants.
As a further step in the validation process, a transcription of the focus group and interview was sent to each leader to check for data accuracy, dependability and credibility. The leaders were encouraged to add notes or raise any issues of concern with the researcher during this process. This ‗hermeneutic circle‘ is essential to ensure data dependability and credibility, and to preserve the rigour of qualitative research (Bradshaw & Stratford, 2000, pp.46-47).
4.3.4. Summary The research adopted a multi-method approach to data collection using quantitative data from the DIAC SDB and qualitative data gathered during focus groups with community members and interviews with community leaders, supplemented by data from individual participant questionnaires.
84
4.4. Data analysis This section focuses on the data analysis process used to address the research objectives (Section 4.1). Data analysis occurred in two stages: 1) analysis of the distribution of the case study communities in Southeast Queensland and 2) analysis of reasons for geographical distribution patterns, secondary migration patterns and assessment of the relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration.
4.4.1. Map design GIS has been used to examine the map the geographic distribution of ethnic minority communities elsewhere, for example: ▪ Perrin and Dunn (2007) mapped census data to establish the settlement patterns of North African immigrants in Sydney; ▪ Quintero (2005) mapped census data to measure residential segregation of Cambodian communities in California; ▪ Skop and Li (2005) mapped census data to analyse residential clustering or dispersion of Asian communities in American suburbs; ▪ Logan, Zhang and Alba (2002) mapped data to identify residential clustering of ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles.
It is necessary to explain the map design process for the present research, which used ArcGIS software as a mapping tool only, before outlining how these mapped data were analysed. The maps had to display data that would engage community members by being easily readable, as well as being useful for data analysis and display purposes. Decisions about which reference layers to include on the maps had to be made early in the research and had to consider these multiple requirements. DIAC was only able to provide data at the postcode boundary scale (Section 4.3.2.1), however, it was anticipated that community members would relate more easily to information on a suburb level scale. Consequently, it was necessary to include both postcode and suburb boundary layers and a decision was made to display suburb names to make the maps accessible to community members. A decision about which suburbs to label had to be made for each individual map and suburbs were selected, for example, because they had the largest concentration of community members or
85
because they were outliers. The number of community members in each postcode boundary was added to the maps, again satisfying community engagement requirements, display and analysis purposes. Railway lines were also included as a layer because previous literature (for example, Burnley, 1982; Dunn, 1993; Wilson, 1987, 1990) had found a correlation between the spatial relationship of other ethnic minority groups in Australia and the location of public transport infrastructure and this was hypothesised to be important in the case study communities.
The study showed that African refugees are overwhelmingly located in the BrisbaneGold Coast metropolitan area, with the only significant exception the Sudanese community, and other much smaller groups, in the Toowoomba area. The research did not find any other significant African refugee communities in rural and semirural Southeast Queensland. The maps displayed in the present research, therefore, are focused on the larger Brisbane-Gold Coast metropolitan region.
The raw data from the SDB were entered into ArcGIS to create an idiographic database (Goodchild & Janelle, 2004, p.13). The data were manipulated to produce maps of the individual communities (the ‗SDB maps‘) showing the number of community members within postcode boundaries in Southeast Queensland. Following the focus groups, interviews and validation of transcripts, the community members‘ knowledge of distribution and population size was also entered into the GIS database and manipulated to produce a second set of maps, the ‗community knowledge maps‘. The community members‘ data (provided at suburb level scale) were aggregated to postcode level so that comparisons could be made between the two sets of maps. The community knowledge maps, therefore, show the number of community members, as identified by participants, in postcode boundaries in Southeast Queensland. The maps are a unique contribution of the research because there has been no previous attempt to display the spatial data relating to the case study communities in Southeast Queensland.
4.4.2. Analysis of the distribution of case study communities The following analyses were undertaken to address the research objectives of relating to geographic distribution of the case study communities in Southeast Queensland:
86
▪ population data from the ABS 2006 census, DIAC SDB and focus groups and interviews were compared, differences identified and comments were made on these differences; ▪ DIAC SDB and community knowledge maps were compared in terms of: - geographical distribution; - residential concentrations (as identified in Section 1.2.3); - differences between the largest concentrations on the SDB and community knowledge maps were identified and discussed; ▪ all community knowledge maps were compared to identify key similarities and differences in terms of distribution. These comparisons are an important original contribution to knowledge of the case study communities.
4.4.3. Analysis of primary data In the second stage of analysis, qualitative data generated from the focus groups, interviews and individual participant questionnaires were analysed. Once the community leaders had returned the checked and verified transcriptions for their community, a ‗cut-and-paste‘ classification technique was used to identify responses and generate broad themes dictated by the research questions for each separate community. Some data were included in more than one section, for example, where a relationship existed in the data between housing and secondary migration or secondary migration and distribution. Data coding then occurred through a process of data reduction and categorisation (Neuman, 2003, p.442). First, an initial manifest content analysis, or open coding, of the data enabled the researcher to identify concepts and margin-code these by hand, thus creating conceptual (core) categories within the broad themes. This allowed the data for each case study community to be organised into a clearer organisational structure within the conceptual categories.
After the transcripts from all case study communities had undergone the same reduction and categorisation process, the individual communities‘ data were spliced together to form one master document (Kitchin & Tate, 2000, p.235). A ‗second pass‘ through (Neuman, 2003, p.444) of the spliced data allowed the categories to be ordered and ranked, based on frequency of mentions and then further refined by
87
identifying nuances within the categories. A latent content analysis of the master document was undertaken to identify major themes and select cases to illustrate the themes, and comparisons were made to differentiate cases. Again, these were margin-coded by hand. Analysis of the final document borrowed from the analytical comparison ‗methods of agreement‘ and ‗methods to difference‘ (Neuman, 2003, p.456) to identify common and divergent patterns in case study communities. These qualitative data were reported in the following categories: ▪ community knowledge of distribution and population size; ▪ factors contributing to geographical distribution; ▪ reasons for moves: - housing; - access to social and ethnic networks; ▪ additional housing issues discussed in focus groups: - participants‘ perceptions of housing options and experience in the Australian housing market; - public housing; - on-arrival housing assistance/MATCH community housing; - private rental housing; - strategies to overcome accommodation issues. Participants‘ quotations used to illustrate themes and compare cases were selected based on either the most representative of the modal responses in focus group discussions, or those which were distinctly different from the modal responses. This unavoidable, subjective process of selection has potential limitations of researcher bias, for example, Gregory et al. (2009) argue that there is ‗a danger of ‗mining‘ qualitative interviews for enticing quotes that selectively advance the researcher‘s interpretation, and of presenting de-contextualized snippets of conversation‘ (p.606). In an attempt to address this limitation, data from the individual participant questionnaires were collated and analysed for frequencies and patterns to support the qualitative data obtained during focus groups and interviews (see Section 4.4.4).
88
4.4.4. Analysis of individual questionnaire data Data from individual participant questionnaires (Appendix 4) were collated and analysed for frequencies only, because the sample was too small to employ statistical analysis techniques. These data were used to test the representativeness of the sample and the ‗generalisability‘ of the focus group discussions (Cameron, 2000, p.87). Some data from the individual questionnaires were used to support focus group results—these instances are clearly identified in the text (Chapter 6).
4.4.5. Triangulation of data: Data validation meeting with community leaders As a further way to test data accuracy, dependability and credibility, a meeting was held with community leaders at the MDA meeting room on Saturday 14 March 2009 as a final validation exercise of focus group and interview results. Six of the eight case study communities (Burundian, Liberian, Rwandan, Sierra Leonean, Somali and Sudanese) were represented at the meeting. The leaders were asked to confirm and validate the community knowledge maps and the key factors underlying the distribution of the communities, the general trends in secondary migration, and the relationship between distribution, secondary migration and housing in their communities. Borrowing from a participatory action research approach, the leaders were also asked what recommendations they would like to make based on the results of the research presented to them at the meeting. Results of this meeting are discussed further in Section 5.6, Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
4.4.6. Summary Comparisons were made between the DIAC SDB maps and community knowledge maps to address the research objectives of establishing the geographical distribution, determining the population size, categorising areas of residential concentration, identifying patterns of dispersion and identifying key similarities and differences in terms of distribution in the case study communities. A content analysis was undertaken of primary data collected at focus groups and interviews to address the research objectives of examining factors underpinning secondary migration, determining the relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the case study communities. Results from individual participant questionnaires were examined for frequencies and patterns and used to check the representativeness
89
of the sample, the generalisability of focus group results and to support focus group results.
4.5. Ethical considerations A detailed application to gain approval to undertake research involving human participants, including a rationale for consent to participate in the study and a template of an informed consent sheet, was submitted to the Queensland University of Technology Human Research Ethic Committee in April 2007. Ethics approval was gained for the study and annual ethics updates were submitted during the research. The process of gaining informed consent to participate in the research is outlined below.
4.5.1. Informed consent As previously discussed, all community leaders were asked whether it was necessary to translate the informed consent sheets into community languages. All chose to verbally translate the information to participants at the meetings if this was necessary (Section 4.3.3.3). An informed consent sheet (Appendix 2) was provided to all focus group participants at the start of the focus group. Each section of the informed consent sheet was explained to the participants (and, where necessary, interpreted by the BCC). Participants were encouraged to ask questions about the information provided to them and to raise any concerns with the researcher.
The informed consent sheet identified the researcher and contained: ▪ a brief description of the purpose of the research, including the procedure of the focus group and the expected duration of the meeting; ▪ expected benefits to participants and their community; ▪ a guarantee of anonymity and confidentiality; ▪ an explanation of the voluntary nature of participation in the study and that participation could be terminated without penalty; ▪ contact details of the researcher, principal supervisor and the Ethics Officer from the Queensland University of Technology; ▪ a ‗statement of consent procedure‘ in which participants were given the option of: – each signing individual informed consent sheets;
90
– nominating a representative to sign one sheet on behalf of the group; or – giving their verbal consent to participate in the research. Various combinations of these options were utilised by the participants.
4.6. Methodological and ethical limitations Limitations of the secondary data sources, which are available to examine African refugee settlement geography in Australia, have been discussed previously (Sections 4.2.1; 4.2.2; 4.2.3; 4.2.4 & 4.3.2.2). The following section focuses on the limitations of primary data collection in the present research.
4.6.1. Generalisation of focus group data Lack of clarity on the representativeness of the samples for each case study community (Section 4.3.2.2) made generalising the findings outside of the individual communities problematical. It is important to remember when reading the results that the research is indicative of the individual case study communities rather than representative of all African refugee communities. Winchester (2005) argues that, even though it may not be possible to generalise individual experiences from qualitative data collection techniques, such as focus groups, ‗they do constitute part of a multifaceted and fluid reality. Qualitative geographical research tends to emphasise multiple meaning and interpretation rather than seeking to impose any one ‗dominant‘ or ‗correct‘ interpretation‘ (p.6). Despite this limitation, some generalisations that cut across all eight case study communities are discussed.
As a check of the generalisability of focus group results, participants completed a self-administered individual questionnaire (Appendix 4) at the end of the focus group meetings. Results from the questionnaires were compared to data from the larger immigrant cohort (see Section 6.2). Community leaders were also interviewed in the weeks following the focus groups to check data accuracy and representativeness and participated in a meeting after all of the focus groups and interviews were completed to check the validity of the final results.
91
4.6.2. Community leaders as gatekeepers and spokespersons The reliance on community leaders as gatekeepers and spokespersons for their communities posed additional limitations on the research (Jan-Khan, 2006; Temple & Moran, 2006). Jan-Khan (2006) argues that using leaders as spokespersons may ‗disguise the real voices, needs, aspiration and opinions of the wider community‘ (p.98). However, it was necessary to respect the hierarchies in the communities by following the methodology described in Section 4.3.3.2 to gain access to community members and community participation in the research. Jan-Khan (2006) suggests that information from community leaders should be used only as a supplementary data source: ‗This is not to say that such sources of information should not be used, but that it is dangerous to treat them as the only point of contact and ignore the voices of other members of the community‘ (p.108). Focus group discussions with community members were thus a means of overcoming this limitation.
4.6.3. Language barriers Participants were multi-lingual (Section 4.3.3.4) and multiple languages were spoken in same groups (for example, the eight Congolese participants spoke five different languages) making it essential to employ BCCs for all meetings. Temple and Edwards (2006) recommends that interpreters should be included in discussions, debate and reflexivity, instead of being a passive mouthpiece for participants. In the present research, BCCs played the part of interpreter and focus group participant. Importantly, the BCC was never the only person to speak English in any of the groups. In this way, the researcher was made aware by others in the group, as a counter-check, if the BCC had misunderstood a question or misinterpreted for another focus group participant, and was able to clarify the misunderstanding.
4.6.4. Cultural differences Cultural differences between the researcher and the participants were cause for a potential limitation of the research. Howitt and Stevens (2005) suggest using a participatory approach in cross-cultural geographic research to ensure that cultural sensitivities are observed. The researcher borrowed aspects of a participatory approach by consulting with, and sharing in a sustained dialogue with, community leaders throughout the research process to ensure that cultural protocols and
92
community hierarchies were observed at all times (Section 4.3.3.2). In another important stage on the research, the researcher again engaged the communities in the development the recommendations based on the research findings. The leaders, on behalf of the case study communities, thus contributed to the development and outcomes of this research, ensuring their cultural appropriateness and increasing their capacity to benefit the communities.
4.6.5. Divisions in communities There were sub-groups within the case study communities that resulted in separate community organisations representing members from one country of origin. Community organisations that do not belong to, nor are affiliated with, QACC were not represented in this research. The researcher was aware of these divisions and tried to make contact with leaders from organisations outside of QACC to gain a wider representation from the ethnic communities. Unfortunately, this was unsuccessful in all cases, thus confirming the critical step in gaining the support of QACC members and having the research endorsed by the QACC body (Section 4.3.2.2).
4.6.6. Gender bias An additional limitation arose from the gender imbalance that was present in some focus groups (Section 4.3.3.3). For example, the Ethiopian and Sierra Leonean participants were all male and the Somali participants were all female (Table 4.2). Where possible, the researcher attempted to overcome any gender imbalance by interviewing both female and male leaders from these communities.
Leaders from the Burundian, Congolese, Ethiopian, Liberian, Rwandan, Sierra Leonean and Sudanese communities were asked if a separate focus group for women was appropriate in their community. This step was taken to prevent the potential impact that gender hierarchies may have on data collection (de Lepervanche, 1984, pp.189-190) and to overcome gender-blindness in the study (Hugo, 2003, p.302). The leaders felt that it was not necessary to conduct separate focus groups in their communities.
93
The Somali community required a different approach because the focus group in that community was organised through the leader of the Somali Women‘s Association of Queensland. Male leaders of two other Somali associations in Queensland did not respond to requests to participate in the research.
The leader of the Liberian Association of Queensland directed the researcher to contact the leader of the Liberian Women‘s Association of Queensland to organise a focus group in that community. One male was present at the Liberian Women‘s Association of Queensland meeting and the leader of the Liberian Association of Queensland participated in a separate interview following the focus group.
Two other focus groups comprised only men from those case study communities. A group of male leaders from various Ethiopian groups were meeting at the time of the focus group to organise a single Ethiopian community association. However, it was not possible to organise an interview with an Ethiopian female community leader to redress the gender imbalance in that focus group. The focus group organised through the Sierra Leonean Descendants Association of Queensland also comprised only men from that community. The leader of the Sierra Leonean Women‘s Association of Queensland (who also participated in the final data validation meeting (see Section 4.4.4) was interviewed following the focus group to redress the gender imbalance in the Sierra Leonean focus group.
Gender bias was particularly noticeable in discussions relating to social and ethnic networks. While this is recognised as a limitation of the research, these results remain important because of their significance to the female participants (see Sections 6.5.1 & 6.5.1.1).
4.6.7. Data accuracy: subjectivity of community knowledge maps There are inherent constraints using demographic data gathered from community members to establish absolute geographical distribution and population size of the case study communities. Firstly, while it is the researcher‘s opinion that the primary data collected from participants during the course of the research is more robust than the two official datasets, it is important to acknowledge that the data used to generate
94
community knowledge maps are participants‘ subjective estimates. As there was no complete database of the case study communities, there was no way to check these data other than through community members themselves.
Differences between ABS 2006 census data, DIAC SDB data for the communities and participants‘ knowledge were apparent from all communities, particularly with regard to population size. It is possible that participants and/or community leaders inflated the population size for their own gains (for example, if they perceived that this might manipulate services for their community). This is highly unlikely, however. The community-based approach used to gather these data was, in the researcher‘s opinion, the only way to extract these data from communities because of their general reluctance to participate in surveys (Section 4.2.1).
4.6.8. Relationship between researcher and participants During the course of the research, members and leaders of various case study communities approached the researcher to become involved in community organisations and for assistance with community-based projects (Section 4.3.3.3). The researcher actively participated in meetings and events in many of the communities over the course of the research. The researcher believes that this involvement did not constitute a conflict of interest.
4.7. Chapter summary This chapter outlined the methodological approach, methods and data collection techniques used in this research. A critique of two key secondary data sources revealed noteworthy limitations of using these datasets to address the research objectives. Nevertheless, the more comprehensive of the two datasets, the DIAC SDB, was selected as the main secondary data source for the study. It was, however, necessary to verify the DIAC data, a process that could only be achieved through the collection of primary data from community members. A further methodological consideration in this respect was the apparent reluctance of African refugees participating in survey-style data collection exercises. Primary data collection, therefore, was achieved through focus groups discussions with community members and interviews with community leaders. Methodological issues relating to the
95
research process were negotiated along the way, including overcoming issues of cultural differences, using community leaders as gate-keepers and language differences between the researcher and the participants. The research borrowed from a participatory approach, engaging community leaders in the verification of focus group data and the development of recommendations based on the research findings (Section 7.3). Chapter 5 reports on the results of the research.
96
Chapter 5 Results 5.1. Introduction This chapter reports the results of the present research that address the following research aims: ▪ identify and describe the geographical distribution of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland; ▪ examine the patterns and drivers of secondary migration; ▪ assess the relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the communities.
The first section of this chapter provides a summary profile of focus group participants using data from individual participant questionnaires. The second section reports the results relating to the distribution of the case study communities, including a comparison of participants‘ knowledge of their communities‘ population size and distribution with data from key secondary data sources. The third section reports the results relating to secondary migration within Southeast Queensland, focusing on the two main drivers: accommodation issues and access to social and ethnic networks. The fourth section reports additional results relating to housing. An assessment of the relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration is discussed further in Chapter 6. The final section of this chapter briefly reports on the data validation meeting held with community leaders upon completion of all community focus groups and interviews. Again, this is discussed further in Chapter 6.
5.2. Focus groups participant profile In total 57 participants from the Burundian, Congolese, Ethiopian, Liberian, Rwandan, Sierra Leonean, Somali and Sudanese communities in Southeast Queensland participated in eight focus groups (Section 4.3.3.4). These meetings were organised through community leaders affiliated with Queensland African Communities Council (QACC) to coincide with scheduled community meetings (Section 4.3.3.2). Table 5.1 provides a summary profile of the participants using data
97
from individual participant questionnaires (Appendix 5). Additional sensitive data (such as the participants‘ education, occupation and qualification) were not collected. African refugees are particularly suspicious of ―official surveys‖ and it was felt that such an intrusion might jeopardise the relationship between the researcher and quality of the data that was necessary to answer the core research questions.
Table 5.1 Summary profile of focus group participants
Participant gender by community Burundian Congolese Ethiopian Liberian Rwandan Sierra Leonean Somali Sudanese Total Median age Age range
Year of arrival in Australia
Visa category
Household size by community Burundian Congolese Ethiopian Liberian Rwandan Sierra Leonean Somali Sudanese Total household size
Male
Female
Total
6 3 4 1 3 5 9 31 Female Male Age
3 5 9 1 6 2 26
9 8 4 10 4 5 6 11 57
21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-65 1988-2000 2001-2003 2004-2007 Convention refugees SHP Women-at-Risk Range 4-10 1-8 3-6 3-7 3-9 5-8 4-11 1-11
30 years 44 years Number of participants 12 13 18 8 2 9 participants 13 participants 34 participants 35 participants 14 participants 4 participants Average 7.5 4 3.7 4.8 5.8 6.6 6.7 5.6
98
5.2.1. Summary There were slightly more male than female focus group participants and, on average, male participants were older than female participants. Over 80% of participants arrived in Australia between 2001 and 2007. Almost two-thirds of participants entered Australia as Convention refugees (visa category 200) and one-quarter as Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) entrants (visa category 202). Four participants entered Australia through the Women-at-Risk category of the Humanitarian Program. The average household size of all participants (excluding Ethiopian participants who all chose not to provide these data) was 5.6 people. The Burundian participants had the largest average household size (7.5) followed by the Sudanese (6.7) and Somali (6.6) participants. The Liberian participants had the smallest average household size (3.7).
5.3. Settlement patterns of case study communities The first research aim was to identify and describe the distribution of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. This section reports results that address this aim, including population size data, the geographical distribution of the focus group participants and the case study communities, and factors contributing to the geographical distributions of the communities. The following are a combination of results from individual participant questionnaires and focus group data.
5.3.1. Population size of case study communities The following questions were included in the focus group schedule (Appendix 3) to assess participants‘ perceptions of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) data and to extract their knowledge of population size and distribution of their community: This map of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship data shows where people from your community that immigrated to Australia between 1996 and February 2007 live or have lived in Southeast Queensland. It shows there are ___ people from ____ living in Southeast Queensland. I want to check this map with you: what are your comments? Do you think this map accurately represents where people
99
from your community live now? How many people from ____ do you think live in Southeast Queensland and in what suburbs?
Participants estimated their community size in Southeast Queensland. Community leaders later crosschecked and validated these estimates during individual interviews and at the data validation meeting (see Section 5.6). The population estimates are reported in Table 5.2 (any variations are displayed in parentheses). Table 5.2 also compares the participants‘ estimates of population size to data from two key data sources: ▪ Settlement Database (SDB) data requested from DIAC for this research (Section 4.3.2.1); ▪ Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006 Census data (Section 4.2.1.). Overall, there is a tendency for the SDB and ABS census data to be lower than community estimates. This is discussed further in Chapter 6. Table 5.2 Comparison between population data from ABS 2006 census, DIAC SDB and community estimates
Case study community
DIAC SDB data
Community estimate
Burundian Congolese Ethiopian Liberian Rwandan Sierra Leonean Somali
ABS 2006 census (Ancestry1 / country-of-birth) - / 185 - /173 468 / 429 183 / 218 - / 60 120 / 206 337 / 255
192 60 174 268 64 226 242
Sudanese
2424 / 2399
2790
7532 (900-1000)3 243 252 408 (800)4 104 314 324 family units + 91 single households5 n/a6
(ABS, 2007b, 2007c; DIAC 2007c) 1
Ancestry data are not available for the Burundian, Congolese and Rwandan communities. The count of 753 was derived from a community census undertaken between 24 May and 25 October 2008. 3 Participants said there were about 900 Burundians in Southeast Queensland at the Burundian focus group in May 2008; the community leader thought the number had increased to over 1000 by October 2008. 4 The Liberian community leader estimated there to be 800 Liberians living in Southeast Queensland. Locational data was only provided for 408 Liberians. 5 Somali focus group participants provided the number of families and the number of single Somali households. 6 Sudanese participants were unable to provide an estimate of population size in Southeast Queensland. 2
100
5.3.2. Geographical distribution of focus group participants Figures 5.1 and 5.2 display the distribution of participants in Southeast Queensland at the time of the focus groups from individual participant questionnaire data (Appendices 6 and 7). Figure 5.1 displays the distribution of participants from all eight case study communities who provided the name of the suburb in which they were living at the time of the meetings (n=52) (five participants chose not to disclose this information). Figure 5.2 displays the distribution of focus group participants, excluding the Sudanese participants (that is, it includes participants from the Burundian, Congolese, Ethiopian, Liberian, Rwandan, Sierra Leonean and Somali communities). The distribution of the seven smaller case study communities is shown separately because the Sudanese participants were more geographically dispersed than participants from the other case study communities, most likely due to the considerably larger size of the Sudanese community when compared to the other case study communities. Figure 5.2 thus shows the relative concentration of focus group participants from the seven smaller case study communities.
101
Figure 5.1 Distribution in Southeast Queensland (SEQ) of focus group participants from all eight case study communities
Figure 5.2 Distribution in SEQ of focus group participants (excluding Sudanese participants)
102
Table 5.3 shows the distribution of focus group participants by region in Southeast Queensland.
Table 5.3 Focus group participant distribution in Southeast Queensland by region
Distribution Brisbane southern suburbs Brisbane south-western suburbs Brisbane northern suburbs Not stated Total
Number of participants 34 13 5 5 57
5.3.3. Geographical distribution of case study communities The following original maps (Figures 5.3 to 5.21) display the distribution and population size of the case study communities in Southeast Queensland using: ▪ secondary data from the DIAC SDB; and ▪ primary data from focus groups with community members and interviews with community leaders. As described in Section 4.4.1, the numbers on the maps refer to individual settlers26 living within that particular postcode boundary, according to the SDB (on the SDB maps) and community members (on the community knowledge maps). The scale of data differ between the SDB and the community knowledge maps: DIAC data is at postcode boundary level while community members provided suburb level information about where community members/households were located in Southeast Queensland. The community data, therefore, were aggregated to postcode level on the community knowledge maps for ease of comparison (Appendix 8 provides a list of postcodes and suburbs used in the present research). Suburbs with the largest residential concentrations are labelled on both sets of maps for identification purposes.
Each community has one SDB map and one community knowledge map, except the Sudanese community, which has four SDB maps (‗Brisbane, ‗Gold Coast‘, ‗North 26
The Somali community knowledge map differs because Somali participants provided information about the number of Somali families and single Somali households. The numbers on the Somali community knowledge map, therefore, refer to the number of family units and single households (as indicated).
103
Coast‘ and ‗West‘). This is due to the large size and wide distribution of the Sudanese population in Southeast Queensland. There is also one ‗community knowledge map‘ showing the main residential concentrations of Sudanese in Southeast Queensland. The maps are displayed in the alphabetical order of the case study community.
104
Figure 5.3 Burundian community distribution in SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB (numbers refer to individuals unless otherwise stated)
Figure 5.4 Burundian community distribution in SEQ based on data from the Burundian Association in Queensland executive committee’s census results
105
Figure 5.5 Congolese community distribution in SEQ based on DIAC SDB
Figure 5.6 Congolese community distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
106
Figure 5.7 Ethiopian community distribution in SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
Figure 5.8 Ethiopian community distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
107
Figure 5.9 Liberian community distribution in SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
Figure 5.10 Liberian community distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
108
Figure 5.11 Rwandan community distribution in SEQ based on DIAC SDB
Figure 5.12 Rwandan community distribution in SEQ bases on data from community members
109
Figure 5.13 Sierra Leonean community distribution in SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
Figure 5.14 Sierra Leonean distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
110
Figure 5.15 Somali community distribution in SEQ based on data from DIAC SDB
Figure 5.16 Somali family units and single-household distribution in SEQ based on data from community members
111
Figure 5.17 Sudanese community distribution in Brisbane, SEQ, based on data from DIAC SDB
112
Figure 5.18 Sudanese community distribution on the Gold Coast, SEQ, based on data from DIAC SDB
Figure 5.19 Sudanese community distribution on the north coast, SEQ, based on data from DIAC SDB
113
Figure 5.20 Sudanese community distribution in western SEQ, based on data from DIAC SDB
114
Due to the size of the Sudanese community, it was not possible to extract from focus group participants population size or distribution data that would be reasonably accurate. It was simply not possible for the 11 focus group participants to estimate the size of the Sudanese population in all suburbs in Southeast Queensland (estimated to be over 2000 by the ABS and SDB). Instead, the leader of the Sudanese Community Association of Queensland named the main concentrations of Sudanese in Southeast Queensland. Figure 5.21 displays the results of this discussion.
Figure 5.21 Distribution of the main residential concentrations of Sudanese in SEQ according to the Sudanese Community Association of Queensland leader
115
Table 5.4 summarises data from the community knowledge maps (excluding the Sudanese community—see above).
Table 5.4 Residential concentrations identified by community members (excluding Sudanese)
Case study community
Largest residential concentration Woodridge, Logan Central, Kingston Woodridge
Second largest residential concentration Moorooka, Annerley Annerley
Woodridge, Logan Central Moorooka
Moorooka
Rwandan
Woodridge, Logan Central, Kingston
Browns Plains, Forestdale, Heritage Park, Hillcrest, Regent Park
Sierra Leonean
Moorooka
Annerley
Somali (family units) Somalia (single households) Sudanese
Mt Gravatt, Woodridge, Logan Mansfield, Wishart Central, Kinston Moorooka
Burundian Congolese
Ethiopian Liberian
1
n/a
Annerley
n/a
Third largest residential concentration Durack, Inala, Acacia Ridge Moorooka/ East Brisbane, Kangaroo Point Annerley ▪ Woodridge, Logan Central, Kingston ▪ Greenslopes, Stones Corner ▪ Buranda, Dutton Park, Woolloongabba ▪ Yeronga ▪ Salisbury ▪ Durack, Inala ▪ Beenleigh ▪ Doolandella, Durack, Inala, Richlands ▪ Sunnybank, MacGregor, Robertson1 Woodridge, Logan Central, Kingston Kuraby Moorooka
n/a
The small number (e.g. 12) in these postcode boundaries is likely to be one or two households only.
116
Table 5.5 shows the suburbs with the largest concentrations of members of all the case study communities (excluding the Sudanese community) using aggregated data from the community knowledge maps (Appendix 9).
Table 5.5 Suburbs with largest concentration of community members from all case study communities (excluding the Sudanese community) from community knowledge maps
Woodridge/ Logan/ Kingston
Moorooka
Mt Gravatt Annerley
Acacia Ridge
Inala
608 individuals + 55 families
393 individuals
77 193 individuals + individuals 83 families
103 individuals
95 individuals
Table 5.6 shows the differences between the residential concentrations according to the SDB maps and the community knowledge maps. These anomalies are discussed further in Chapter 6.
117
Table 5.6 Differences between largest residential concentrations on SDB and community knowledge maps (Figures 5.3 to 5.21)
Community DIAC SDB largest residential concentration Suburbs Annerley, Fairfield, Moorooka, Tennyson, Yeerongpilly, Yeronga, Holland Park, Tarragindi
Size 56
Congolese
Woodridge, Logan, Kingston
22
Ethiopian
Moorooka, Tennyson, Yeerongpilly, Annerley, Fairfield Annerley, Fairfield, Moorooka, Yeronga, Tennyson, Dutton Park, Buranda, Woolloongabba, Greenslopes, Stones Corner, Coorparoo
66
Rwandan
No concentrations1
-
Sierra Leonean
Moorooka, Yeronga, Tennyson, Annerley, Fairfield Mt Gravatt, MacGregor, Mansfield, Wishart, Holland Park, Tarragindi, Moorooka
65
Burundian
Liberian
Somali
1
151
92
Community knowledge maps largest residential concentrations Suburbs Size Woodridge, Logan, 344 Kingston Durack, Inala, 96 Acacia Ridge Annerley, Fairfield, 73 Moorooka, Yeerongpilly Woodridge, Logan, 74 Kingston Annerley, Moorooka, 49 Salisbury Woodridge, Logan, 90 Kingston Moorooka, Annerley 62 Moorooka, Annerley, 205 Yeronga, Salisbury, Stones Corner, Greenslopes, Buranda, Dutton Park, Woolloongabba Woodridge, Logan, 65 Kingston, Browns Plains, Hillcrest Moorooka, Annerley 195 Woodridge, Logan, 40 Kingston Mt Gravatt, 265 family MacGregor, units + 90 Mansfield, Wishart, singleHolland Park, households Tarragindi, Eight Mile Plains, Runcorn, Kuraby, Woodridge, Logan, Kingston + Moorooka
Small numbers most likely represent one or two households.
118
The key differences between the SDB and the community knowledge maps are outlined below: ▪ The Burundian community: The largest concentration of Burundians on the SDB map (56) is in the postcode boundaries incorporating the suburbs of Annerley, Fairfield, Moorooka, Tennyson, Yeerongpilly, Yeronga, Holland Park and Tarragindi (Figure 5.3). The community knowledge map produced from data collected during the Burundian community census in 2008 shows the largest concentration of 344 Burundians in the suburbs of Woodridge, Logan and Kingston (Figure 5.4). Participants reported considerable secondary migration of Burundian households to Logan, which might account for this change. ▪ The Congolese community: The community knowledge map (Figure 5.6) shows three times more Congolese in the suburbs of Woodridge, Logan and Kingston, the largest residential concentration of Congolese in Southeast Queensland, than the SDB map (Figure 5.5). ▪ The Ethiopian community: The Ethiopian SDB map (Figure 5.7) shows the largest residential concentration of that community in the postcode boundary incorporating the suburbs of Moorooka and Annerley, while the Ethiopian community knowledge map (Figure 5.8) shows the largest residential concentration in the suburbs of Woodridge, Logan and Kingston. ▪ The Liberian community: The residential concentrations on the Liberian SDB and community knowledge maps (Figures 5.9 & 5.10) are similar. The community knowledge map, however, records a larger population size in these areas. ▪ The Rwandan community: The Rwandan SDB map (Figure 5.11) shows no significant concentration, the largest group being 10 Rwandans in the suburbs of Logan, Woodridge and Kingston, which participants reported would represent one or two families only. In contrast, the community knowledge map (Figure 5.12) shows 65 Rwandans in the suburbs of Woodridge, Browns Plains, Hillcrest and Regents Park. ▪ The Sierra Leonean community: The Sierra Leonean SDB map (Figure 5.13) shows 34 Sierra Leoneans in Moorooka, while the community knowledge map (Figure 5.14) shows 195 Sierra Leoneans in the residential concentration incorporating the suburbs of Moorooka and Annerley. Participants commented that 34 people would probably only represent two extended families.
119
▪ The Somali community: The Somali SDB map (Figure 5.15) shows a residential concentration consisting of 92 people incorporating the suburbs of Mt Gravatt, MacGregor, Mansfield, Wishart, Holland Park, Tarragindi and Moorooka. The Somali community knowledge map (Figure 5.16) shows a concentration of 265 families and 90 unmarried Somali in the suburbs around Holland Park and Kuraby. Again, based on the Somali participants‘ average household size of 6.6, the total Somali population in this concentration alone is estimated to be considerably larger than that on the SDB map.
It was not possible to extract population size data from Sudanese community participants. Participants could not elaborate of the number of Sudanese in each suburb because they simply did not know the size and location of every Sudanese household in Southeast Queensland. It was also, therefore, not possible to establish exact residential concentrations or even the numbers of Sudanese in each suburb as done during the focus groups and interviews in the smaller case study communities. Instead, the leader of the Sudanese Community Association of Queensland identified the geographic locations of the largest residential concentrations of Sudanese in Southeast Queensland (Figure 5.21). The locations of these concentrations correspond to the concentrations on the SDB maps (Figures 5.17, 5.18, 5.19 & 5.20) with the exception of two areas: the leader identified two additional concentrations in the regional town of Ipswich and the bayside suburb of Wynnum, which do not appear on the Sudanese SDB maps.
120
5.3.4. Factors contributing to geographical distribution Results in this section relate to the question in the focus group schedule: Why do you think there are concentrations around [suburb name(s)]? What about other areas? (for example, suburbs on the map in which only one or two people live)
The following are summarised responses from focus groups explaining residential concentrations: 1.Familiarity with the area in which community members were first settled. For example: - Burundian, Congolese, Ethiopian, Rwandan and Sierra Leonean participants who were initially settled in Woodridge, Logan and Kingston remained in the area; - Congolese participants who were initially settled in a temporary accommodation in Moorooka remained in the neighbouring suburbs of Annerley, East Brisbane and Kangaroo Point, and some remained in Moorooka itself; - Ethiopian participants who were initially settled in Moorooka and Annerley remained in the area; - Rwandan participants who were initially settled in Woodridge lived in the Woodridge/Browns Plains area; - Sierra Leonean participants who were initially settled in temporary accommodation in Greenslopes/Stones Corner lived in the neighbouring suburbs of Moorooka and Annerley; - Sierra Leonean participants reported that a small group of single Sierra Leonean men who were initially settled as a group in one of Brisbane‘s northern suburbs remained in the area. 2.Accommodation cost: - Participants from the Burundian, Congolese, Liberian, Rwandan and Sierra Leonean communities attributed large geographical concentrations of their communities in Moorooka and the Logan-Woodridge area to the more affordable accommodation in these areas. 3.Access to social and ethnic networks: - In general, participants agreed that it was beneficial to live close to members of their social and ethnic networks in the initial settlement period;
121
- Somali and Liberian participants said the need to remain close to these networks was of ongoing importance; - Sudanese participants spoke about concentrations within their community based on ethnic networks. They referred to ‗home communities‘ in Southeast Queensland, for example, the Nuer community in north Brisbane suburbs of Zillmere and Bracken Ridge, and the Darfur community in the regional centre of Gatton. Participants said these groups were unlikely to disperse. The Nuer and Darfur are two ethnic sub-groups within the Sudanese community. 4.Proximity to public transport for easy access to: - schools, universities and Technical and Further Education (TAFE) colleges; - work; - shops, shopping centres and banks; - Centrelink offices; - markets that sell African food; - Brisbane‘s Central Business District (CBD); - hospitals; - places of worship; - other community members.
122
Table 5.7 lists facilities, services, groups and institutions that are easily accessible from the Woodridge/Logan and Moorooka/Annerley areas, according to participants. Educational facilities are a noticeable absence from the participants‘ selection. Access to the Brisbane CBD from Woodridge/Logan is also more difficult, in terms of travel time and cost, than from the Moorooka/Annerley area.
Table 5.7 Facilities, services, groups and institutions easily accessible from Woodridge/Logan and Moorooka/Annerley concentrations
Public transport Brisbane CBD Shops/shopping centres and banks Shops and markets that sell African food Centrelink Hospitals Service providers Schools2 Universities Large African community/ies
Woodridge/Logan area x x
Moorooka/Annerley area x x x
x
x
x x x x
x -1 x x x x
1
Although Moorooka and Annerley are close to the Mater and Princess Alexandra Hospitals, participants did not mention proximity to these as beneficial. 2 Participants specifically mentioned Yeronga High School and Moorooka State School as schools that have had ESL teaching facilities and which their children attended.
5.3.5. Summary A comparison of population data revealed significant anomalies. These are discussed further in Chapter 6. According to focus group data, the two largest residential clusters of case study communities at the time of the focus groups were located in the suburbs of Woodridge, Logan and Kingston, and Moorooka and Annerley, with smaller clusters surrounding the suburbs of Mt Gravatt, Acacia Ridge and Inala. Familiarity with the area in which community members were first settled, access to social and ethnic networks (including religious institutions), more affordable accommodation in these areas, and access to public transport, services and facilities were all factors contributing to these concentrations.
123
5.4. Secondary migration in case study communities The second research aim was to examine the patterns and drivers of secondary migration in the case study communities. This section reports results that address this aim. Included in these are results are participants‘ frequency of, and reasons for, moving since their resettlement in Australia.
5.4.1. Frequency of moves Table 5.8 displays the results of a question in the individual participant questionnaire: How many times have you moved accommodation since you arrived in Australia?
Table 5.8 Number of times focus group participants have moved since resettling in Australia
Number of moves 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not stated Total
Number of participants 10 15 9 11 3 4 0 2 0 1 0 2 57
Sixty-one percent of participants had moved between one and three times since resettling in Australia; approximately three-quarters had moved up to five times.
124
Table 5.9 reports the results from the individual participant questionnaire about how long the participant lived in their first, second, third and fourth accommodation (Appendix 10).
Table 5.9 Length of stay in accommodation
Length First of stay accommodation Number of participants 3 12 months or less 4-6 10 months 7-12 4 months >1-2 5 years >2 17 years Not 9 stated
Second accommodation Number of participants 2
Third accommodation Number of participants 1
Fourth accommodation Number of participants 0
6
0
1
2
3
1
11
2
4
13
4
4
-
-
-
Forty-six percent (46%) of participants moved from their initial accommodation in the first year of resettlement; 38% stayed in their first accommodation for longer than a year. Eighteen percent (18%) of participants spent one year or less in their second accommodation; 42% of participants stayed in their second accommodation for more than a year. Seven percent (7%) of participants spent one year or less in the third accommodation; 11% of participants stayed in their third accommodation for more than a year. Four percent (4%) of participants spent one year or less in the fourth accommodation; 14% of participants stayed in their fourth accommodation for more than a year.
125
5.4.2. Reasons for moves This section reports the results from the individual participant questionnaire and the following questions in the focus group schedule: Why do people move? What do you think is the most important reason to move? Why? How important is housing as a reason to move? What sort of elements about housing would make people move?
126
Table 5.10 displays results from the individual participant questionnaire regarding participants‘ reasons for moving (Appendix 11). The highlighted rows are factors relating to problems with accommodation.
Table 5.10 Reasons for moves
Reason for move Size of accommodation Cost of accommodation Rental property sold Vacate temp accommodation Offered public housing Rental lease expired Move closer to networks Evicted from rental property Condition of property Moved for employment Bought property Climate undesirable No public transport Inappropriate accommodation Property ‗too old‘ Other (Snake in garden)
First move Second move 4 6
Third move 1
Fourth move 1
Total
5
1
2
1
9
3
3
3
9
8 2
8 4
2 3
2
8
3
5
1
4
3
1
3
4 3
1 2
12
2 1
3 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
Accommodation problems accounted for the largest proportion of first, second, third and fourth moves (51%, 65%, 75% and 75% respectively).
127
Table 5.11 tabulates participants‘ responses to the following question in the focus group schedule about the most important reason underpinning secondary migration in their community: What do you think is the most important reason to move? Why?
Table 5.11 Main drivers and indicators of secondary migration identified in focus groups
Community
Main drivers
Burundian
Housing
Congolese
Housing
Ethiopian
- Public transport (initial settlement - Housing (subsequently)1 Social and ethnic networks
Liberian
Factors nominated by participants 1. Cost
1. Cost 2. Size 3. Condition - Access to transport (in initial settlement) - Cost (subsequently) 1. Proximity to networks
Rwandan
Housing
1. Cost 2. Size
Sierra Leonean
Housing
1. Cost 2. Size
Somali
Social and ethnic networks
1. Proximity to networks
Sudanese
Housing
1. Cost 2. Size 3. Condition
1
Participants from the Ethiopian community said that, in the initial stage of settlement, households moved to be closer to reliable public transport networks and then, later, moved for housing-related reasons.
Other drivers of secondary migration less frequently mentioned than those in Table 5.11, include: ▪ accessibility issues and access to public transport; ▪ neighbourhood issues.
128
Some participants spoke about interstate migration when discussing secondary migration. Reasons given for interstate moves include: ▪ reconnecting social and ethnic networks; ▪ better employment opportunities; ▪ climatic factors. Interstate migration did not form a large component of the secondary migration reported by participants. Interstate migration to reconnect with networks and for employment is discussed in the relevant sections in Chapter 6.
The following sections report the responses from focus group participants about the reasons for secondary migration in their communities, including results relating to housing and networks.
5.4.2.1. Housing The cost of accommodation was raised more often than any other factors as an influence of secondary migration in the case study communities: We move suburb to suburb because most of us are renting, and with the rent boom, people move to where they can find affordable accommodation. Suburbs like Moorooka and Annerley have become expensive … so people move to Ipswich because the houses are bigger and cheaper [there]. We know that 70% of Burundian families live in [the] Logan [area] but they weren’t necessarily settled there first. Many people have moved to Logan mainly because housing is cheaper and food is cheaper … Most people feel free to move to Woodridge because housing … is more affordable in Woodridge and there are service providers and transport … Housing is [also] affordable in suburbs like Inala … but in Woodridge the prices have started to rise … We may move back closer to the city because we are starting to pay the same amount for rent there as we would if we lived closer to the city then we could enjoy all that the city has to offer.
129
Twenty-nine of the 57 participants reported overcrowding as an issue in the individual participant questionnaires (Appendix 12). The following are typical responses made by participants in the focus groups relating to how the size of accommodation influences secondary migration: You need to find accommodation that fits your family and that is affordable. Our problem is that we moving … because we can’t find enough rooms for our children … we are looking for four or five bedrooms, we’ll take a house whether it is Ipswich or the Gold Coast … we’ll go where the houses are affordable and big enough. Four bedroom houses are hard to find and expensive. 5.4.2.2. Access to social and ethnic networks Access to social and ethnic networks was important to participants from all case study communities, especially because they provide participants with the ability to communicate in their native language, assistance with childcare and social support, and the opportunity to participate and share in cultural and religious activities.
Participants made the following comments during focus groups about the importance of living close to people who speak the same language: Language is the most important … to have someone to speak to and to help …[community members] may move to a suburb even if there are only two or three families. When the people first arrive, they are not given a choice about where they can live … they are given accommodation in any suburb in Brisbane, but they are always in Moorooka everyday anyway because there is no one to talk to in their suburb, so they go to Moorooka … after the six months is up on their first lease, everyone moves to around Moorooka. If new arrivals are given a choice, they would want to live in a suburb where people speak the same language.
130
The following are typical comments made by participants about the importance of proximity to networks for assistance with childcare: In our culture we have to support one another … so if a child at school is sick, we do not rely on public transport to get us there because the Aussies will wonder why it is taking so long for us to get there and will think that it is a case of child neglect … instead we live close together so that a neighbour can pick up the child and help us. Community support is very important … if you need someone to look after your child you don’t need to call first, you just bring them around. Participants made the following comments about the importance of living close to members of their networks for social support, cultural and religious reasons: If you have more than 10 … families, you become a community … even if we are only two people, we’d rather rely on each other than on services. …when someone comes as a refugee they get more information from the community than service providers … where to go shopping, which school to go to … … the way we are living in Africa, we support each other, mother, grandmother … we need to be living close together. Initially people look for someone to speak to. We come from a war-torn country … for example, we don’t go straight to the police if we have a problem, we just walk to someone’s [from the community] house and we sort things out ourselves. It [housing issues] does not matter as long as the community live close together and close to the mosques. 5.4.3. Summary Individual participant questionnaire data show that participants have a relatively high rate of secondary migration. Accommodation problems, including cost and overcrowding, were given more often than any other reason for why participants had moved. Access to people from their own networks who speak the same language, provide assistance with childcare and social support, and share cultural and religious values were also important.
131
5.5. Additional housing issues discussed in focus groups The third research aim was to assess the relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the communities. This section reports results that address this aim, including participants‘ experience in, and perception of, their housing options. 5.5.1. Participants’ perceptions of housing options and experience in the Australian housing market The following question was included in the focus group schedule to assess participants‘ housing option preferences:
Would you prefer to live in private, public and community housing? Why?
The question also elicited data on their experience in the Australian housing market. These results are reported below.
5.5.1.1. Public housing Without exception, all participants reported in focus groups that they would prefer to live in public housing because it is cheaper and more secure than accommodation in the private rental market. There were, however, some major concerns raised with public housing. Table 5.12 summarises these concerns.
Table 5.12 Summary of public housing concerns
Concern Waiting list Excluded waiting list because of increased income Inappropriate housing Perception of discrimination Concerns about restrictions on record Strict conditions Size of houses Location of houses Condition of house
Case study community Ethiopian, Rwandan, Sierra Leonean, Somali, Sudanese Rwandan, Sudanese Ethiopian, Sierra Leonean Burundian, Sierra Leonean Sierra Leonean Rwandan Liberian Rwandan Rwandan
132
Participants made the following comments about public housing in Queensland: …there is a big issue there [concerning public housing] … we are told in five years we will be given a government house … but the wait is actually 10-15 years. The main reason people move inter-state [from Queensland to other states] is because it takes one year in some states to get a government house… There is a family with seven or eight children living in a three-bedroom house in Holland Park. They don’t want to move out because of [proximity to] the community… they have asked the government to change their house … they have been waiting for a four-bedroom house for five or six years. You may wait for a home and when they give it to you it may not be suitable. 5.5.1.2. On-arrival housing assistance/MATCH community housing In general, participants‘ experience with community housing was through on-arrival accommodation provided by Metropolitan Association Towards Community Housing (MATCH). Most participants reported, in focus groups, that they preferred community housing to private rental accommodation, but were critical of this housing type because of their initial experience with the on-arrival accommodation provided by MATCH.
Participants raised the following issues about their on-arrival accommodation: … when people exit community housing they have to pay lots of money. Tenants have to pay for all repairs at the end of the [community housing] tenancy but are not told about this … … people pay [off] their bond on community housing for years. MATCH is more expensive than private rentals. Participants also reported a lack of transparency in dealings with MATCH. For example, one participant said that Centrelink had decreased a friend‘s fortnightly payments and when he asked why, they told him that MATCH had authorised the transaction to cover an increase in his rent. He said MATCH did not inform him about the rent increase and he did not consent to the transaction. His friend left the
133
MATCH property for private rental accommodation shortly thereafter. Two participants reported that MATCH charged them rent to secure properties before they arrived in Australia. One said that MATCH charged him for three weeks rent while he was still in a refugee camp in Tanzania. The other said he was charged $6,750 rent while he was delayed in Kenya. He was still paying off the debt at the time of the focus group even though he no longer lived in the property. A Burundian participant said he heard that the government now covers the cost of rent on community houses for the period before refugees arrive in Australia, but he was not sure if this was correct. The following comments made during focus groups relate to participants‘ difficulties in entering the private rental market after six months of on-arrival housing assistance: Firstly, people arrive and are settled by settlement services [for the first six months] and then they are one their own … it is difficult to find your own accommodation [after six months]. [They] help people in the first six months, but six months is too short … people want to be helped for longer. 5.5.1.3. Private rental housing Participants reported unanimously in focus groups that private rental accommodation was their least preferred housing type. The reasons for this are summarised here: ▪ private rental accommodation is expensive and lacks long-term security (for example, tenants can be evicted or asked to leave at any time); ▪ participants perceived discrimination in the private rental market. Participants also reported difficulties: ▪ competing in the private rental market; ▪ understanding and/or negotiating the private rental market; ▪ accumulating rental bond money; ▪ dealing with real estate agents.
134
Participants made the following general observations during focus groups about private rental housing: [Private rental] housing causes us trauma … we are in a situation with no solution. It causes stress and depression because we need to move but we can’t find a house to move to. … there is no security in private rental … … they ask your income and how many kids you have … we don’t like this … in public housing they don’t ask you these questions. The system is very difficult to understand … there are many secrets behind the system. In the individual questionnaire, 18 of the 57 participants reported that they had experienced discrimination in the Australian housing market (Appendix 12). Participants also commented on their experience of discrimination in the Australian private rental market during focus groups: We have problems getting a house because real estate agents and landlords don’t want so many kids in their house … real estate agents reject applications because of [African] family size. Racism in the real estate market for example rejecting rental applications for no other reason than we are black Africans. (Response interpreted) Africans have no chance of getting a house. Real estate agents seem to make things more difficult for people from Africa. The following participants‘ comments from focus groups illustrate the reported difficulties of competing in the Australian housing market: [It is] difficult for Africans to compete against 20 other people who are trying to rent the same house. … the real estate agent has to decide who to give the house to … the competition is very difficult. Again, in the individual questionnaire, 17 of the 57 participants reported difficulties understanding the Australian housing system. Fifteen participants reported
135
difficulties with bond money. Nineteen participants reported difficulties meeting the expectations of real estate agents and landlords. Seventeen participants reported difficulties accessing accommodation because they did not have the appropriate references. Twenty-three participants reported difficulties finding appropriate accommodation (Appendix 12). The following comments made by participants during focus groups illustrate the difficulties that they have encountered understanding and negotiating the Australian housing market: [We have] a lack of credibility in the rental market [i.e. no reference]. [It is] very difficult trying to get a bond together … someone else will always get in first because they have their bond money ready. Having to pay two weeks rent for a bond puts enormous pressure on families. We are only given two weeks notice to leave a property … this is too short to find somewhere else to live [that is affordable and appropriate]. 5.5.1.4. Strategies to overcome accommodation issues The following results relate to the question in the focus group schedule:
How do people from your community overcome these [housing] issues?
Table 5.13 provides a summary of the main responses provided by focus group participants about how community members address housing problems.
Table 5.13 Summary of strategies to address housing difficulties
Strategy Networks Agencies
Case study communities Liberian, Sierra Leonean, Somali and Sudanese Ethiopian and Congolese
Rental Tenancies Authority (RTA)
Rwandan
Government intervention1
Burundian
1
Burundian participants said government intervention is the only strategy they think will help with accommodation issues.
The most frequent responses to the question in the focus group schedule relate to accessing assistance from members of their own social and ethnic networks for
136
assistance with housing. The following comments illustrate the reliance on these networks: It helps to be recommended to a landlord by another African refugee. (Response interpreted) The help from family and friends is very important in finding accommodation and also from other people in the community too. Two participants mentioned that they might also ask the Multicultural Development Association (MDA), Assisting Collaborative Community Employment Support Services (ACCES) or Metropolitan Association Towards Community Housing (MATCH) for assistance.
One of the 57 participants sought assistance with a housing issue from the RTA: My family were given notice in the house we were living in, in ten days. I asked for an extension and was told by the agent that we could stay if we pay an extra $150/ week. I contacted the RTA who said that was illegal. The RTA supported me and took the agent to the tribunal. I was lucky; other people may not know where to go. 5.5.1.5. Summary Participants reported significant obstacles in finding affordable and secure housing. By far, participants‘ most favoured housing option was in the public housing sector and their least favoured was private rental accommodation. Most participants reported that they turned to members of their own social and ethnic networks for housing assistance. One participant reported that he had contacted the RTA for rental assistance. Two participants said they might also ask other agencies for help with housing. The Burundian participants thought that the government should intervene to help African refugees with housing.
5.6. Triangulation of results: meeting with community leaders The researcher organised a meeting with leaders from the case study communities on Saturday 14 March 2009 to present the results and seek confirmation of focus group and interview results. Leaders from the following communities were present at the meeting: Burundian, Liberian, Rwandan, Sierra Leonean, Somali and Sudanese.
137
The leaders confirmed the differences between the DIAC SDB maps and the community knowledge maps and validated the settlement patterns on the community knowledge maps. Recognising the relatively high rate of secondary migration in their communities, the consensus among the leaders was that the numbers might have changed since the data was collected for community knowledge maps, but that the settlement patterns on the community maps were consistent with their knowledge of the distribution of their communities on the ground. It was beyond the scope, and reasonable expectations, of this meeting to ask leaders to update these data. The leaders also confirmed the results of the key factors underlying the distribution of the communities, the general trends in secondary migration, and the housing preferences of community members.
An interesting development occurred during the meeting that differs from the results of the earlier fieldwork. During the focus groups and subsequent interviews, participants and leaders agreed that moving to be close to a place of employment, or an employment opportunity, was not as important a reason to move as housing and networks, provided that the household lived close to reliable public transport. At the validation meeting, however, the leaders all agreed that employment had become more important in the unsettled financial climate. Community members were accepting positions they might have declined in the past because they the place of employment was some distance from where they lived. In addition, these households were more inclined to move to minimised transport costs.
The researcher asked the leaders what recommendations they would like to make based on the results of the research presented to them at the meeting. Results of the final meeting and the recommendations are discussed in Chapter 6.
5.7. Chapter summary This chapter reported on the results for the present research derived from focus groups with members of the eight case study communities, interviews and a validation meeting with community leaders, as well as individual participant questionnaires. The results are discussed further in Chapter 6.
138
Chapter 6 Discussion 6.1. Introduction A major discovery of this thesis are the discrepancies between primary data gathered during the research and key existing data sources, together with the subsequent proposal of an alternative model for gathering demographic data from African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. This thesis also contributes to the body of literature regarding the settlement geography of ethnic minority groups in Australia by identifying the evolving geographies of African refugee settlement in Southeast Queensland. This includes key and emerging areas of residential concentration, underpinned by proximity to networks, and a general trend in dispersion driven by housing exigencies. Participants‘ general lack of engagement with structured support networks is a further important finding of the research.
This chapter discusses these research findings. The first section outlines issues of data generalisation and sample representativeness. The second section focuses on distribution of the case study communities, including discrepancies of key data sources, difficulties establishing population size and anomalies in distribution data. It also proposes an alternative demographic data-gathering model. The third section identifies settlement patterns of the case study communities, including key residential concentrations and exceptions to the general patterns. The fourth section discusses factors driving secondary migration and the impacts of these moves. The final section presents the relationship between housing and the general patterns of distribution and secondary migration in the case study communities. The community leaders‘ recommendations from the data validation meeting are integrated into the relevant sections of this chapter.
6.2. Issues of representativeness of the sample and generalisations from the data In total 57 participants, including community leaders, from the Burundian, Ethiopian, Congolese, Liberian, Rwandan, Sierra Leonean, Somali and Sudanese communities in Southeast Queensland participated in eight focus groups for the present research
139
(Section 5.2). A standard random selection of participants was not possible because there is no complete secondary database from which to draw a sample of the case study communities. It is not possible to generalise the findings of the research outside of the individual communities as it is impossible to ascertain the representativeness of the sample with absolute certainty. Data from individual questionnaire is compared to existing datasets as a way to address this limitation.
It is possible to draw some parallels between the data obtained from the sample through these questionnaires (Table 5.1) and that of the larger immigrant cohort27. For example, most participants (82%) arrived in Australia in the previous eight years, corresponding with the Humanitarian Program‘s strategic aim of assisting refugees from Africa during this period (Section 3.3). Secondly, participants‘ average household size across all case study communities (excluding the Ethiopian community) was between five and six people (5.6 people). This result is similar to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) (2007b, p.33) statistic of between five and seven people for all Humanitarian Program entrants who resettled in Queensland between 2002 and 2007 (Table 2.1), corresponding with the period when most participants arrived in Australia.
However, a key difference is also apparent between the sample results and larger immigrant cohort. The proportion of research participants who were Convention refugees (two thirds) and Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) entrants (one quarter) differs from the proportion of places allocated to these two groups under the Humanitarian Program. In the period between 2001 and 2007, the federal government allocated more places in the Humanitarian Program to SHP entrants (on average, more than half) than to Convention refugees (on average, less than half) (Section 2.3.2.1). Consequently, SHP entrants were under-represented in the research sample. The settlement experience of SHP entrants is likely to differ from those of Convention refugees because of the different levels of assistance provided to these two groups (Section 2.4.1). This research focuses on the groups as a whole (that is all Humanitarian Program entrants) and recommends the differences in geographical distribution and secondary migration as an area for future research (see Section 7.4).
27
The sample data were compared to DIAC immigration statistics from various sources.
140
A further issue of representation arose when comparing the distribution of participants, at the time of focus groups, to the community knowledge maps (Section 5.3.2). At the time of the focus groups, most participants lived in suburbs in Brisbane‘s southern corridor extending from Kangaroo Point in the north to Logan Central (‗Logan‘) and Woodridge in the south, as well as Brisbane‘s south-western suburbs extending from Acacia Ridge in the east to Goodna and Collingwood Park in the west. A small number of participants also lived in suburbs north of the Brisbane River (Figures 5.1 & 5.2). This distribution pattern corresponds to the general distribution of case study communities on the community knowledge maps (Figures 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 5.10, 5.12, 5.14, 5.16 & 5.21). However, while the suburbs of Logan and Woodridge emerged as one of the largest residential concentration of case study communities in Southeast Queensland (Table 5.5), less than four participants lived in these suburbs at the time of the focus groups (Figures 5.1 & 5.2). The Logan/Woodridge residential concentration, therefore, was under-represented in the sample. There were also no representatives from the western region of Southeast Queensland, the Gold Coast and north coast areas.
A gender imbalance was present in some focus groups and posed a further concern about data generalisation (Table 5.1). Where possible, the researcher attempted to overcome any gender imbalance by interviewing both female and male leaders from these communities (Section 4.6.6). Additional interviews were conducted with a leader of the Sierra Leonean Women‘s Association of Queensland and a male leader of the Liberian Association of Queensland to redress possible gender imbalance in these two focus groups. Unfortunately, female Ethiopian and male Somali leaders did not respond to the researcher‘s requests for interviews.
Community leaders provided an additional substantiation of representativeness and data generalisation through checking the accuracy of focus group data during interviews in the weeks following the meetings, verifying interview and focus group transcripts, and participating in a group data validation meeting (Sections 4.3.3.7 &
141
4.4.5)28. The leaders were best placed to undertake these checks and comment on issues of representation and the generalisation of results because of their position within their communities. This triangulation of data was an additional way to address some of the limitations of representativeness. The involvement of community leaders introduced a separate set of considerations, however (Section 4.6.2). For example, Jan-Khan (2006) and Temple and Moran (2006) are critical of community leaders acting as spokespersons for, and gatekeepers to, their communities because their views may not be representative of the wider community. Without respecting the hierarchy within the African communities and following the methodology described in Section 4.3.3.2, however, access to research participants would have been problematic and, in some cases, impossible.
6.3. Establishing the distribution of case study communities Significant difficulties were encountered establishing a complete secondary dataset to address the first research aim of identifying and describing the settlement patterns of the case study communities. The community knowledge maps are a major contribution of the research in this regard, because they challenge existing population size and distribution data, as discussed below.
6.3.1. Discrepancies in key data sources Primary data gathered during the course of the fieldwork challenge the reliability and accuracy of the two key existing secondary data sources, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census and the DIAC Settlement Database (SDB). The difference between the primary and secondary data is considerable in terms of both population size (Section 5.3.1) and residential distribution (Section 5.3.2). The datasets from the ABS 2006 census and the SDB, in particular, are shown to under-enumerate African refugees in Southeast Queensland. The following sections discuss the complexities of establishing population size and residential distribution in more detail.
28
Leaders from the Burundian, Liberian, Rwandan, Sierra Leonean, Somali and Sudanese communities attended the final validation meeting (Section 5.6) on 14 March 2009. Leaders from the Congolese and Ethiopian communities were unable to attend this meeting.
142
6.3.2. Difficulties establishing population sizes It was necessary to establish population numbers to allow a description of the distribution and concentration of the communities. Without exception, participants from all case study communities reported that the DIAC population figures were too low for their community. Participants instead provided their own estimates of population numbers per suburb in Southeast Queensland, which community leaders checked at subsequent interviews. The data were used to produce the ‗community knowledge maps‘, (see Section 6.3. 3) validated by community leaders (Section 5.6).
Of significance are the considerable differences between the two main secondary data sources and the participants‘ estimates of their population size, a result similar to that of Wong (1995) and Forbes (1984). An example of these inconsistencies is evident in the Queensland Somali community with the DIAC SBD and the ABS 2006 census data total population size ranging from 242 to 377 (Table 5.2), compared to the Somali participants‘ count of 324 family units plus 90 single households in the Brisbane area alone. Based on the Somali participants‘ average household size of 6.6 (Table 5.1), the total Somali population in Southeast Queensland is estimated to be over 2,000 people. The African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific (2009) September 2009 newsletter recently highlighted similar population data discrepancies: In August one edition of The Australian said that there were 16,000 Somalis in Australia and, on another page, that there were 16,000 Somalis in Melbourne … Yet the 2006 Census only enumerates 4,316 Somali-born and there were only 467 permanent additions in 2006/8, giving a rough total of perhaps 5,000 today. In other examples from the present research, a Burundian Association of Queensland community census undertaken between 24 May and 25 October 2008 (Section 4.3.3.5) recorded 753 Burundians in Southeast Queensland. The Burundian community leader later estimated that the total population was most likely to be between 900 and 1,000. The official data sources of Burundians in the state ranged from 185 to 192 (Table 5.2). A Liberian community leader estimated there to be over 800 Liberians in Southeast Queensland compared to the official data sources that range between 183 and 268 (Table 5.2). Of interest is the fact that the Ethiopian
143
participants‘ estimate of the number of Ethiopian refugees in Southeast Queensland (252) is lower than that recorded by the ABS 2006 census (468/429) (Table 5.2). This might be the result of the participants reporting Humanitarian Program entrant numbers only, while the census data represents the total population of the longerestablished Ethiopian community, some members of which entered Australia as migrants. The DIAC SDB recorded 174 Ethiopians in Queensland29, lower yet again than the community members‘ estimate. These differences have obvious implications for decision-makers and organisations that use the existing databases in funding applications and the subsequent delivery of services to these communities. It is possible that participants and community leaders inflated the population data in a perceived attempt to manipulate service provision to their communities. As previously stated, it is the researcher‘s opinion that this is highly unlikely, and is further supported by the fact that all leaders had the opportunity to question population data of the other case study communities at the validation meeting, but none did.
Instead, four speculative explanations are offered for these large discrepancies. Firstly, they could be attributed to the time delay between the compilation of the SDB dataset (February 2007) and the fieldwork (October 2007 to November 2008), however, this temporal explanation does not explain the large differences in population numbers in some of the communities. For example, the Burundian Association of Queensland executive committee counted approximately 900 Burundians at a meeting in Southeast Queensland in May 2007, only three months after the SDB dataset was compiled. The Burundian community leader confirmed that an increase of approximately 700 people in the three months between February and May 2007 was unlikely (Burundian community leader, pers. comm., 25 October 2008).
Secondly, as previously discussed, African refugees are generally reluctant to complete forms on which they have to disclose personal details. This reluctance was observed at the end of focus groups when participants were asked to complete the questionnaire. 29
The SDB data used in this study are Humanitarian Program entrants only and, therefore, general migrants are not reflected in these figures.
144
Thirdly, it is possible that some refugees are not accessing services, such as Medicare and the Adult Migrant English Program course, which DIAC use to update the SDB (Table 4.1). All refugees will, however, have been recorded by other sources that contribute to the SDB (for example, Immigration Records Information System and Integrated Client Services Environment visa processing systems, and the Movements Reconstruction Database). It is also possible that the data exchange arrangements with Medicare, which began in February 2007, has improved the SDB‘s capacity to reflect settlement locations of migrant and refugee communities, as suggested by DIAC (2007b, p.6) (Section 4.3.2.2).
Finally, some African refugees have moved to Southeast Queensland from New Zealand to reconnect with their networks. The Australian federal government does not recognise these new arrivals as refugees but, rather, as general migrants despite their obvious continuing humanitarian status. Trans-Tasman migration was only discussed by participants in one focus group (the Somali community) and may provide an explanation for the large discrepancies between SDB data and the community knowledge maps. It does not explain, however, the low count of Somali in the 2006 census.
6.3.3. Anomalies in distribution data Community leaders confirmed the settlement patterns on the individual community knowledge maps at the validation meeting, acknowledging that there were most likely some changes to the data because of new arrivals and secondary migration since the time of the focus groups (Section 5.6). Overall, there is little difference between the communities‘ distribution patterns on the SDB and community knowledge map, but with some noticeable differences in the locations and size of residential concentrations (Table 5.6). These anomalies are an important finding of the present research because organisations that use these data to plan and deliver essential services to African refugee communities might not be targeting the geographic area in which the communities are located.
145
6.3.4. An alternative demographic data-gathering model At the data validation meeting, the leaders confirmed that a ‗top-down‘ approach to data collection, such as the ABS census, is unlikely to yield reliable results in their communities. They also confirmed community members‘ reluctance to complete survey forms. Confirmation of this reluctance further justifies the decision to use focus groups in the present research. The community leaders also confirmed focus group participant reports that the data used to compile the DIAC SDB maps underrepresents their communities in Southeast Queensland. The leaders reported that they would like to have the community knowledge maps updated at regular intervals because of the perceived benefits of these data and the maps, both in terms of improved settlement services and in terms of their own community development work. The researcher, with permission from the Burundian community leader, described the method and outcome of the Burundian Association of Queensland community census (Section 4.3.3.5) and proposed a model for gathering demographic data from the communities based on this census.
146
Figure 6.1 outlines the model that proposes this community-based approach of demographic data collection. The leaders reported that the model would be a more effective method for gathering demographic data in their communities. They unanimously supported its implementation in their communities.
Community knowledge maps
Every 12 months the executive committee of the community association encourages members to record basic demographic data of community members in their suburb, including family name and /or address to eliminate data duplication
A community representative from each suburb collects the data from households
The representatives report the data to a nominated person who maintains a ‗database‘.
The nominated person on the executive committee collates data
Neutral person collates data from the various ethnic associations
Data checked and validated by community leader
Data checked and validated by community leaders
Data reported to Geographical Information Systems (GIS) specialist. Database updated.
Figure 6.1 A proposed alternative demographic data collection model
The model presents an important contribution to the way in which demographic data is captured in African refugee communities, offering a means to address the general lack of participation in survey data collection techniques, such as those used in the
147
national census. The model is not without limitations, however. Firstly, it would require a person proficient in GIS to produce the maps. Secondly, the project would require an ongoing source of sustainable funding. Thirdly, not all community members are affiliated with ethnic community associations, so it is inevitable that some households will not be represented in the community census. Finally, multiple ethnic community associations reflect political divisions within some of the communities. The implementation of the model would require a neutral person to coordinate and collate the data from these communities. Importantly, despite these constraints, the leaders reported that they believed this method of capturing data on the settlement geography of the case study communities would yield better results than the processes currently in place.
6.3.5. Summary Accurate settlement information is important for those bodies that use these data for funding applications and the subsequent development and delivery of services to African refugee communities. There were, however, considerable differences in geographical distribution and population data between the ABS 2006 census, the DIAC SDB and the African communities. The research proposed an alternative model of collecting these important demographic data from community members, endorsed by the community leaders. This model makes a significant contribution towards a more effective method for capturing demographic data of African refugee communities.
6.4. Defining settlement patterns of the case study communities Previous research (for example, Burnley, 1998; Johnston, Forrest & Poulsen, 2001a, 2001b; Poulsen, Johnston & Forrest, 2004) found little evidence of ghettos or ethnic enclaves in Australia. The sample for this research was not large enough to use traditional measures of areal concentration to measure either the absolute or the relative residential concentration of the African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland (Section 4.2.1). The under-enumeration of African refugees in ABS census data further limits the ability to assess with any accuracy the degree of ethnic mixing within the areas of largest concentrations. Based on a subjective appraisal of community knowledge data, however, parallels can be drawn between the residential
148
concentrations of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland and Johnston, Forrest and Poulsen‘s (2002b) ‗mixed minority areas‘ category of ethnic mixing (p.213).
6.4.1. Key residential concentrations An important contribution of the research, based on aggregated data from the community knowledge maps, is the identification of the largest residential concentrations of African refugee communities in Brisbane‘s southern suburbs, extending from Woodridge, Logan and Kingston in the south to Moorooka and Annerley in the north. The data also show emerging residential concentrations in Brisbane‘s south-western suburbs of Acacia Ridge, Inala and Durack. As one might expect, these concentrations are diverse in terms of ethnicity, culture, language and religion.
The suburbs with the highest overall residential concentrations from all case study communities, at the time of the focus groups, were Woodridge, Logan and Kingston (608 individuals and 55 families), Moorooka and Annerley (586 individuals) and Mt Gravatt (77 individuals and 83 families)30 (Table 5.5) (Figure 6.2.). This result is interesting because, of all Humanitarian Program entrants who resettled in Queensland between 2002 and 2007 (more or less consistent with the peak period of African refugee intake to Australia), 62% went to the Brisbane Local Government area (LGA) and only 15% to Logan City (incorporating the suburbs of Logan and Woodridge) (DIAC, 2007b, p.24). This indicates that the Logan/Woodridge concentration has developed through secondary migration to the area, which is discussed in more detail in Section 6.5.
30
The Somali participants provided data on the number of families, while participants from the other focus groups provided data on individual community members (Section 6.3.3).
149
Figure 6.2 Key areas of residential concentration and general trends in secondary migration of the eight case study communities in Southeast Queensland (Arrows represent secondary migration from inner-Brisbane suburbs to outer suburbs)
Many of the earlier African refugees stayed in temporary accommodation in Moorooka, Stones Corner/Greenslopes and Woodridge when they first arrived in Australia. This on-arrival accommodation was provided to the refugees through the federal government for a period of between two and six weeks. Participants reported that residential concentrations subsequently developed in Moorooka and the surrounding suburbs. This was due to the earlier refugees becoming familiar with the available services, shops, public transport networks and schools in those suburbs, thus they chose to stay in the area after they left their temporary accommodation. This result is consistent with the findings of a large body of research on the residential concentrations of earlier ethnic communities in various Australian cities (Burnley, 1982, 1989; Dunn, 1993; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Viviani, Coughlan & Rowland, 1993; Wilson, 1987, 1990). This initial concentration in the suburbs surrounding Moorooka was an important pull factor drawing African households into the area.
150
The main residential concentrations of African communities in Southeast Queensland are contiguous, most noticeably forming along corridors close to the Brisbane railway network and the Southeast Busway, which has terminals in the suburbs of Buranda, Greenslopes, Mt Gravatt and Eight Mile Plains. Burnley (1982), Dunn (1993) and Wilson (1987; 1990) found similar settlement patterns along railway networks in their research on other ethnic minority groups in Australia. Participants and community leaders confirm that many Africans rely on public transport to access a variety of essential institutions, services and networks in Southeast Queensland. Living close to public transport is especially important to all African refugees in the early stages of resettlement. It becomes less so when they are able to buy their own car. However, at the final validation meeting, a community leader cautioned that public transport remains important to many African households that cannot afford to make such an expensive purchase.
As reported by participants, relatively cheap rental housing in Moorooka, Logan and Woodridge was also a factor in the development of concentrations in those areas. This supports Burnley (1982) and Hugo (1996) who found that residential concentrations of other ethnic minority groups in Australia developed in areas of cheap housing. Rental prices have increased in recent times, however, and participants identified housing affordability as a key driver of secondary migration in the case study communities (Table 5.11), discussed further in Section 6.6.
6.4.2. Exceptions to the general settlement pattern: Somali and Sudanese communities Settlement patterns of the eight case study communities overlap in some locations. The two main exceptions to this general distribution are the Somali and the Sudanese communities. The Somali residential concentration, centring on the Holland Park and Kuraby mosques in which the community worships, extends from Woodridge, Logan and Kingston in the south through to Holland Park and Tarragindi in the north, with the largest number of community members in the suburbs of Mt Gravatt, Mansfield and Wishart (Figure 5.16). This concentration has grown largely through secondary migration (see Section 6.5.1.1). There is an additional exception within the Somali community, based on marital status: the concentration mentioned above consists mostly of family units, while participants reported a separate concentration of single
151
Somalis in the suburb of Moorooka. This was as a result of the easy dual access from there to the city and to the community members in the main residential concentration.
Due to the considerable size of the Sudanese community, residential concentrations are more dispersed across Southeast Queensland. The Sudanese concentrations are based on ethnic sub-groupings, for example the Nuer community in the north Brisbane suburbs of Zillmere and Bracken Ridge. The following Sudanese residential concentrations (Figure 5.21) are located in the same suburbs as many of the other case study communities: ▪ Moorooka, Annerley, Salisbury, Rocklea; ▪ Woodridge, Logan Central; ▪ Algester, Acacia Ridge, Inala; ▪ Mt Gravatt.
The following are additional Sudanese concentrations in regional centres and suburbs that do not feature prominently on the other community knowledge maps: ▪ Toowoomba; ▪ Gold Coast, Beenleigh, Loganlea; ▪ Zillmere, Stafford, Chermside; ▪ Ipswich; ▪ Wynnum.
6.4.3. Summary The African communities are largely concentrated in areas of cheaper accommodation along key public transport routes in Brisbane‘s south and southwest. The two main areas of concentrations on the case study communities are in the inner-city suburbs of Moorooka and Annerley and the outer-suburbs of Logan and Woodridge. The aggregated data shows new settlement patterns emerging as a result of the process of secondary migration, which is discussed further in the following section.
152
6.5. Factors driving secondary migration Results show that focus group participants have a relatively high rate of secondary migration (Table 5.8), supporting previous findings on refugee secondary migration by Beer and Foley (2003; 2005), the CRC (2006), Hou (2005), Newbold (1999) and Simich (2003). Housing issues and access to social and ethnic networks are the main drivers of secondary migration, as reported by the sample. Proximity to place of employment is an additional factor that emerged later in the research. These fit into the ‗adjustment moves‘ strand of Clark and Onaka‘s (1983, p.50) model of voluntary residential mobility (Figure 2.2). The three key drivers are discussed below.
6.5.1. Reconnecting social and ethnic networks In all focus groups, participants spoke about the importance of living close to their social and ethnic networks, especially in the early stages of resettlement. This result supports previous research, which found that social and ethnic networks were significant factors drawing community members to ethnic residential concentrations in Australia (for example, Burnley, 1982, 1989; Dunn, 1993; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Glavac & Waldorf, 1998; Viviani, Coughlan & Rowland, 1993; Wilson, 1987, 1990) and elsewhere (for example, Simich, 2003; Simich, Beiser & Mawani, 2002). Many participants provided anecdotal reports of friends, family and other community members who had moved to reconnect with these networks.
Data from individual participant questionnaires, however, show that few participants had moved for this proximity reason (Table 5.10). This anomaly is the result of participants reporting why they had moved, not why they would like to move as Beer and Foley (2003, 2005) did in their study). It also reflects the important dichotomy between the participants‘ desired settlement option (residential concentration) and the practical exigencies (housing and employment) that characterise the tension between the forces of concentration and dispersal in the communities. The following section discusses participants‘ general comments about networks and secondary migration. It then focuses specifically on findings from the Somali and Liberian focus groups, since participants in these two communities nominated access to their networks as the most important factor underpinning secondary migration.
153
Access to social and ethnic networks was important to participants from all communities because they provide what Putnam (2007) calls bonding social capital, which facilitates the maintenance of cultural ties, norms and language, and provide social support and practical assistance. For example, participants reported that members of their networks provided help with childcare and housing, as well as with negotiating new systems and unfamiliar bureaucracies. This result is unsurprising as it is consistent with a large body of research on various refugee groups in Australia and elsewhere (Ager & Strang, 2008; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999; Danso, 2002a; During, 2006; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Koser, 1997; Simich, 2003; Simich, Beiser & Mawani, 2002; Simich et al., 2005).
Access to people who share a common language was particularly important to participants from all case study communities. For example, one participant moved from a regional centre to Brisbane within six weeks of arriving in Australia because no one in her first location spoke her language. In another example, a participant reported anecdotally that he knew of a man who did not speak to anyone for his first month in Australia, also because no one in the area spoke his language. He, too, moved to be closer to members of his ethnic community. These results are consistent with previous research, which suggests that refugees who are not initially settled close to people who speak the same language are likely to engage in secondary migration (Beer & Morphett, 2002; Jupp, 1994; Simich, 2003; Simich, Beiser & Mawani, 2002).
Childcare was an important issue, particularly for female participants, supporting the CRC (2006) report, which found that childcare was one of the key issues raised by African refugee women during their consultations (p.128). Traditional networks upon which they relied in Africa are often lost through displacement and resettlement. For these participants, living close to other women from their community who they can rely on for support and assistance, was very important. This result confirms the findings of Cox, Cooper and Adepoju (1999) that African women bypass the Australian childcare facilities in favour of leaving their children with members of their own ethnic community (p.43). Other studies have found additional barriers that African families encounter when accessing childcare, including prohibitive costs, culturally inappropriate care, culturally insensitive childcare workers and language
154
barriers (Batrouney, 1991; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999; CRC, 2006; NsubugaKyobe & Dimock, 2002). Having the support from people who understand their cultural norms, speak their language and who are available to help with childcare at short notice is vital to these women, especially as they attempt to rebuild their own lives in a new society. A gender bias is evident in this result, but it is important because it provides a voice to women who might not otherwise have been heard due to entrenched gender hierarchies in their communities (de Lepervanche, 1984, pp.189-190).
Significantly, participants also reported that they preferred to get information and assistance from their networks rather than from support services. Participants said that they will always ask members of their own community for help before they approaching any official organisation. For example, a participant said that the community will sort out issues amongst themselves instead of approaching groups, such as the police, for assistance. This confirms the findings of Colic-Peisker and Tilbury (2003) in their research of African refugee resettlement in Western Australia (p.81). According to Colic-Peisker and Tilbury‘s (2003) typology of settlement types, which divides refugees‘ approaches to settlement as either active or passive, relying on networks is an active form of settlement and should be encouraged. They found that ‗community orientation is evident in the social cohesion, mutual support, and sense of belonging within these groups‘ (p.81). It is evident that propinquity is critical for the process of settlement and integration into Australian society.
6.5.1.1. Networks in the Somali and Liberian communities Participants from the Somali and Liberian focus groups reported that reconnecting with their networks after resettlement was the most important reason for moving. The Somali community differs from the other seven communities in terms of secondary migration patterns. Religious ties appear to be more important for the Somali participants than for any other group. The mosques in the suburbs of Holland Park and Kuraby, in which Somali community members worship, are the overriding force drawing households to that residential concentration (Figure 5.16). Proximity to other community members is another crucial element, as is evident by the large number of Somali households that have moved from suburbs with mosques on
155
Brisbane‘s north (for example, Lutwyche and Chermside) to the suburbs surrounding Holland Park and Kuraby.
The Somali participants, all women, spoke about the benefit of living close together, particularly for access to childcare and social support. Somali participants reported the same housing issues as participants from the other case study communities. They said, however, that despite these housing issues, households in their community generally only move within the existing residential concentration because of the pull of both the mosques and the community. This result is similar to that of Burnley (1989) and Glavac and Childs (1993) on Vietnamese households moving within existing residential concentrations in Sydney and Brisbane. The Somali exception to the general trend in geographical distribution and secondary migration of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland is an important new finding of this research because it demonstrates the heterogeneity in the communities‘ settlement geography.
Liberian participants reported that the desire to live close to family and friends from the Liberian community is an important factor driving secondary migration in their community. The main residential concentration of Liberians includes the innersouthern suburbs of Moorooka, Annerley, Salisbury, Greenslopes, Stones Corner, Buranda, Woolloongabba and Dutton Park (Figure 5.10). Secondary concentrations are evident in the outer south-western suburbs of Acacia Ridge, Durack, Inala and Wacol and, to a lesser extent, in the outer-southern suburbs of Logan, Woodridge and Kingston. These secondary concentrations are of particular interest because focus group participants spoke with conviction when they said that the Liberian community was unlikely to disperse from the main concentration, which was centred on Moorooka, because of the proximity to other community members. However, in a separate interview, a male Liberian community leader reported that increasing rental prices are, in fact, driving households out of the Moorooka area to the two emerging concentrations in Acacia Ridge, Durack, Inala and Wacol, and in Logan, Woodridge and Kingston. The Liberian community is thus maintaining a level of concentration by regrouping in the outer south-western and southern suburbs, a pattern followed by other ethnic groups in secondary migration (for example, Burnley, 1982). This is an
156
important finding because, as discussed in Section 6.6, not all of the case study communities have been able to regroup due to difficulties in the housing market.
The Liberian and Somali focus groups were the only ones dominated by female participants (Table 5.1), thus the results reflect a gender bias in these samples, highlighting the gendered nature of migration (Creese & Dowling, 2001) and the particular importance of bonding social capital to women from these communities. A separate interview was conducted with a male Liberian community leader in an attempt to redress the gender imbalance in the Liberian focus group. This, unfortunately, was not possible in the Somali community (Section 6.2.). Nonetheless, these results highlight the importance of networks in the Somali and Liberian women‘s lives. At the data validation meeting, the leaders that were present confirmed that close proximity to networks of support are generally more important to women from all their communities, again, supporting Burnley‘s (1982) findings in other ethnic minority communities.
6.5.2. Housing: A key factor driving secondary migration It is a well established fact that access to secure, appropriate and affordable housing is a critical part of the refugee settlement and integration process (Beer & Foley, 2003, p.24; Beer & Foley, 2005, p.1; Beer & Morphett, 2002, p.3; Kissoon, 2006, p.75; Ley & Murphy, 2001, p.141; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007, p.1; Murdie, 2005, p.2; Tuohey, 2001, p.9). Focus group discussions continually returned to housing difficulties, highlighting the pervasiveness of these issues in the sample and pointing to the likely impact on participants‘ settlement and integration experience.
Participants from six of the eight case study communities (Burundian, Congolese, Ethiopian, Rwandan, Sierra Leonean and Sudanese) nominated housing as the main driver of secondary migration in their communities (Table 5.11). In addition, participants listed accommodation issues more often than any other reason for moving on their individual questionnaires (Table 5.10). Results from the questionnaires show that housing related issues dominated the reasons for the participants‘ first and second moves (Table 5.10). With social cohesion such an
157
important factor drawing communities together (Section 6.5.1.1), dispersion to outer suburbs, as evident on the Community Knowledge Maps in Section 5.3.3, is most likely due to housing related issues. Overall, participants tended to remain in their accommodation for longer with each move (Table 5.9), perhaps indicating, as Beer and Foley (2005, p.ii) suggest, that their accommodation improved with each move. An alternative explanation might be that the tight housing market has prevented the households from relocating as often, although this theory is untested.
6.5.2.1. On-arrival accommodation model contributing to secondary migration Convention refugees receive assistance with accommodation for their first six months in Australia through the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS). The Metropolitan Association Towards Community Housing (MATCH) is in the final year of a five year contract to provide housing to Convention refugees in the Brisbane area (Section 2.4.2). As previously discussed, most Queensland bound refugees were resettled in the Brisbane LGA (DIAC, 2007b, p.24) and most participants lived in this area at the time of the focus groups. The following discussion, therefore, focuses upon the on-arrival housing provided by MATCH.
The housing model adopted by MATCH, and supported by the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) (2007), moves away from previous short-term accommodation models by providing accommodation on a six-month head-lease (the properties are rented by MATCH and then subleased to the refugee household). This model was developed to address a growing number of recently arrived refugees seeking housing assistance from MATCH after they had left their on-arrival accommodation (MATCH, 2005, pp.8-9).
Most participants reported that six months housing assistance was insufficient to prepare them for the private rental market because, as community leaders confirmed, most African refugees have no experience renting property before they arrive in Australia. These results support the findings of Beer and Foley (2005), Hayward and Burgett (2008) and the RCOA (2007). Hayward and Burgett (2008) recommend a sliding scale for exiting refugees into the private rental market based on their communication and life skills, rather than the current blanket six month timeframe
158
imposed on all refugees (p.6). The leaders went further by recommending a universal extension of housing assistance for longer than six months and education on the private rental market that is delivered by community members. The Tenants‘ Union of Queensland (TUQ) ran a short-term program to provide tenancy and advocacy training to culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Southeast Queensland by training ten community members to deliver the education sessions (Section 2.4.3.1). This program ended in June 2009. In April 2008, Members of the Agencies Supporting the Housing of Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants (ASHRAM) lamented that the lack of access to recurrent funding to continue such programs reduces their longer-term impact. There is clearly a need for sustainable and larger scale funding for programs, such as that of the TUQ, to train and employ community members to deliver these kinds of education sessions to their own communities.
Furthermore, the MATCH model was designed to reduce secondary migration and provide refugees with a base from which to make decisions about where they would like to live in the medium to long term by giving them the option of extending the lease directly with the landlord (MATCH, 2005, pp.8-10). From the participants‘ perspective, MATCH is failing in this regard because they place households in suburbs away from ethnic residential concentrations, often in unaffordable accommodation, as rental houses become more difficult to find, a finding similar to that of the RCOA (2007, p.58).
A community leader reported that, because of this artificial dispersion of communities, some households move to reconnect with their social and ethnic networks before the end of the six-month period, reflecting the pull of social cohesion and suggesting a further failure of the model. Many African refugees also face overt discrimination by landlords by not offering an extension to their lease beyond the six months because they do not want to deal directly with a refugee household (K Benson, Director Multicultural Development Association, pers. comm., 3 August 2009). This forces those recently arrived refugee households to move, most often into the private rental market, where they are unprepared for the private rental market.
159
6.5.2.2. Cost and size of accommodation in the private rental market In accordance with the findings of Beer and Foley (2003; 2005), participants reported that private rental accommodation was their least favoured housing option. Many participants had encountered difficulties in the private rental market including the cost and size of accommodation, competing in the private rental sector, racial discrimination and inflexibility in a system that is unable to accommodate their circumstances and needs (Section 5.5.1.3). These results support findings of previous research on refugee housing in Australia (Beer & Foley, 2003, 2005; CRC, 2006; MDA, 2007; Migrant Information Centre and South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007; RCOA, 2007).
Housing cost and size were key factors underpinning secondary migration in the private rental market (Table 5.11). This was an important finding given that the Department of Community Services (in CRC, 2006) reported that the financial stress associated with finding affordable and appropriately sized accommodation negatively affects the settlement process (p.127). Comparable to the findings of the Migrant Information Centre and South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre (2007), the cost of housing was a ―hot topic‖ in focus group discussions and a significant push factor in secondary migration. Participants from all case study communities raised issues of housing affordability and the resultant impact on their communities‘ residential distribution. Housing affordability is defined here as ‗the ability of households to meet their mortgage or rent obligations without sacrificing the ability to meet other necessities‘ (Cooper, 2006, p.13).
Problems with housing affordability are not unique to African refugees (for example, Ley et al., 2001, p.142), however low employment rates in African refugee communities add to the difficulties that this immigrant cohort encounters in the private rental market (Atem & Wilson, 2008, p.8; Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006, p.222; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999, p.37). This was reflected in the present research by one third of participants reporting that they had experienced difficulties securing accommodation because they were unemployed. Recent shifts in the housing market have resulted in the median rental price for a two and three bedroom
160
unit in Queensland increasing significantly31 as the rental vacancy rate dropped to an historic low of one percent (MDA, 2007; Schwarten, 2008). It is not surprising, therefore, that participants were resolute in nominating housing affordability as the most important driver of secondary migration in their community during focus group discussions.
Adding to the complexity of finding affordable housing, is that African households are generally large due to cultural factors (including traditionally big families and complex family structures, which include extended family members) and, in some cases, the responsibility of accommodating sponsored SHP entrants (RCOA, 2008b) (Section 2.7.2.2). Most Australian houses are not designed to accommodate large households. Many participants spoke about large numbers in their households, stressing that it is not uncommon in African culture for children to share bedrooms, a practise generally frowned upon by Australian real estate agents and landlords. Overcrowding was the most common reason that participants gave when asked, in an open-ended question on the individual participant questionnaire, to nominate the reasons for their last five moves (Table 5.10). Cox, Cooper & Adepoju (1999), the Migrant Information Centre and South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre (2007) and the CRC report (2006) reported similar findings of overcrowding in African-Australian households. Participants also reported discrimination and prejudice in the private rental market because of the number of people in their household, supporting the Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre and Anglicare submissions to the CRC report (2006, p.68). The apparent contradiction in the focus group and individual questionnaire results highlights the complexity of balancing the size and cost of accommodation.
6.5.2.3. Problems accessing public housing Public housing is a form of social housing funded directly by the Queensland government and administrated by the Department of Housing (Section 2.4.3). Overwhelmingly, participants reported that they would prefer to live in public housing because it is capped at 25% of the household‘s income. There is also no pressure for households to move unless they choose to do so and no threat of eviction 31
The median rental price for a two-bedroom unit increased by 66% and the median price for a threebedroom unit increased by 58% over five years (Schwarten, 2008).
161
by property owners and real estate agents. The community leaders confirmed this result at the data validation meeting. This is a predictable result given the participants‘ perceptions of, and experience in, the private rental market. Beer and Foley (2005) and the Migrant Information Centre and South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre (2007) found that most refugees would like to move to public housing if they had the opportunity to do so. Only six of the 57 participants were living in public housing at the time of the fieldwork, however, reflecting the critical shortage of public housing stock that has forced African refugees into the private rental market (see Beer & Foley, 2003, 2005; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007).
The demand for all forms of social housing in Queensland increased in the late 1990s and early 2000s as rising prices in the private housing market pushed more people into the social housing system. The rapid growth in Queensland‘s population also increased pressure on social housing supply. By 2005, the waiting list for public housing had increased by 47% in five years and the number of new households assisted by public housing decreased by 56%. This was due to the low turnover of tenancies in the public system and the lack of suitable housing options in the private rental market (Department of Housing, 2005, p.8). The Department of Housing (2005) introduced the One Social Housing system to streamline public and community housing applications and prioritise housing according to circumstances and needs (p.12). Refugees do not immediately fit into a ―priority‖ needs criteria unless they identify as having a mental health issue, which most African refugees are reluctant to do because of the stigma attached by their communities to mental health conditions (K Benson, Director Multicultural Development Association, pers. comm., 3 August 2009). Furthermore, the Department acknowledges that there is a great demand from ―complex needs‖ households, including those from diverse cultural and refugee backgrounds, such as the case study communities, adding to the length of waiting time (Department of Housing, 2005, p.14). By far the participants‘ greatest concern with the Queensland public housing system is the long waiting list. Participants reported that, in some cases, the wait was up to ten years. At the data validation meeting, community leaders reported that they
162
believed the problem begins when new arrivals are asked to select six suburbs on their public housing application form. The leaders reported that new arrivals are most likely to select the suburbs with which they or their family and friends are familiar, one of which is inevitably Moorooka. They added that sometimes the Department of Housing staff recommended suburbs, including Moorooka, because of the large African residential concentration located in this area. A spokesperson from the Department of Housing confirmed that this is not Department policy, but most likely Department staff recognising that new arrivals want to live close to ethnic residential concentrations (G Maloney, Manager Housing supply, Housing and Homelessness, Department of Communities, pers. comm., 29 April 2009). Housing stock in these suburbs is low because of the high demand, and waiting lists are invariably long. Recently arrived African refugee applicants who select suburbs in these concentrations are, therefore, unlikely to receive public housing assistance for many years. The leaders recommended that the Department supply information to settlement service providers about the status of the waiting list for each suburb, so that this information can be passed on to new arrivals who can then make an informed decision before selecting suburbs.
6.5.2.4. Reliance on networks to address housing difficulties Participants were uncertain about their rights and obligations in the various housing markets and some were confused by the housing market in general. Only two of the 57 participants mentioned accessing help from groups or organisations outside of their own networks (they mentioned MDA, ACCES and MATCH). Only one participant reported that he had approached the Rental Tenancy Authority (RTA) for assistance with a tenancy issue—he knew about the RTA only because he interprets for a service provider. This is an important finding because of the many organisations, agencies and programs aimed at providing housing assistance and tenancy advocacy services to refugees in Southeast Queensland (Section 2.4.3.1), because it appears that African refugees are not accessing these initiatives.
The majority of participants instead reported that they relied on assistance from family, friends and other members of their ethnic community, including community leaders, to address housing issues, and were likely to continue to rely on these in the
163
future instead of approaching housing organisations. This result is consistent with the findings of Beer and Foley (2005), Beer and Morphett (2002), Cox, Cooper and Adepoju (1999), the Migrant Information Centre and South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre (2007) and Murdie (2005). It also supports Wilkinson and Marmot‘s assertion (in Simich et al., 2005) that refugees place more value on the social support that they receive from social networks than on the safety net provided by service providers (p.259). Once again, according to Colic-Peisker and Tilbury (2003), relying on networks is an active form of settlement that should be supported. There needs to be clear information and/or education to demystify the housing market and provide community members with the knowledge they need to empower themselves in the Australian housing market. More research, for example the current Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland‘s Stronger Tenancy Project (Section 2.4.3.1), is needed on how this information and/or education should be delivered, to its greatest potential, in African refugee communities.
6.5.3. Employment and secondary migration: an emerging factor Employment opportunities are critical for the survival and adaptation of refugees in resettlement countries. Refugee unemployment and under-employment rates and welfare dependency, however, are high in all resettlement countries (Ager & Strang, 2008; Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006; Dalglish, 1989; Danso, 2002a; Hume & Hardwick, 2005; Jupp, 1994; Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2004; Taylor, 2004; Ugbe, 2006; Wilson, 1987, 1990). In particular, black African refugees are the most vulnerable group with the highest unemployment rate, the lowest full-time employment rate and the highest under-employment rate of all immigrant groups in Australia (Atem & Wilson, 2008, p.8; Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006, p.222; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999, p.37). The CRC (2006) reports that unemployment was one of the main issues raised during their consultations with African refugees (p.111).
Previous studies (for example, Beer & Foley, 2005; CRC, 2006; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Jupp, 1994; Shandy, 2007; Shepley, 2008; Ugbe, 2006) found that employment was an important factor underpinning secondary migration. For example, in Australia, both Beer and Foley (2005) and Glavac and Childs (1993) found that employment was an important driver of secondary migration in other
164
refugee communities. Beer and Foley (2005) found that ‗access to friends, employment and schools was an important reason for undertaking first move, as with the second and subsequent moves‘ (p.28). Similarly, Glavac and Childs (1993) found that employment was the second most important reason to move, after access to networks (p.34). In a Canadian, study, Simich (2003) also found that the ‗search for employment is a significant reason for migrating‘ (p587).
Based on the local context and previous research described above, employment was expected to be an important factor in secondary migration in case study communities. At the time of the focus groups, however, despite many reports of the difficulties of surviving on unemployment benefits, participants dismissed employment as a relatively minor factor underpinning local secondary migration, referring only to people who had moved interstate for work. This result is a significant divergence from previous research because, as Neuman (2003) points out, what is absent in fieldwork data is sometimes as important as what is discovered (p.459).
Three participants reported, in the individual participant questionnaire, that they had moved for employment; all of whom had moved from other states to Queensland. Participants also provided anecdotal reports of community members who had moved both to and from Southeast Queensland for work. For example, Sudanese participants reported that there is interstate migration to Gatton, where there is a demand for unskilled seasonal agricultural labour. At the time of the Sudanese focus group, participants said that Sudanese community members already settled in Southeast Queensland are not moving to Gatton for work, but rather that they commute there when work is available. Sudanese participants spoke about the ‗Darfur community‘ in Gatton and a Sudanese leader confirmed that 60 families had recently settled in Gatton because of access to the unskilled work there. Other participants reported that members of their community had left Southeast Queensland because they found work elsewhere. These anecdotal reports support previous findings of refugee interstate migration in Australia. For example, Cox, Cooper and Adepoju (1999) found a small population of mainly Somali and Ethiopians in Brisbane who had moved interstate for work. Jupp (1994) also found that the placement of refugees in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia at a time of high unemployment in those states led to secondary migration to Sydney in search of employment (p.63).
165
When prompted about employment and secondary migration, a community leader reported that it is not important to live close to work as long as there are reliable public transport options nearby, confirming the settlement pattern identified along public transport routes (Section 6.4.1.). Housing and networks were clearly more significant drivers of secondary migration at the time of the focus groups and interviews. According to participants and community leaders, employment did not feature as an important reason to move. At the data validation meeting with community leaders in March 2009, however, the leaders said that employment had become a more important factor in secondary migration because of the impact of the global financial crisis and deteriorating local economic conditions. One leader reported that community members might not have accepted a job before the start of the crisis if it was some distance from where they live; they are now more likely to hold onto any position they can find and move closer to the place of employment to reduce travel costs. As these reports emerged at the end of the fieldwork, it was not possible to collect data to assess the scale and impact of employment on secondary migration patterns in the case study communities. The impact of global scale forces on local scale refugee settlement patterns would be an interesting area for future research.
6.5.4. Summary Two distinct processes of residential concentration and dispersion were identified in the case study communities. Overall, residential concentration was the preferred settlement type in all focus groups. Housing exigencies in general, however, were a strong countervailing force dispersing some of the communities. Economic imperatives emerged as an additional force of dispersion late in the fieldwork as local economic conditions deteriorated in the wake of the global financial downturn. The overall impact of this on residential distribution and secondary migration, however, is unclear.
166
6.6. The relationship between distribution, secondary migration and housing Figure 2.4 presented a conceptual model of the relationship between distribution, secondary migration and housing, based on a review of the literature. The following section presents a refinement of this model by outlining the general trends of distribution, secondary migration and housing in the case study communities. These diagrammatic representations of the evolving geographies of the case study communities are an important contribution of the research.
African cafés, restaurants, hairdressers, clothes and grocery shops have opened along the main road in the Moorooka shopping district in recent years, creating a distinct African-Australian cultural landscape. Participants from all case study communities referred to Moorooka as having a special status and reported that community members who have moved away from the area return regularly to Moorooka because of the African businesses and the large African presence in the suburb. This result supports research undertaken by Burnley (1982) and Dunn (1993) of other ethnic minority groups in Australia. For example, Burnley (1982) found that ‗when dispersion took place [from ethnic residential concentrations] … it was not uncommon for persons to return to shop, commonly on Saturday mornings when they might meet old friends and renew ties with their community‘ (p.101). At the data validation meeting, leaders confirmed Moorooka‘s special status with statements, such as, ‗Moorooka holds us together‘, ‗Moorooka has something special‘ and referred to ‗one big African community‘ in Moorooka. While Putnam (2007) suggests that diversity within geographic areas fosters heightened distrust in both intra- and inter-racial groups that results in isolation of group members (p.149), the opposite appears to be true for the diverse groups of Africans concentrated in Moorooka.
The cultural landmarks and large African presence in Moorooka are predicted to continue to attract African refugees to the area, analogous to Dunn‘s (1998) forecast of continued concentration of Indo-Chinese in Cabramatta, Sydney (p.515). The sense of belonging, which the participants derive from sharing a common language, culture and experience, arguably contributes to the re-establishment of control and semblance of normality that Colic-Peisker and Tilbury (2003) suggest is essential for
167
successful settlement (p.83). The Brisbane City Council, through the Moorooka Intercultural Reference Group, recognises the significance of cultural diversity in the suburb and the valuable contribution that African refugees have made to the area.
A trend emerged in focus group discussions, however, of households forced out of the Moorooka residential concentration primarily because of increased rental prices. The most common destinations of these moves were the Logan/Woodridge concentration and, to a lesser extent, to emerging residential concentrations in Brisbane‘s south-western suburbs, including Acacia Ridge, Durack and Inala, cartographically represented in Figure 6.2 (Section 6.4.1). Figure 6.3 provides a diagrammatic representation of the relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the Burundian, Ethiopian, Congolese, Liberian, Rwandan and Sierra Leonean communities in Southeast Queensland.
168
Logan-Woodridge residential concentration: -initial settlement location/ familiarity with area. Main pull factors of secondary migration into area: ▪ Cheaper accommodation ▪ Bigger houses ▪ Social and ethnic networks ▪ Access to services, facilities etc and public transport
Main push factors of secondary migration from Moorooka concentration: ▪ Cost of accommodation ▪ Size of accommodation/ overcrowding
Moorooka residential concentration: -initial settlement location/ familiarity with area. Main pull factors of secondary migration into concentration: ▪ Social and ethnic networks ▪ Relatively cheaper accommodation (previously) ▪ Access to services, facilities etc and public transport
Secondary migration within concentration driven by housing factors
Other suburbs outside concentrations: Pull factors: ▪ Cheaper accommodation ▪ Bigger houses ▪ More vacancies
Obstacles finding accommodation in secondary moves due to: ▪ Rental price increase ▪ Large household size ▪ Tight housing market – increased competition ▪ Difficulties in private rental market ▪ Difficulties obtaining public housing
Main push factors of secondary migration from other areas: ▪ Cost of accommodation ▪ Distance to networks
Secondary migration within concentration driven by housing factors
Figure 6.3 Diagrammatic representation of relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the Burundian, Ethiopian, Congolese, Liberian, Rwandan and Sierra Leonean communities
169
Communities were able to regroup in the past, for example, a large proportion of the Burundian community has regrouped in the suburb of Woodridge (Section 6.3.3). Burnley (1982) found a similar regrouping of other ethnic minority communities in the outer suburbs of Sydney. Participants reported that larger houses, more affordable rent and cost of living, reliable public transport and access to services and facilities were key pull factors drawing households to the Logan/Woodridge concentration. The area has not been immune to changes in the housing market, however, and participants reported that it has become increasingly difficult to find accommodation in the Logan/Woodridge area because of a shortage of rental housing and an increase in rental prices. Some of the communities appear to be regrouping in other areas, for example, Liberians have moved from the Moorooka residential concentration to the emerging concentration in the suburbs of Acacia Ridge, Durack, Inala and Wacol (Figures 5.10 & 6.2).
Households from some communities are dispersing more widely to find accommodation, however, often into suburbs with few, if any, members of their own networks. For example, a participant provided an anecdotal report of a community member who had looked for a house in Woodridge for six months before she finally accepted a house in another suburb. There were no other Africans in her new suburb and she reportedly felt very isolated. This forced dispersal of the communities is particularly significant given that participants rely on their social and ethnic networks to overcome settlement difficulties.
170
As previously discussed, the Somali and Sudanese communities‘ distribution and secondary migration patterns differ from that of the other case study communities (Sections 6.4.2 & 6.5.1.1), both of which are illustrated below.
Although the Somali participants reported the same housing difficulties as participants from the other case study communities, Somali secondary migration occurs within the existing residential concentration to maintain close proximity to ethnic and religious networks. Figure 6.4 builds on the conceptual model outlined in Figure 2.4, showing the general relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the Somali community in Southeast Queensland.
Main push factors of secondary migration into concentration: ▪ Distance to networks
Holland Park, Kuraby area Main pull factors of secondary migration into area: ▪ Proximity to networks (social, ethnic and religious)
Secondary migration within concentration driven by housing factors
Obstacles finding accommodation in secondary moves due to: ▪ Rental price increase ▪ Large households size ▪ Tight housing market – increased competition ▪ Difficulties in private rental market ▪ Difficulties obtaining public housing
Figure 6.4 Diagrammatic representation of relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the Somali community
171
More Sudanese participants moved further afield to find appropriate and affordable accommodation than participants from any of the other case study communities (Figure 6.5). For example, Sudanese participants reported that community members had moved as far away as Ipswich, the Gold Coast and Caboolture, reflecting the relatively larger size of the community and clearly defined ethnic group divisions within the wider Sudanese community in Southeast Queensland. Again, Figure 6.5 refines the conceptual model outlined in Figure 2.4 by presenting a diagrammatic representation of the general relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the Sudanese community in Southeast Queensland.
Main push factors of secondary migration from residential concentrations: ▪ Cost of accommodation ▪ Size of accommodation/ overcrowding
Various residential concentrations based on ethnic groups Main pull factors of secondary migration into concentrations: ▪ Social and ethnic networks
Suburbs outside concentrations (including Ipswich, Gold Coast and Caboolture): Pull factors: ▪ Cheaper accommodation ▪ Bigger houses ▪ More vacancies
Obstacles finding accommodation in secondary moves due to: ▪ Rental price increase ▪ Large household size ▪ Tight housing market – increased competition ▪ Difficulties in private rental market ▪ Difficulties obtaining public housing
Main push factors of secondary migration into residential concentrations: ▪ Distance to networks
Figure 6.5 Diagrammatic representation of relationship between housing, distribution and secondary migration in the Sudanese community
172
Figures 6.2 to 6.4 highlight three important points: the case study communities are not homogenous in terms of residential distribution, although similarities are apparent in most of the communities; in general, social cohesion was the major pull factor and housing was the key push factor in secondary migration in all case study communities; the private rental market poses a significant obstacle to the preferred settlement option of residential concentration in all case study communities. The influences of employment as a factor in secondary migration is unclear, as this trend began towards the end of the fieldwork period of the research.
6.7. Lack of engagement with services: Policy implications Importantly, participants were found to have a general lack of engagement with structured support services, relying instead on their own networks for assistance and support. As previously discussed, this creates both an advantage for the communities in terms of social capital and a problem in terms of service provision.
Using models to locate services in the geographic areas in which African refugees are located, as Beer and Foley (2005, p.3) and Wong (1995, p.63) suggest, may not be the best option for delivering services to African refugee communities. Despite the exigencies that are driving residential dispersion, participants repeatedly referred to Moorooka as a site to which they regularly returned to socialise, shop, conduct business and meet with family and friends. A policy suggestion, therefore, is to locate service hubs in these key areas with which African refugees identify. Results also demonstrate that policy and service delivery models, which are imposed upon African refugee communities, are less likely to foster community cooperation than grassroots approaches. It is, therefore, crucial that the communities are consulted and that each community‘s own agency and social capital is used to develop any new service model.
173
6.8. Chapter summary There were significant difficulties establishing the settlement patterns of the eight case study communities using existing secondary data sources. This research makes important contributions to knowledge by recognising the data anomalies, proposing a new demographic data collection technique and identifying the evolving geographies of the case study communities in Southeast Queensland. Social cohesion is the underlying factor in concentrating communities, while housing is a strong countervailing force dispersing communities. The resulting landscape features are the development of residential concentrations in Brisbane‘s outer suburbs as some communities regroup in secondary migration. For other communities, housing pressures outweigh the preference for residential concentration, forcing households to disperse more widely away from their important networks. It is to these networks, however, that African refugees turn for housing and settlement support, instead of the many structured support services that are available to them. A policy suggestion to overcome this lack of engagement is the implementation of service hubs in areas that African refugees already frequent, instead of targeting the geographical areas in which community members are located.
174
Chapter 7 Conclusion 7.1. Introduction This research addressed a gap in the settlement geography of eight African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. The study identified large discrepancies between existing secondary data sources and the communities‘ own knowledge of population size and geographical distribution, resulting in the proposal of an alternative model for collecting demographic data from the case study communities. The research also identified socio-cultural and housing/economic factors driving secondary migration in the communities and found a tension between these two opposing forces. This chapter highlights key research findings, outlines the recommendations based on these findings and makes suggestions for future research.
7.2. Key findings 7.2.1. Departure from traditional data source The original intention of using Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census data to address the first research aim of identifying and describing the distribution of the case study communities in Southeast Queensland was discounted because of a number of identified limitations (Section 4.2.1). The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) Settlement Database (SDB) was selected instead as the main secondary data source for the research because it provided a more comprehensive dataset of the case study communities. Utilising data from the SDB was a significant deviation from previous research on ethnic residential distribution and is an important methodological feature of the research.
7.2.2. Population size and distribution discrepancies There has been no previous attempt to verify existing data sources of African refugee population size and distribution in Southeast Queensland. An original contribution of this study is the creation of a set of maps representing the participants‘ knowledge of population size and distribution of their community in Southeast Queensland. This original set of maps allowed for a comparison of the community data against mapped
175
data from the SDB. The comparison revealed significant discrepancies between the SDB data and the participants‘ estimates of population size and noteworthy differences in geographic distribution. These inconsistencies are a major finding of this research as they highlight the inadequacy of existing data collection techniques and the need for a more effective system of demographic data collection in African refugee communities. Some speculative explanations were offered for these large discrepancies (Section 6.3.2), however the community leaders confirmed that current ‗top-down‘ approaches to gathering demographic data from African community members are, in their opinion, inappropriate and inadequate and the most likely cause of the under-enumeration of the communities.
7.2.3. Proposed demographic data collection model Another key contribution of this research is the proposed demographic datagathering model (Figure 6.1) that uses a community-based approach to capture this fundamental information from community members. The outline of the model is based on a successful community census undertaken by the Burundian Association of Queensland executive committee in 2007, specifically to answer the questions of population size and distribution of that community for this research. The data discrepancies prompted the leaders to recognise problems with current means of demographic data collection in their communities. The leaders supported the proposed, grassroots model. They also agreed that the outcome (that is, community knowledge maps) was beneficial for their own development work within their communities. They anticipated that the maps would benefit groups that work with African refugees as well. The maps have, indeed, generated wider interest from organisations such as the Brisbane City Council, the Queensland Department of Housing, Multicultural Affairs Queensland, Multicultural Development Association (MDA), Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland (ECCQ), Queensland African Communities Council (QACC), Assisting Collaborative Community Employment Support (ACCES) and the Agencies Supporting the Housing of Refugees, Asylum seekers and Migrants (ASHRAM) network.
176
7.2.4. Evolving geographies of African refugee settlement in Southeast Queensland This research makes an important contribution to the broader literature of refugee secondary migration by representing the dynamic relationship between secondary migration and residential distribution (Figures 6.3 to 6.5), the key points of which are summarised below.
7.2.4.1. Preferred settlement pattern: Social and ethnic networks as forces of concentration Overall, residential concentration, underpinned by social cohesion, was the preferred settlement pattern in the case study communities, highlighting the importance of bonding social capital in refugee resettlement. This result is similar to that found in much previous research (for example, Danso, 2002a; During, 2006; Hardwick, 2003; Hume & Hardwick, 2005; Koser, 1997; Simich, 2003; Simich, Beiser & Mawani, 2002; Simich et al., 2005). Access to networks was more important to women from the communities, many of whom relied on assistance and support from family and co-ethnics for their day-to-day existence. Although a gender bias was evident, this is an important result because it reflects the realities of these women‘s settlement experiences and provides a voice to women who might not otherwise have been heard (de Lepervanche, 1984). The result of this forced dispersion from these areas of concentration and social support is probable isolation and a possible undermining of successful settlement and longer-term integration in Australian society for African refugee women in particular.
7.2.4.2. Key residential concentrations: Moorooka/Annerley and Logan/Woodridge Aggregated data from community knowledge maps show that the largest concentrations of African refugees in Southeast Queensland were in Brisbane‘s southern suburbs of Woodridge and Logan, Moorooka and Annerley, and Mt Gravatt (Figure 6.2). A significant finding of the research was the importance of Moorooka to participants from all case study communities, primarily because of the suburb‘s distinct African cultural landscape and large African population. For the Liberian and Sierra Leonean communities, Moorooka was the area of largest residential concentration. The Burundian, Congolese, Ethiopian, Somali and Sudanese
177
communities also had a large proportion of their community in the Moorooka concentration. This result appears to contradict Putnam‘s (2007) suggestion that diversity leads to heightened intra- and inter-racial distrust resulting in isolation of group members (p.149). All case study communities were represented in the Logan/Woodridge residential concentration. For participants from the Burundian, Congolese, Ethiopian and Rwandan communities, this was the area of largest concentration.
7.2.4.3. Role of secondary migration in development of the Logan/Woodridge concentration The large concentration of African refugees in the Logan/Woodridge area is a significant result given that only a relatively small proportion of Humanitarian Program entrants were settled in Logan City between 2002 and 2007 (Section 6.4.1), roughly consistent with the peak period of African refugee intake to Australia (DIAC, 2007b, p.24) (Section 3.3). More affordable accommodation, reliable public transport networks and the growing African presence in these suburbs were significant factors drawing African households to the area. This result highlights the important role that secondary migration has played in the growth of the Logan/Woodridge concentration.
7.2.4.4. Exceptions to the general patterns of distribution: Somali and Sudanese communities The two exceptions to the general pattern of distribution of the case study communities were found in the Somali and the Sudanese communities. The Somali community was the largest group represented in the Mt Gravatt residential concentration. This concentration of Somali households developed around the Holland Park and Kuraby mosques in which the community worships. Religious networks appear to be more important to the Somali participants than they were to participants from any other community. The Somali residential concentration is likely to continue because households move within the residential concentration to remain close to the mosques and to other community members, despite experiencing the same housing issues as the other case study communities.
178
The Sudanese community was the largest of the case study communities and was more dispersed than the other communities. It was not possible to gather settlement information that would be reasonably accurate from Sudanese focus group participants because of the size of the community, except to identify the main concentrations of Sudanese in Southeast Queensland.
7.2.4.5. Housing: A key force of dispersion Housing was a key force of dispersion in the case study communities that undermines the participants‘ preferred settlement pattern of residential concentration. Inadequate on-arrival housing assistance and a lack of preparation for the private rental system were the main contributing factors. The housing model adopted by the Metropolitan Association Towards Community Housing (MATCH), the organisation responsible for providing Convention refugees with on-arrival accommodation in the Brisbane area, was not providing the longer-term accommodation options which MATCH had expected (Section 2.4.2). This was primarily because of discrimination by landlords who do not want to deal directly with the refugees once their initial six month head-lease with MATCH has expired (K Benson, Director Multicultural Development Association, pers. comm., 3 August 2009).
The MATCH model was also inadvertently dispersing communities because the organisation does not always settled refugees close to existing residential concentrations. These failings of the MATCH on-arrival model are important findings of this research. Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) entrants, who have similar pre-settlement experiences and settlement needs to Convention refugees, do not receive any housing assistance through the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS) and, therefore, are even more disadvantaged than Convention refugees in these crucial early stages of settlement (Section 2.7.2.2). Public housing was participants‘ most preferred housing option because it is cheaper and more secure than private rental housing, a result consistent with findings of Beer and Foley (2003; 2005) and the Migrant Information Centre and South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre (2007). A critical shortage of public housing stock in Queensland and long waiting lists, for which refugees do not automatically get
179
priority status, have thrust most into the private rental market. Here the cost of housing and overcrowding were the main drivers of secondary migration, again supporting a large body of research on refugees in Australia (for example, Beer & Foley, 2003, 2005; Department of Community Services in the Community Relations Commission of New South Wales (CRC), 2006; Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007).
The low rate of full employment in African refugee communities in general (Atem & Wilson, 2008, p.8; Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006, p.222; Cox, Cooper & Adepoju, 1999, p.37), and in the case study communities specifically, contributes to the difficulties of coping with rising rental prices. In addition, African households are generally large and big houses are often unaffordable to these households and difficult to find. Participants also had significant difficulties with other aspects of private rental accommodation, which added to the already substantial challenges of finding secure, appropriate and affordable housing. These findings, relating to the participants‘ significant struggle with housing, are an important contribution to the knowledge of the case study communities and add to the larger body of refugee housing in general.
7.2.4.6. Lack of engagement with structured settlement support Previous literature identifies African refugees in need of high levels of settlement support (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in CRC, 2006, p.23). Elsewhere, settlement services have been suggested as important for providing this support to help refugees with settlement and longer-term integration into Australian society (Ferguson, 2009; Perrin & Dunn, 2007). A major finding of the present research is that there appears to be a tendency for research participants not to use available services, instead preferring to seek assistance and support from their own networks. Beer and Foley (2005) and Colic-Peisker and Tilbury (2003) found a similar pattern in access to service providers by refugees in their study. In the present research, this was evident by the participants‘ lack of engagement with the large number of groups that provide housing assistance and advocacy support in Southeast Queensland, despite the considerable difficulties that they reported in the Australian housing market. Additional supporting evidence is participants‘ explicit statements
180
of preference for turning to members of their own community in times of need. Households that are forced to disperse away from these important networks of support and assistance are likely to face heightened levels of isolation and greater difficulties with settlement and longer-term integration. What does this lack of engagement mean for service providers and decision makers?
7.2.4.7. Alternative model of service provision A possible solution to answer this question is to consider moving away from models of service provision that are based on the population size within a geographical area. One suggestion is to locate services in central hubs within key residential concentrations, such as Moorooka. It is imperative to include community members in the planning and development of these service hubs and in delivery of the services. An adjunct suggestion is to acknowledge and encourage the communities‘ own agency in settlement, as suggested by Colic-Peisker and Tilbury (2003). This, however, requires propinquity and underscores the critical need to support the participants‘ own settlement choice of residential concentration.
7.2.4.8. Communities regrouping in emerging residential concentrations: A sustainable solution to counter forces of dispersion? A key contribution of the research is that aggregated data from community knowledge maps show an emerging residential concentration in Brisbane‘s southwestern suburbs of Acacia Ridge, Durack and Inala (Figure 6.2) as households from some of the communities have been able to regroup in secondary migration. This is an important result supporting the major finding of the study that networks are the strongest force of residential concentration in the case study communities. Rental price increases and low rental stock are also affecting the suburbs in the areas of the emerging concentrations, thus forcing households to look for accommodation further away, often in suburbs in which no other members of their networks live. A possible hypothesis is that new emerging residential concentrations will develop as communities regroup elsewhere. This, however, is unlikely due to the constraints posed by the current housing market and demonstrated by participants‘ reports of dispersed and isolated households.
181
7.2.4.9. Emerging role of employment in secondary migration At the time of the fieldwork, participants from all eight case study communities did not consider employment an important reason to move. This is a significant and unexpected result given that a large body of previous research (for example, Beer & Foley, 2005; CRC, 2006; Glavac & Childs, 1993; Jupp, 1994; Shandy, 2007; Shepley, 2008; Ugbe, 2006) found employment to be one of the key factors underpinning secondary migration in other refugee groups. Employment emerged as a factor driving secondary migration at the end of the fieldwork as the impact of the global financial crisis filtered down to the communities Southeast Queensland. Further analysis of how the global market and deteriorating local economy was affecting the settlement geography of the case study communities was not possible at this late stage in the research.
7.3. Recommendations Importantly, the present research borrowed elements from a participatory research approach by asking community leaders to contribute to the development of the following recommendations based on the research findings. This aspect of the research was critical to ensure that the recommendations are culturally appropriate, beneficial to, and supported by, the case study communities. The recommendations are based on five key areas: demographic data collection; settlement service provision; on-arrival, public and private housing; location of new arrivals; and support systems for African refugee women.
Recommendation 1 Implement a data collection approach to capture important demographic data from African refugee communities. The model, presented in Figure 6.1, utilises a participatory, community-based approach to data collection. The model provides the refugee communities with ownership of the data collection process and the collected data. The data will assist organisations to plan, budget and deliver more efficient and effective services to African refugee communities. The data will also assist the ethnic associations with their own community development work.
182
Recommendation 2 Incorporate the community-based data collection model (Figure 6.1) into the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) national census to address the underenumeration of African refugees in census data.
Recommendation 3 Develop service hubs in key areas of residential concentration, for example in the suburb of Moorooka, instead of targeting the geographical area in which African refugee communities are located. Further research, using a Participatory Action Research approach, is needed to assess the feasibility of this service model and the geographic areas in which they might be located. Extensive community consultations and involvement in all aspects of this service model are critical to its success.
Recommendation 4 Expand on-arrival housing assistance to all humanitarian entrants, including sponsored SHP entrants.
Recommendation 5 Extend the period of on-arrival housing assistance beyond the current six months (for example, Hayward and Burgett‘s (2008) sliding scale based on refugees‘ communication and life skills (p.6).
Recommendation 6 Settle new refugee arrivals close to existing ethnic concentrations to minimise the potential of secondary migration (Section 6.5.2.1).
Recommendation 7 Address difficulties that African refugees encounter in the social housing system particularly with regard to long waiting periods and the provision of inappropriate housing.
Recommendation 8 Prioritise refugee households on the One Social Housing social housing waiting list.
183
Recommendation 9 Supply new refugee arrivals with information regarding the status of the public housing waiting list for each suburb in Queensland. This information will enable these households to make an informed decision before completing their public housing application form (Section 6.5.2.3).
Recommendation 10 Assist African refugees in the private housing market through sustainable funding to housing advocacy and assistance groups.
Recommendation 11 Provide more assistance and education to empower African refugees in the Australian housing market (both private and social housing options), including extensive community-based education programs delivered by trained community members.
Recommendation 12 Develop support programs for African refugee women who are forced to move away from areas of residential concentration.
7.4. Areas of future research
There is a need for a longitudinal study to monitor the settlement geography of the case study communities using the demographic data collection model proposed in this study (Figure 6.1). An additional area of future research is to compare the settlement geography of Convention refugees and SHP entrants from each of the case study communities and identify the likely impacts of these differences on their settlement outcomes. A need exists to evaluate current service delivery models in the case study communities and assess the effectiveness of locating service hubs in areas of high residential concentration. An exercise of mapping networks within African communities would assist in establishing the key areas in which to locate the service hubs. It is also imperative to map African refugee women‘s support networks and to investigate ways to support these important links. An analysis and critique of on-
184
arrival housing models in countries with formal refugee resettlement programs would assist in the formulation of an Australian best practise model to assist newly-arrived humanitarian entrants. Another possible area of future research is to examine interand intra-group relations in areas of high residential concentration, such as Moorooka. An interesting area of future research would be to appraise the impact of global scale economic forces on local scale African refugee geographical distribution and secondary migration patterns.
185
186
References Abu-Laban, B., Derwing, T., Krahn, H., Mulder, M. and Wilkinson, L. 1999, The settlement experiences of refugees in Alberta, Prairie Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Integration and Population Research Laboratory, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 30 November 2006, Last updated on 15 November 1999. Adhikari, P. 1999, 'Are there migrant enclaves in Australia? A search for the evidence.' Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol.34, no.3, pp.191-208. African Research Institute 2004, Annual report for 2004, La Trobe University, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 16 April 2006. African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific (AFSAAP) 2009, Habari kwa Ufupi: News in brief, no.8, September. African Think Tank 2007, 'Conference Program', African Resettlement in Australia Conference, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 11-13 April 2007. African Union (AU) 2003, The development of the diaspora initiative within the framework of the OAU/AU, Executive Council, African Union, Sun City, South Africa, 21-25 May. Agencies Supporting Housing for Refugees Asylum Seekers and Migrants (ASHRAM) 2005a, ASHRAM 2005 directory: A guide to housing, advocacy and support for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in the greater Brisbane area, Queensland Shelter, Brisbane, July. Agencies Supporting Housing for Refugees Asylum Seekers and Migrants (ASHRAM) 2005b, Call for housing action community summit and directory launch, Queensland Shelter, Brisbane, 17 October. __________ 2007, Draft position paper: The case for ongoing delivery of tenancy education and advice to ethnic communities, Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland and Queensland Shelter, Brisbane, November. Ager, A. and Strang, A. 2008, 'Understanding integration: A conceptual framework', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol.21, no.2, pp.166-191. Andrews, K. 2007, Priorities of Australia's refugee and humanitarian intake for 2007-08, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, 18 August 2007, Media Release. Arango, J. 2004, 'Theories of international migration', in D. Joly (ed.), International migration in the new millennium: Global movement and settlement, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, UK, pp.15-35.
187
Aristotle, P. 2007, 'Plenary session', African Resettlement in African Conference, Melbourne University, Melbourne, 13 April 2007. Atem, P. and Wilson, L. 2008, 'Housing pathways for African refugees in Australia: Towards an understanding of African housing issues', Australian Sociological Association conference, The University of Melbourne, 2-5 December. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2007a, 2914.0 - 2006 Census of Population and Housing - Fact Sheets, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 31 July 2008, Last updated on 9 November 2007. __________ 2007b, Cat. No.2068.0 - 2006 Census Tables 2006 Census of Population and Housing Queensland (State). Country of birth of person (full classification list). Count of persons (excludes overseas visitors). Based on place of usual residence, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 31 July 2008, Last updated on 8 February 2008. _________ 2007c, Cat. No.2068.0 - 2006 Census Tables, 2006 Census of Population and Housing Queensland (State). Ancestry (full classification list) by sex. Count of responses based on place of usual residence, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 20 July 2008, Last updated on 8 February 2008. __________ 2007d, Labour force status and other characteristics of recent migrants, November. Australian Government 2008, Housing affordability fund: Consultation paper, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra, June.
188
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) 2006, Research Agenda 2007, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 20 August 2007. Baker, E. 2002, Public housing tenant relocation: Residential mobility, satisfaction, and the development of a tenant's spatial decision support system, Unpublished PhD, Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide. Bartel, A. P. 1989, 'Where do the new U.S. immigrants live?' Journal of Labor Economics, vol.7, no.4, pp. 371-391. Bartlett, A. 2009, 'Culturally and linguistically diverse communities', Making sense of the big picture: Pathways to affordable housing in Queensland, Brisbane, 26-27 February. Basch, L., Glick-Schiller, N. and Blanc, C. S. 1994, Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments and deterritorialized nation-states, Gordon and Breach Publishers, Luxembourg. Batrouney, T. 1991, Selected African communities in Melbourne: Their characteristics and settlement needs, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Beer, A. and Foley, P. 2003, Housing need and provision for recently arrived refugees in Australia, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, October, Final Report. __________ 2005, 'Housing need and provision for recently arrived refugees in Australia', AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, no.58, (August). Beer, A. and Morphett, S. 2002, 'The role of housing and other services in successful settlement of new arrivals to Australia', AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, no.14, November. Belanger, A. and Rogers, A. 1992, 'The internal migration and spatial redistribution of the foreign-born population in the United States: 1965-70 and 1975-80', International Migration Review, vol.26, no.4, pp.1342-1369. Benson, K. 2009, Meeting with Director Multicultural Development Association, MDA offices South Brisbane, 3 August. Bilodeau, A. 2009, 'Residential segregation and the electoral participation of immigrants in Australia', International Migration Review, vol.43, no.1, pp.134-159. Birrell, R. 1990, The chains that bind: Family reunion migration to Australia in the 1980s, AGPS, Canberra.
189
Black, R. 1991, 'Refugees and displaced persons: Geographical perspectives and research directions', Progress in Human Geography, vol.15, no.3, pp.281298. __________ 1993, 'Geography and refugees: current issues' in R. Black and V. Robinson (eds.), Geography and refugees: Patterns and processed of change, Belhaven Press, London, pp.3-13. Blackeney, M. 1985, Australia and the Jewish refugees 1933-1948, Croom Helm Australia, Sydney. Blainey, G. 1988, 'Australia must break down the walls of the ghettos', The Weekend Australian, 12–13 March, p.18. __________ 1993, 'A critique of Indo-Chinese in Australia: The issues of unemployment and residential concentration', BIPR Bulletin, vol.9, pp.42-45. __________ 1994, 'Melting pot on the boil', The Bulletin, August 30, Bloch, A. 1999, 'Carrying out a survey of refugees: Some methodological considerations and guidelines', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol.12, no.4, pp.367-383. Boal, F. W. 1999, 'From undivided cities to undivided cities: Assimilation to ethnic cleansing', Housing Studies, vol.14, no.5, pp.585-600. Bradshaw, M. and Stratford, E. 2000, 'Qualitative research design and rigour' in I. Hay (ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp.37-49. Bråmå, Å. 2008, 'Dynamics of ethnic residential segregation in Göteborg, Sweden, 1995-2000', Population, Space and Place, vol.14, no.2, pp.101-117. Braziel, J. E. and Mannur, A. (eds.) 2003, Theorizing Diaspora, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, USA. Brettell, C. B. and Hollifield, J. F. (eds.) 2000, Migration theory: Talking across disciplines, Routledge, New York. Brisbane Actionweb for Refugee Collaboration (BARC!) n/d, BARC! website, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 21 August 2006. Brough, M., Gorman, D., Ramirez, E. and Westoby, P. 2003, 'Young refugees talk about well-being', Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol.38, no.2, pp.193208. Browne, P. 2006, The longest journey: Resettling refugees from Africa, Browne, P. and Thomas, J., Briefings, The University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney.
190
Burnley, I. H. 1982, Population, Society and Environment in Australia: A Spatial and Temporal View, Shillington House, Melbourne. __________ 1989, 'Settlement dimensions of the Vietnamese-born population in metropolitan Sydney', Australian Geographical Studies, vol.27, no.2, pp.129154. __________ 1998, 'Immigrant city, global city? Advantage and disadvantage among communities from Asia in Sydney', Australian Geographer, vol.29, no.1, pp.49-70. __________ 2005, 'Generations, mobility and community: Geographies of three generations of Greek and Italian ancestry in Sydney', Geographical Research, vol.43, no.4, pp.379-392. Burnley, I. H. and Hiebert, D. 2001, 'Emerging patterns of immigrants at the metropolitan scale', Progress in Planning, vol.55, pp.127-140. Cameron, J. 2000, 'Focusing on the focus group' in I. Hay (ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp.83102. __________ 2005, 'Focusing on the focus group' in I. Hay (ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp.pp.116-132. Carr, P. 2009, 'Sustainable tenancies', Making sense of the big picture: Pathways to affordable housing in Queensland, Brisbane, 26-27 February. Carrington, K., McIntosh, A. and Walmsley, J. 2007, The social costs and benefits of migration in Australia, Centre for Applied Research in Social Science, The University of New England, Armidale. Castles, S., Foster, W., Iredale, R. and Withers, G. 1998, Immigration and Australia, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, Australia. Castles, S. and Loughna, S. 2004, 'Globalization, migration and asylum' in V. George and R. M. Page (eds.), Global social problems, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp.177-199. Castles, S. and Miller, M. J. 1993, The age of migration, Macmillan Press, London. __________ 2003, The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world, 3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Chiswick, B. R. and Miller, P. W. 2005, 'Do enclaves matter in immigrant adjustment?' City and Community, vol.4, no.1, pp.5-35.
191
Chiu, M. L. and Phan, M. B. 2005, 'Ethnic enclave reconfiguration: A 'new' Chinatown in the making', GeoJournal, vol.64, no.1, pp.17-30. Clark, W. A. V. 2008, 'Geography, space, and science: Perspectives from studies of migration and geographical sorting', Geographical Analysis, vol.40, no.3, pp.258-275. Clark, W. A. V. and Dieleman, F. M. 1996, Households and housing: Choice and outcomes in the housing market, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Centre for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick. Clark, W. A. V. and Onaka, J. L. 1983, 'Life cycle and housing adjustment as explanation of residential mobility', Urban Studies, vol.20, pp.47-57. Cochran, J. 2006, Meeting with Co-ordinator Integrated Humanitarian Strategy, Multicultural Development Association, MDA offices Stones Corner, 24 July. Cohen, R. (ed.) 1996, Theories of migration, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK. Colic-Peisker, V. and Tilbury, F. 2003, '"Active" and "passive" resettlement: The influence on support services and refugees' own resources on resettlement style', International Migration, vol.41, no.5, pp.61-91. __________ 2006, 'Employment niches for recent refugees: Segmented labour market in twenty-first century Australia', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol.19, no.2, pp.203-229. Community Relations Commission of New South Wales (CRC) 2006, Investigation into African humanitarian settlement in NSW, Community Relations Commission, Sydney, June. Cooper, M. 2006, Gimme shelter! Getting serious about private development of affordable housing in Australia, Baker, M (ed.), urbisJHD, Sydney. Cope, M. 2005, 'Coding qualitative data' in I. Hay (ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp.223-233. Cottrell, A. 2008, 'Understanding communities: Why locality remains important for bushfire mitigation, response and recovery', Institute of Australian Geographers Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 30 June. Cox, D., Cooper, B. and Adepoju, M. 1999, The settlement of Black Africans in Australia, Department of Social Work and Social Policy, Latrobe University, Melbourne. Creese, G. and Dowling, R. 2001, 'Gendering immigration: The experience of women', Progress in Planning, vol.55, pp.153-162.
192
Crock, M., Saul, B. and Dastyari, A. 2006, Future seekers II, The Federation Press, Sydney. Dalglish, C. 1989, Refugees from Vietnam, Macmillan Press, London. Danso, R. K. 2002a, Ethnic community networks, public policy, and the resettlement of Ethiopian and Somali refugees in Toronto, Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Queen's University at Kingston, Canada. __________ 2002b, 'From ‗there‘ to ‗here‘: An investigation of the initial settlement experiences of Ethiopian and Somali refugees in Toronto', GeoJournal, vol.56, no.1, pp.3-14. Davies, S. E. 2008, 'Redundant or essential? How politics shaped the outcome of the 1967 Protocol', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol.19, no.4, pp.703728. de Lepervanche, M. 1984, 'Immigrants and ethnic groups' in S. Encel and L. Bryson (eds.), Australian society: Sociological essays, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, pp.170-228. Department of Communities 2008, New futures: The Queensland Government's engagement with African refugees, Queensland Government, Brisbane, August. Department of Housing 2005, Paving the way: housing people in need in the Smart State, Queensland Government, Brisbane, October. Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) 2007a, Fact sheet 60. Australia's refugee and humanitarian programme., [Online], Available: , Accessed on 8 August 2007, Last updated on 5 March. __________ 2007b, Queensland settlement trends and needs of new arrivals 2007, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Canberra. __________ 2007c, Settlement Database data, Database received by email from N Burridge, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 27 February. __________ 2008, Fact sheet 60. Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Program, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 7 October 2008, Last updated on 25 August 2008. __________ 2009, Refugee and humanitarian issues: Australia's response, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, June.
193
__________ n/d-a, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 19 October 2007. __________ n/d-b, Settlement reports, E-Business Systems, [Website], Available: . Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) 2006a, Congolese community profile, DIMA, Canberra, August. __________ 2006b, Fact sheet 97. Humanitarian settlement in regional Australia., [Online], Available: , Accessed on 27 November 2006, Last updated on 22 June 2006. __________ 2006c, Queensland demographic trends in humanitarian arrivals 2006, DIMA, Canberra, August. __________ 2006d, Settlement needs of new arrivals 2006, DIMA, Canberra, August.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) 2003a, A current policy: Multicultural Australia, united in diversity, DIMIA, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 19 December 2006, Last updated on May 2003. __________ 2003b, Report of the review of settlement services for migrants and humanitarian entrants, DIMIA, Canberra, May. __________ 2005a, Fact Sheet 60. Australia's refugee and humanitarian program, Public Affairs Section, DIMIA, Canberra, 26 August. __________ 2005b, Refugee and humanitarian issues: Australia's response, DIMIA, Canberra, June. Dieleman, F. M. 2001, 'Modelling residential mobility: A review of recent trends in research', Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol.16, no.3, pp.249-265. Dorigo, G. and Tobler, W. 1983, 'Push-pull migration laws', Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol.73, no.1, pp.1-17. Drever, A. I. and Hoffmeister, O. 2008, 'Immigrants and social networks in a jobscarce environment: The case of Germany', International Migration Review, vol.42, no.2, pp.425-448. Dunn, K. M. 1993, 'The Vietnamese concentration in Cabramatta: Site of avoidance and deprivation, or island of adjustment and participation?' Australian Geographical Studies, vol.31, no.2, pp.228-245.
194
__________ 1998, 'Rethinking ethnic concentration: The case of Cabramatta, Sydney.' Urban Studies, vol.35, no.3, pp.503-527. __________ 2008, 'Guest editorial -- Comparative analyses of transnationalism: a geographic contribution to the field', Australian Geographer, vol.39, no.1, pp.1-7. Dunn, K. M. and Ip, D. 2008, 'Putting transnationalism in context: Comparing HongKong Chinese-Australians in Sydney and Brisbane', Australian Geographer, vol.39, no.1, pp.81-98. Durham, P. J. 1999, 'Exile, nomadism and diaspora: The stakes of mobility in the Western cannon' in H. S. Naficy (ed.), Home, exile, homeland: Film, media and the politics of place, Routledge, London, pp.17-44. During, E. C. 2006, Transitional lives: Sierra Leone immigrants and refugees in metropolitan New York, Unpublished PhD thesis, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York. Ellis, M. and Goodwin-White, J. 2006, '1.5 Generation internal migration in the U.S.: Dispersion from states of immigration?' International Migration Review, vol.40, no.4, pp.899-926. Ellis, M., Wright, R. and Parks, V. 2004, 'Work together, live apart? Geographies of racial and ethnic segregation at home and at work', Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol.94, no.3, pp.620-637. Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland (ECCQ) n/d, Stronger tenancies: A research project to document effective practices and models in providing tenancy information, advocacy and advice to new and emerging communities (information flyer provided at the Queensland Shelter conference, 26/02/09, Brisbane), Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland, Brisbane. Evans, C. 2008, Australia balances refugee priorities, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Canberra, 20 June 2008, Media Release. Fang, D. and Brown, D. 1999, 'Geographic mobility of the foreign-born Chinese in large metropolises, 1985-1990', The International Migration Review, vol.33, no.1, (Spring), pp.137-155. Ferguson, L. 2009, Parliamentary secretary announcement of the Strategic Settlement Framework, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 8 October 2009, Last updated on 28 September 2009. Finck, J. 1986, 'Secondary migration to California's Central Valley' in G. L. Hendricks, B. T. Downing and A. S. Deinard (eds.), The Hmong in transition, Centre for Migration Studies, Staten Island, USA.
195
Foley, P. and Beer, A. 2003, Housing need and provision for recently arrived refugees in Australia, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, April, Positioning Paper. Forbes, S. 1984, Residency patterns and secondary migration of refugees: A state of the information paper, Refugee Policy Group, Washington DC. Gale, R. 2007, 'The place of Islam in the geography of religion: Trends and intersections', Geography Compass, vol.1, no.5, pp.1015-1036. Gilroy, P. 1993, The black Atlantic: Modernity and double consciousness, Verso, London. Glavac, S. M. and Childs, I. R. W. 1993, 'Vietnamese settlement patterns in Brisbane: The role of chain migration', Queensland Geographic Journal, vol.8, pp.23-36. Glavac, S. M. and Waldorf, B. 1998, 'Segregation and residential mobility of Vietnamese immigrants in Brisbane, Australia', The Professional Geographer, vol.50, no.3, pp.344-357. Goodchild, M. F. and Janelle, D. G. (eds.) 2004, Spatially integrated social science, Oxford University Press, New York. Gordon, M. M. 1964, Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins, Oxford University Press, New York. Greenwood, M. J. 1985, 'Human migration: Theory, models, and empirical studies', Journal of Regional Science, vol.25, no.4, pp.521-543. Greenwood, M. J. and Hunt, G. L. 2003, 'The early history of migration research', International Regional Science Review, vol.26, no.1, pp.3-37. Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M. J. and Whatmore, S. (eds.) 2009, The dictionary of human geography, 5th edition, Wiley-Blackwell, Southgate, UK. Grimes, A., Kerr, S., Aitken, A. and Sourell, R. 2006, 'The housing fulcrum: balancing economic and social factors in housing research and policy', Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, vol.1, pp.65-79. Gurak, D. T. and Kritz, M. M. 2000, 'The interstate migration of U.S. immigrants: Individual and contextual determinants', Social Forces, vol.78, no.3, pp.10171040. Hardwick, S. W. 2003, 'Migration, embedded networks and social capital: Towards theorising north American ethnic geography', International Journal of Population Geography, vol.9, pp.163-179.
196
__________ 2005, 'The Ties that Bind: Transnational Migrant Networks at the Canadian-US Borderland', American Review of Canadian Studies, vol.35, no.4, pp.667-682. Hardwick, S. W. and Meacham, J. E. 2005, 'Heterolocalism, Networks of Ethnicity, and Refugee Communities in the Pacific Northwest: The Portland Story.' Professional Geographer, vol.57, no.4, (November), pp.539-557. Hartshorn, T. A. 1992, Interpreting the city: An urban geography, 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Hay, I. (ed.) 2005, Qualitative research methods in human geography, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Hayward, J. and Burgett, M. 2008, Refugee and migrant housing project report: Report of multicultural focus groups facilitated by Near North Housing Services, Inc., Near North Housing Services, Inc., Brisbane. Hou, F. 2005, The initial destination and redistribution of Canada's major immigrant groups: Changes over the past two decades, Business and Labour Market Analysis, Statistics Canada, Ottawa. Howitt, R. and Stevens, S. 2005, 'Cross-cultural research: Ethics, methods, and relationships' in I. Hay (ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp.30-50. Hughes, H. 2002, Immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers: A global view, The Centre for Independent Studies Limited, St. Leonards. Hugo, G. 1994, The economic implications of emigration from Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. __________ 1995, 'International labor migration and the family', Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, vol.4, no.2/3, pp.273-301. __________ 1996, 'Diversity down under' in C.C. Roseman, H. D. Laux and G. Thieme (eds.), EthniCity: Geographical perspectives on ethnic change in modern cities, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, USA. __________ 2002, 'From compassion to compliance? Trends in refugee and humanitarian migration in Australia', GeoJournal, vol.56, no.1, pp.27-37. __________ 2003, 'Trends in population geography', Geography's New Frontiers conference, University of New South Wales, The Geography Society of New South Wales, 21 March. __________ 2004, 'Australia: The continent of immigrants' in M. Toro-Morn and M. Alicea (eds.), Migration and immigration: A global view, Greenwood Press, Westport, USA, pp.1-18.
197
Hugo, G. and Fellow, F. 2005, Australian diaspora: A demographic perspective, Prepared for The Athens Roundtable Discussion at The Australian Embassy, Athens, Greece, 20 September. Hume, S. E. and Hardwick, S. W. 2005, 'African, Russian, and Ukrainian refugee resettlement in Portland, Oregon', Geographical Review, vol.95, no.2, pp.189-209. Hyndman, J. 2001, 'Change and challenge at UNHCR: A retrospective of the past 50 years', Refuge, vol.19, no.6, pp.45-53. Hyndman, J. and Walton-Roberts, M. 2000, 'Interrogating borders: A transnational approach to refugee research in Vancouver', Canadian Geographer, vol.44, no.3, pp.244-258. Jan-Khan, M. 2006, 'The community leader, the politician and the policeman: A personal perspective' in B. Temple and R. Moran (eds.), Doing research with refugees: Issues and guidelines, The Policy Press, Bristol, pp.97-110. Johnston, R., Forrest, J. and Poulsen, M. 2001a, 'The geography of an EthniCity: Residential segregation of birthplace and language groups in Sydney, 1996', Housing Studies, vol.16, no.5, pp.569-594. __________ 2001b, 'Sydney's ethnic geography: New approaches to analysing patterns of residential concentration', Australian Geographer, vol.32, no.2, pp.149-162. __________ 2002a, 'Are there ethnic enclaves/ ghettos in English cities?' Urban Studies, vol.39, no.4, pp.591-618. __________ 2002b, 'The ethnic geography of EthniCities: The `American model' and residential concentration in London', Ethnicities, vol.2, no.2, pp.209-235. Johnston, R. J., Gregory, D. and Smith, D. M. (eds.) 1994, The dictionary of human geography, 3rd, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Jupp, J. 1991, Immigration, Walker, D., Australian retrospectives, Sydney University Press, Melbourne. __________ 1994, Exile or refugee? The settlement of refugee, humanitarian and displaced immigrants, Australian Government Publishing Services, Canberra. __________ 2008, 'African ethnic communities: A new dimension', African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, 31 January. Jupp, J., McRobbie, A. and York, B. 1990, Working papers on Multiculturalism: Metropolitan ghettoes and ethnic concentrations, Volume 2, The Centre for Multicultural Studies, University of Wollongong, Wollongong.
198
__________ 1991, Settlement needs of small newly arrived ethnic groups, Australian Government Publishing Services, Canberra. Kissoon, P. 2006, 'Home/lessness as an indicator of integration: Interviewing refugees about the meaning of home and accommodation' in B. Temple and R. Moran (eds.), Doing research with refugees: Issues and guidelines, The Policy Press, Bristol, pp.75-96. Kitchin, R. and Tate, N. J. 2000, Conducting research into human geography: Theory, methodology and practice, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, UK. Klocker, N. and Dunn, K. M. 2003, 'Who's driving the asylum debate? Newspaper and government representations of asylum seekers', Media International Australia, vol.109, (November), pp.71-92. Koser, K. 1997, 'Social networks and the asylum cycle: The case of Iranians in the Netherlands', International Migration Review, vol.31, no.3, pp.591-611. __________ (ed.) 2003, New African diasporas, Routledge, London. Krahn, H., Derwing, T. M. and Abu-Laban, B. 2005, 'The Retention of Newcomers in Second- and Third-Tier Canadian Cities', The International Migration Review, vol.39, no.4, pp.872-894. Kritz, M. M. and Nogel, J. M. 1994, 'Nativity concentration and internal migration among the foreign-born', Demography, vol.31, no.3, pp.509-524. Kunz, E. F. 1973, 'The refugee in flight: Kinetic models and forms of displacement', International Migration Review, vol.7, no.2, pp.125-146. __________ 1981, 'Exile and resettlement: Refugee theory', International Migration Review, vol.15, no.1/2, pp.42-51. Lee, E. S. 1966, 'A theory of migration', Demography, vol.3, no.1, pp.47-57. Lewis, M. P. (ed.) 2009, Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 6th edition, Dallas: SIL International, [Online version], Available: , Accessed on 4 November 2009. Ley, D. and Murphy, P. 2001, 'Immigration in gateway cities: Sydney and Vancouver in comparative perspective', Progress in Planning, vol.55, no.3, pp.119-194. Ley, D., Murphy, P., Olds, K. and Randolph, B. 2001, 'Immigration and housing', Progress in Planning, vol.55, pp.141-152. Li, W. 1998, 'Anatomy of a new ethnic settlement: The Chinese ethnohub in Los Angeles', Urban Studies, vol.35, no.3, pp.479-501.
199
Lieb, E. B. 1996, The Hmong migration to Fresno: From Laos to California's Central Valley, Unpublished M.A. thesis, School of Social Sciences, California State University, Fresno, United States. Logan, J. R. and Zhang, W. 2004, 'Identifying ethnic neighbourhoods with census data: Group concentrations and spatial clustering' in M. F. Goodchild and D. G. Janelle (eds.), Spatially integrated social science, Oxford University Press, New York, pp.113-126. Logan, J. R., Zhang, W. and Alba, R. D. 2002, 'Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles', American Sociological Review, vol.67, no.2, pp.299-322. Lucas, D. 2002, 'Defining diasporas', XVth World Congress of Sociology, Brisbane, 8 July. Maley, W., Dupont, A., Fonteyne, J. P., Fry, G., Jupp, J. and Do, T. 2002, Refugees and the myth of the borderless world, Department of International Relations, Australian National University, Canberra. Maloney, G. 2009, Smart State PhD Grant meeting with Manager, Housing supply, Housing and Homelessness Coordination and Development, Department of Communities, Brisbane, 29 April. Massey, D. 1985, 'Ethnic residential segregation: A theoretical synthesis and empirical review', Sociology and Social Research, vol.69, pp.315-350. __________ 1990, 'American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass', The American Journal of Sociology, vol.96, no.2, pp.329-357. Massey, D., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, J. and Taylor, E. 1993, 'Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal', Population and Development Review, vol.19, no.3, pp.431-466. Massey, D. and Denton, N. A. 1988, 'The dimensions of residential segregation', Social Forces, vol.67, no.2, pp.281-315. Massey, D. and Mullan, B. P. 1984, 'Process of Hispanic and Black spatial assimilation', American Journal of Sociology, vol.89, pp.936-974. McCormack, A. 2008, Email received re: Tenants Union of Queensland Project Worker CALD Accessible Service Delivery project, 3 November 2008. Metropolitan Association Towards Community Housing (MATCH) 2005, Metropolitan Association Towards Community Housing Inc. Annual Report 2004/05, MATCH, Brisbane. Middleton, A. 2008a, Email correspondence from Manager of Australian Bureau of Statistics National Migrants Statistics Unit, Adelaide, 19 February.
200
__________ 2008b, 'Statistics on Africans in Australia', African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, 31 January. Migrant Information Centre & South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre 2007, "Finding a home": A research report on supporting newly arrived migrants and refugees to secure housing, Melbourne, January. Millbank, A. 2000, The problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention, Social Policy Group. Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 5 September. Millbank, A., Phillips, J. and Bohm, C. 2006, Australia's settlement services for refugees and migrants, Parliament of Australia, Parliament Library, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 20 February, Last updated on 19 September 2006. Mitchell, K. 2003, 'Networks of ethnicity' in E. Sheppard and T. J. Barnes (eds.), A companion to economic geography, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp.392407. Multicultural Affairs Queensland (MAQ) 2005, Multicultural resource directory 2005-06, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Queensland Government, Brisbane, July. Multicultural Development Association (MDA) 2007, Summary of housing issues for refugees, Multicultural Development Association, Brisbane, 25 June. Murdie, R. A. 2005, 'Pathways to housing: The experiences of sponsored refugees and refugee claimants in accessing permanent housing in Toronto, Canada', European Network for Housing Research Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland, 29 June-3 July. National Population Council 1991, The National Population Council's Refugee Review, AGPS, Canberra. Ndhlovu, F. 2009, 'The limitations of language and nationality as prime markers of African Diaspora identities in the State of Victoria', African Identities, vol.7, no.1, pp.17-32. Neuman, W. L. 2003, Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 5th edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Newbold, B. 2007, 'Secondary migration of immigrants to Canada: an analysis of LSIC wave 1 data', The Canadian Geographer, vol.51, no.1, pp.58-71. Newbold, K. B. 1999, 'Spatial distribution and redistribution of immigrants in the metropolitan United States, 1980 and 1990', Economic Geography, vol.75, no.3, pp.254-271.
201
Nicholson, B. 2008, African face racism: Tanner, The Age, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 22 August 2008, Last updated on 31 July 2008. Nsubuga-Kyobe, A. 2004, 'Possible antecedents and implications to AfricanAustralians participating in the proposed pilot program of settlement in rural Victoria: A study of strategic management of service delivery to an emerging community in rural areas: A critical review', 'African Renewal, African Renaissance: New Perspectives on Africa's Past and Africa's Present'. The African Studies Association of Australia and the Pacific, University of Western Australia, The African Studies Association of Australia and the Pacific, 26-28 November. Nsubuga-Kyobe, A. and Dimock, L. 2002, African communities and settlement services in Victoria: Towards better service delivery models, Australian Multicultural Foundation, Melbourne. Organisation for African Unity (OAU) 1969, Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa: Preamble, Organisation for African Unity, Addis Ababa. Pacione, M. 2005, Urban geography: A global perspective, 2nd edition, Routledge, Abingdon. Palmer, C. 1998, Defining and studying the modern African Diaspora, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 18 April 2006. Papastergiadis, N. 2000, The turbulence of migration: Globalization, deterritorialization and hybridity, Blackwell Publishers Inc., Malden, USA. Peach, C. 1996, 'Does Britain have ghettos?' Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, vol.22, no.2, pp.216-235. __________ 1999, 'London and New York: contrasts in British and American models of segregation', International Journal of Population Geography, vol.5, no.5, pp.319–351. Perrin, R. L. and Dunn, K. M. 2007, 'Tracking the settlement of North African immigrants: Speculations on the social and cultural impacts of a newly arrived immigrant group', Australian Geographer, vol.38, no.2, pp.253-273. Petersen, W. 1958, 'A general typology of migration', American Sociological Review, vol.23, no.3, pp.256-266. Phillips, J. 2005, Australia's humanitarian program, Social Policy Section, Parliament of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services, 9 September, Research note.
202
Pickvance, C. 1974, 'Life cycle, housing tenure and residential mobility: A path analytic approach', Urban Studies, vol.11, no.2, pp.171-188. Pittaway, E. 2002, 'A brief history of refugee policy in Australia: Refugees in the twenty-first century, a humanitarian challenge', Mots Pluriels, vol.21, [Online] Available: , Accessed 31 July 2006. Portes, A. and Bach, R. L. 1985, Latin journey: Cuban and Mexican immigrants in the United States, University of California Press, Los Angeles. Portes, A. and Jensen, L. 1987, 'What‘s an ethnic enclave? The case for conceptual clarity', American Sociological Review, vol.52, no.6, pp.768-771. Portes, A. and Zhou, M. 1993, 'The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.530, pp.74-96. Poulsen, M., Johnston, R. and Forrest, J. 2001, 'Intraurban ethnic enclaves: Introducing a knowledge-based classification method', Environment and Planning A, vol.33, pp.2071-2082. __________ 2004, 'Is Sydney a divided city ethnically?' Australian Geographical Studies, vol.42, no.3, pp.356-377. Price, C. A. 1963, Southern Europeans in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Putnam, R. D. 2007, 'E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture', Scandinavian Political Studies, vol.30, no. 2, pp.137-174. Pybus, C. 2006, Black founders: The unknown story of Australia's first black settlers, The University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Queensland Government 2010, Queensland's population, Census 2006 Bulletin 16, Office of Economic and Statistical Research, Queensland Treasury, April. Queensland Shelter 2008, Housing is a human right: Homelessness is structural violence -- Queensland Shelter's response to "Which way home": A new approach to homelessness, Queensland Shelter, Brisbane, 27 June. Quintero, J. 2005, Cambodian settlement patterns in Long Beach, California, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Geography, California State University, Long Beach, California. Ravenstein, E. G. 1885, 'The laws of migration', Journal of the Statistical Society of London, vol.48, no.2, pp.167-235.
203
__________ 1889, 'The laws of migration', Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol.52, no.2, pp.241-305. Refugee Action Collective Queensland 2004, Organisation contacts in Queensland, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 19 August 2006. Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) 2007, Australia's Refugee and Special Humanitarian Program: Current issues and future directions (2007-08), views from the community sector. February. __________ 2008a, Refugee Council of Australia Annual Report 2007-08, Sydney. __________ 2008b, Who bears the cost of Australia's Special Humanitarian Program? Research into the impact of travel costs on new Special Humanitarian entrants and their proposers, RCA and Reichstein Foundation, Melbourne, June. Richmond, A. H. 1996, 'Sociological theories of international migration: The case of refugees' in R. Cohen (ed.), The sociology of migration, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp.331-358. Robinson, G. M. 1998, Methods and techniques in human geography, John Wiley, Chichester, UK. Robinson, V. and Coleman, C. 2000, 'Lessons learned? A critical review of the government program to resettle Bosnian quota refugees in the United Kingdom', The International Migration Review, vol.34, no.4, pp.1217-1244. Rogers, A. and Raymer, J. 2005, 'Origin dependence, secondary migration, and the indirect estimation of migration flows from population stocks', Journal of Population Research, vol.22, no.1, pp.1-19. Roseman, C. C., Laux, H. D. and Thieme, G. (eds.) 1996, EthniCity: Geographical perspectives on ethnic change in modern cities, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, USA. Rossi, P. H. 1955, Why families move, Free Press, New York. Sanders, J. and Nee, V. 1987, 'Limits of ethnic solidarity in the enclave economy', American Sociological Review, vol.52, pp.745-767. Schwarten, R. 2008, Queensland bucks national public housing trend, Queensland Government, Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication technology, Brisbane, 14 August, Media Release. Senate Select Committee on housing affordability in Australia 2008, A good house is hard to find: Housing affordability in Australia, Parliament of Australia, Senate Committee, Canberra, 16 June.
204
Shandy, D. J. 2007, Nuer-American passages: Globalizing Sudanese migration, Yelvington, K. A., New World Diasporas, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, United States. Shepley, C. 2008, Regional settlement in Australia: Research into the settlement experience of humanitarian entrants in regional Australia 2006-2007, Citizenship, Settlement and Multicultural Affairs Division, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Canberra. Shepperson, G. 1993, 'African diaspora: Concepts and context' in J. E. Harris (ed.), Global dimensions of the African diaspora, Howard University Press, Washington D.C. Simich, L. 2003, 'Negotiating boundaries or refugee resettlement: A study of settlement patterns and social support', The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, vol.40, no.5, pp.575-591. Simich, L., Beiser, M. and Mawani, F. 2002, 'Paved with good intentions: Canada's refugee destining policy and paths of secondary migration', Canadian Public Policy, vol.28, no.4, pp.597-607. Simich, L., Beiser, M., Stewart, M. and Mwakarimba, E. 2005, 'Providing social support for immigrants and refugees in Canada: Challenges and directions', Journal of Immigrant Health, vol.7, no.4, pp.259-268. Skop, E. H. 2001, 'Race and place in the adaptation of Mariel exiles.' International Migration Review, vol.35, no.2, pp.449-471. Skop, E. H. and Li, W. 2005, 'Asians in America's suburbs: Patterns and consequences of settlement', The Geographical Review, vol.95, no.2, pp.167187. Stimson, R. J. 1982, The Australian city: A welfare geography, Australian Studies, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne. Stouffer, S. A. 1940, 'Intervening opportunities: A theory relating mobility and distance', American Sociological Review, vol.5, no.6, pp.845-867. Taylor, J. 2004, 'Refugees and social exclusion: What the literature says', Migration Action, vol.26, no.2, pp.16-31. Taylor, J. and Stanovic, D. 2005, Refugees and regional settlement: Balancing priorities, Brotherhood of St. Laurence, Fitzroy, May. Temple, B. and Edwards, R. 2006, 'Limited exchanges: Approaches to involving people who do not speak English in research and service development' in B. Temple and R. Moran (eds.), Doing research with refugees: Issues and guidelines, The Policy Press, Bristol, pp.37-54.
205
Temple, B. and Moran, R. (eds.) 2006, Doing research with refugees: Issues and guidelines, The Policy Press, Bristol. Tölölyan, K. 1996, 'Rethinking diaspora(s): Stateless power in the transnational moment', Diaspora, vol.5, no.1, pp.5-35. Toro-Morn, M. I. and Alicea, M. (eds.) 2004, Migration and immigration: A global view, Greenwood Press, Westport, USA. Tuohey, A. 2001, 'Housing refugees: Whose responsibility?' Parity, vol.14, no.4, p.9.
Ugbe, U. P. 2006, The new Americans: Factors affecting economic integration among African refugees in New Hampshire, Unpublished PhD, The School of Community Economic Development, Southern New Hampshire University, New Hampshire. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 1996, Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Public Information Section, UNHCR, August. __________ 2008, 2007 global trends: Refugees, asylum-seekers, returnees, internally displaced and stateless persons, June. __________ 2009, UNHCR global appeal 2009 update, Available: , Accessed on 30 October 2009. University of Melbourne 2001, Map collection - Outline maps, University of Melbourne, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 29 October 2009, Last updated on 14 March 2008. Vigneswaran, D. 2009, 'Residential sampling and Johannesburg's forced migrants', Journal of Refugee Studies, Advanced Access published online on 22 July 2009, [Online], Available: , Accessed 1 August 2009. Viviani, N. 1984, The long journey: Vietnamese migration and settlement in Australia, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Viviani, N., Coughlan, J. and Rowland, T. 1993, Indochinese in Australia: The issues of unemployment and residential concentration, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Wahlbeck, O. 1998, 'Community work and exile politics: Kurdish refugee associations in London', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol.11, no.3, pp.215230.
206
Waldorf, B. 1990, 'Housing policy impacts on ethnic segregation patterns: Evidence from Dusseldorf, West Germany', Urban Studies, vol.27, no.5, pp.637-652. Walks, R. A. and Bourne, L. S. 2006, 'Ghettos in Canada's cities? Racial segregation, ethnic enclaves and poverty concentration in Canadian urban areas', The Canadian Geographer, vol.50, no.3, pp.273-297. Wallerstein, I. 1974, The modern world system; Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world economy in the sixteenth century, Academic Press, New York. Waxman, P. 1999, 'The residential location of recently arrived Bosnian, Afghan and Iraqi refugees and humanitarian entrants in Sydney, Australia', Urban Policy and Research, vol.17, no.4, pp.287-299. Westoby, P. 2008, 'Developing a community-development approach through engaging resettling Southern Sudanese refugees within Australia', Community Development Journal, vol.43, no.4, pp.483-495. Williams, L. and Batrouney, T. 1998, 'Immigration and poverty' in Australian poverty then and now, Fincher, R. and Nieuwenhuysen, J. (eds.), Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Wilson, W. 1987, 'The socio-spatial adjustment and settlement of Vietnamese refugees in Sydney', Migration Monitor, (July), pp.11-16. __________ 1990, 'Residential relocation and settlement adjustment of Vietnamese refugees in Sydney', Australian Geographical Studies, vol.28, no.2, pp.155177. Winchester, H. P. M. 2005, 'Qualitative research and its place in human geography' in I. Hay (ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Withers, G. and Powall, M. 2003, Immigration and the regions: Taking regional Australia seriously. A report on options for enhancing immigration's contribution to regional Australia, Chifley Research Centre, [Online], Available: , Accessed on 7 December 2006. Wong, M. 1995, Emerging patterns of African refugee resettlement in the United States, Unpublished M.A. thesis, The College of Social Science, Florida Atlantic University, Florida. Zavodny, M. 1999, 'Determinants of recent immigrants' locational choices', The International Migration Review, vol.33, no.4, pp.1014-1030. Zelinsky, W. 1971, 'The hypothesis of the mobility transition', Geographical Review, vol.61, pp.219-249.
207
Zelinsky, W. and Lee, B. A. 1998, 'Heterolocalism: An alternative model of the sociospatial behaviour of immigrant ethnic communities', International Journal of Population Geography, vol.4, pp.281-298. Zhang, W. 2004, Secondary migration of recent immigrants in the United States: A study of Mexicans and Chinese, Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Sociology, State University of New York, New York. Zhou, M. and Logan, J. R. 1989, 'Returns on human capital in ethnic enclaves: New York City's Chinatown', American Sociological Review, vol.54, no.5, pp.809820. Zipf, G. K. 1946, 'The P1P2/D hypothesis: on the intercity movement of persons', American Sociological Review, vol.11, no.6, pp.677-686.
208
Appendices Appendix 1 Letter to Queensland African Communities Council members 17 August 2007
Dear Council member
Who I am I am a PhD student in geographer at Queensland University of Technology (QUT). Following a recent meeting with Bobby Whitfield at MDA, I am writing to ask for your support to allow me to address the next Council meeting.
What my research is about My research is examining the distribution and secondary migration patterns of African communities in Southeast Queensland, in other words, where African communities are located and where households from these communities are moving to and why they move. I am particularly interested in the relationship between distribution, secondary migration and housing. I believe the findings will help service providers to target settlement support to the geographic areas in which the communities are located, and therefore be of benefit to your communities.
Why I would like to address Council The next step in my research is to organise focus groups. I would like to address the next Council meeting to explain my research proposal in more detail and to ask for your permission to organise focus groups in your community.
Kind regards
Wendy Harte
209
Appendix 2 Informed consent sheet
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT The settlement and secondary migration patterns of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland Research Team Contacts Wendy Harte (07) 3138 8435
[email protected]
Dr Iraphne Childs (07) 3138 4787
[email protected]
Description This project is being undertaken as part of the PhD research for Wendy Harte. The purpose of this project is to identify where African refugee communities are located in Southeast Queensland, where people from these communities move to and the reasons why they move. Participation Your participation in this project is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty. Your decision to participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or any government or non-government agency or service provider. Your participation will involve a focus group. A focus group is a small group that provides opinions and responses to specific issues in a group setting. I expect that the focus group will take no longer than one hour. Expected benefits It is expected that this research may benefit your community by providing service providers with a better understanding of where people from your community are located, where they move to and why they move so that they can direct their services to the appropriate areas. Risks There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project. Confidentiality All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. The contents of the focus groups will be checked with the community leader to verify the inclusion of material in the research.
210
Appendix 2 continued … Consent to Participate I would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (on the following page) to confirm your agreement to participate. If you do not wish to sign the form, your verbal consent may be used instead to confirm your agreement to participate. A representative can be nominated to sign on behalf of the group. Questions / further information about the project Please contact me or Dr Iraphne Childs to have any questions answered or if you require further information about the project. Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or
[email protected]. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
CONSENT FORM for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT The settlement and secondary migration patterns of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland Statement of consent By signing below, you are indicating that you: have read and understood the information document regarding this project have had any questions answered to your satisfaction understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or
[email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project agree to participate in the project Name Signature / / Date If you do not w ish to sign the form, your verbal consent may be used instead to confirm your agreement to participate.
211
Appendix 3 Focus group schedule Structure of meeting 1. Introductions, including: -research aims and objectives -expected outcomes 2. Informed consent 3. Focus group discussion 4. Thank you and time for questions
Settlement patterns 1. This map of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship data shows where people from your community that immigrated to Australia between 1996 and February 2007 live or have lived in Southeast Queensland. EXPLAIN MAP. It shows there are ___ people from ____ living in Southeast Queensland. I want to check this map with you. What are your comments? Do you think this map accurately represents where people from your community live now? How many people from ____ do you think live in Southeast Queensland and in what suburbs?
2. Are these suburbs different to that ones that people lived in when they first arrived in Australia? If so, which suburbs did/ do most newly arrived people from your community live in when they first arrive in Australia?
3. Why do you think there are concentrations around [suburb name(s)]? What about other areas? (e.g. suburbs on the map in which only one or two people live)
Secondary migration 4. Do people from your community tend to move often in the first year of resettlement? How often would you say people from your community move in their first year in Australia? What about after the first year?
5. Why do people move?
212
Appendix 3 continued …
6. What do you think is the most important reason to move? (List the factors discussed above) Why?
7. How important is housing as a reason to move? What sort of elements about housing would make people move?
8. What areas/suburbs do you think are more affordable? Which are less affordable? Why?
Accommodation issues 9. What are the difficulties in finding appropriate accommodation?
10. How do people from your community overcome these issues? (MATCH, MDA, ACCES, InterLink, RTA, networks, others?)
11. Would you prefer to live in private, public and community housing? Why?
213
Appendix 4 Individual participant questionnaire
COB: __________________ Date: ___________________
The settlement and secondary migration patterns of African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland Wendy Harte Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. The purpose of this form is to gather background information about all focus group participants so that I can build a profile of the group. The information you provide is confidential and you will remain anonymous. Please ask me if you have any questions or if you would like help to fill in this form. 1. What year did you arrive in Australia? ________________________________ 2. How old are you now? _____________________________________________ 3. Are you female/ male? (mark with a X in one square) Female Male
4. What visa category did you immigrate to Australia on? (Circle one ) Visa 200 (‗Refugee visa‘) Visa 204 (‗Woman at Risk visa‘) Visa 202 (‗Special Humanitarian Program visa‘) Don‘t know other _______________________________________________________________ 5. Did you immigrate alone or with family members? (mark with a X in one square) Alone With family members
6. How many people are in your household? ________________________________ 7. How many times have you moved accommodation since you arrived in Australia (Circle one )? 0 (have not moved) 3 times more times, if so, how many? _______ 1 time 4 times 2 times 5 times
214
Appendix 4 continued … 8. Your first accommodation in Australia: What suburb did you live in when you first came to Australia? __________________ What kind of accommodation was this? (e.g. a house, a flat/unit, a hostel) _________ How long have you been/ did you stay in this accommodation? (approximately) ____________________________________________________________________ If you moved, why did you move from this accommodation? (brief explanation) ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ If you have not moved from your first accommodation, go to question 9 on the next page. Your second accommodation (Answer this question only is you moved from your first accommodation): Where did you move to? (suburb name only) ________________________________ What was your second accommodation type? (e.g. a house, a flat/unit, a hostel) ____ How long have you been/ did you stay in this accommodation? (approximately) ____________________________________________________________________ If you moved, why did you move from this accommodation? (brief explanation) ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Your third accommodation (Answer this question only is you moved from your second accommodation): Where did you move to? (suburb name only) ________________________________ What was your third accommodation type? (e.g. a house, a flat/unit, a hostel) ______ How long have you been/ did you stay in this accommodation? (approximately) ____________________________________________________________________ If you moved, why did you move from this accommodation? (brief explanation) ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Your fourth accommodation (Answer this question only is you moved from the third accommodation): Where did you move to? (suburb name only)________________________________ What was your fourth accommodation type? (e.g. a house, a flat/unit, a hostel) ____ How long have you been/ did you stay in this accommodation? (approximately) ____________________________________________________________________ Why did you move from this accommodation? (brief explanation) ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ If you need more space, please turn this sheet over and write on the back.
215
Appendix 4 continued … 9. Are you happy with your current accommodation? (Yes / No) _____________ Why? _______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
10. Have you experienced any of these problems in the Australian housing market since you have been here? (please circle the answer) Discrimination (racial or other) Yes No
Unsure
Difficulty finding accommodation because you did not have references Yes No
Unsure
Difficulties understanding the Australian rental system Yes No
Unsure
Difficulty finding accommodation because you were unemployment Yes No
Unsure
Denied accommodation because did not have sufficient money for bond Yes No
Unsure
Were unable to meet the expectations of the landlord/real estate agent Yes No Unsure (e.g. you may not have known how to prepare for a rental inspection)
Could not find any appropriate housing to rent (e.g. with enough space) Yes
No Unsure
Overcrowding (accommodation too small for your household) Yes
No Unsure
Thank you for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire. Wendy.
216
Appendix 5 Participant profile from individual questionnaires Focus group participant gender Case study community Male Burundian 6 Congolese 3 Ethiopian 4 Liberian 1 Rwandan 3 Sierra Leonean 5 Somali Sudanese 9 Totals 31
Female 3 5 9 1 6 2 26
Total 9 8 4 10 4 5 6 11 57
Participant age/gender Age Male 21-25 1 26-30 31-35 4 36-40 5 41-45 8 46-50 6 51-55 4 56-60 2 61-65 1 Not stated Total 31
Female 6 5 1 3 3 1 2 1 4 26
Total 7 5 5 8 11 7 6 2 2 4 57
Focus group participants‘ visa categories Visa subclass 200 (Convention refugee) 202 (Special Humanitarian Program) 204 (Women at Risk Program) Did not state Total
Total 35 14 4 4 57
Percentage 61.4% 24.6% 7% 7% 100%
Total 53 4 57
Percentage 93% 7% 100%
Arrived alone or with family Arrived with family Arrived alone Total
217
Appendix 5 continued … Focus group participants‘ years of arrival Year of arrival 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Not stated Total Participants‘ household size Case study community Burundian Congolese Ethiopian Liberian Rwandan Sierra Leonean Somali Sudanese All case study communities except Ethiopian participants
Number of participants 1 1
1
2 2 1 1 3 4 6 8 6 12 8 1 57
Range 4-10 1-8 n/a 3-6 3-7 3-9 5-8 4-11 1-11
Average 7.5 4 n/a 3.7 4.75 5.8 6.6 6.72 5.58
218
Appendix 6 Suburbs in which participants (including Sudanese) were living at time of focus groups Suburb
Postcode 4017
Number of participants 1
Total by postcode 1
Bracken Ridge Lutwyche
4030
1
1
Aspley
4034
1
1
Stafford
4053
1
Everton Park
4053
1
2
Oxley
4075
1
1
Doolandella
4077
1
Durack
4077
1
Inala
4077
3
5
Annerley
4103
3
3
Yeronga
4104
2
2
Moorooka
4105
8
Yeerongpilly
4105
2
10
Salisbury
4107
1
1
Sunnybank
4109
4
4
Acacia Ridge
4110
2
2
Runcorn
4113
3
3
Woodridge
4114
2
2
Browns Plains
4118
1
Hillcrest
4118
2
Holland Park
4121
3
Tarragindi
4121
1
4
Mt Gravatt
4122
4
4
Kangaroo Point
4169
1
1
Goodna
4300
1
1
Collingwood Park
4301
1
1
Did not state
5
5
Total
57
57
3
219
Appendix 7 Suburbs in which participants (excluding Sudanese) were living at time of focus groups Suburb
Postcode 4030
Number of participants 1
Total by postcode 1
Lutwyche Aspley
4034
1
1
Oxley
4075
1
1
Doolandella
4077
1
Durack
4077
1
Inala
4077
3
5
Annerley
4103
3
3
Yeronga
4104
2
2
Moorooka
4105
8
Yeerongpilly
4105
2
10
Salisbury
4107
1
1
Sunnybank
4109
2
2
Acacia Ridge
4110
2
2
Runcorn
4113
2
2
Woodridge
4114
2
2
Browns Plains
4118
1
Hillcrest
4118
2
Holland Park
4121
3
Tarragindi
4121
1
4
Mt Gravatt
4122
3
3
Kangaroo Point
4169
1
1
Did not state
3
3
Total
46
46
3
220
Appendix 8 List of postcodes and suburbs used in the research Postcode 4010 4014 4017 4030 4032 4034 4051 4053 4055 4059 4068 4073 4075 4076 4077 4078 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4106 4107 4108 4109 4110 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4118 4120 4121 4122 4127 4131 4132 4151 4152 4169 4170 4178 4207 4217 4300 4305 4350
Suburb(s) Albion Banyo, Nudgee, Virginia Brackenridge, Brighton, Deagon, Sandgate, Shorncliffe Lutwyche, Windsor, Wooloowin Chermside Aspley, Boondall, Carseldine, Geebung, Zillmere Alderley, Enoggera, Gaythorne, Grange, Newmarket, Wilston Brookside, Everton Hills, Everton Park, Mcdowall, Mitchelton, Stafford, Stafford Heights Bunya, Ferny Grove, Ferny Hills, Upper Kedron Kelvin Grove, Red Hill Chelmer, Indooroopilly, Taringa Seventeen Mile Rocks, Sinnamon Park Corinda, Oxley, Graceville, Sherwood Darra, Wacol Doolandella, Durack, Inala, Richlands Forest Lake Highgate Hill, South Brisbane, West End Buranda, Dutton Park, Woolloongabba Annerley, Fairfield Yeronga Moorooka, Tennyson, Yeerongpilly Rocklea Salisbury Archerfield, Coopers Plains MacGregor, Robertson, Sunnybank Acacia Ridge, Heathwood, Larapinta, Pallara, Willawong Kuraby Eight Mile Plains, Runcorn Woodridge, Logan Central, Kingston Algester, Parkinson Calamvale, Drewvale, Stretton Browns Plains, Forestdale, Heritage Park, Hillcrest, Regents Park Greenslopes, Stones Corner Holland Park, Tarragindi, Wellers Hill Mansfield, Mt Gravatt, Wishart Daisy Hill, Slacks Creek, Priestdale, Springwood Longanlea, Meadowbrook Crestmead, Marsden Coorparoo Camp Hill, Carina, Carindale East Brisbane, Kangaroo Point Cannon Hill, Morningside, Norman Park, Seven Hills Wynnum, Lindum, Lytton Beenleigh ‗Gold Coast‘ Carole Park, Goodna, Springfield Ipswich Toowoomba
221
Appendix 9 Number of people per postcode according to community members Postcode/ suburbs 4010 4014 4017 4030 4032 4034 4051 4053 4055 4059 4068 4073 4075 4076 4077 4078 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105
Burundian
Congolese
Ethiopian
Liberian
Rwandan
Somali
Sudanese
Total per postcode
2 12 -
Sierra Leonean 5 3 5 45 150
9 44 3 42 19 31
7 9 1 2 9 5 3 20 16
11 7 1 14 4 14 14 2 21 12 41
1 8 16 20 12 20 60 20 65
15* + 90**
conc. conc. conc. conc. conc. conc.
12 20
-
-
6*
conc. conc.
21 -
12 11 -
6 -
7* 10* 50*
conc. -
1 7 11 5 Sudanese conc. 7 + Sudanese conc. 3 2 + Sudanese conc. 17 1 1 14 6 34 95 + Sudanese conc. 14 12 33 188 + Sudanese conc. 51 393 (incl. 90 unmarried Somali) + 15 Somali families + Sudanese conc. 24 + Sudanese conc. 47 + 6 Somali families + Sudanese conc. 16 + 7 Somali families 19 + 10 Somali families 103 + Sudanese conc. 14 + 50 Somali families
4106 4107
14
6 13
6 -
4108 4109 4110 4112
8 52 7
8 7 13 7
-
222
Appendix 9 continued … Postcode / suburbs 4113 4114
Burundian
Congolese
Ethiopian
Liberian
Rwandan
Somali
Sudanese
Total per postcode
2 40
Sierra Leonean 40
8 344
6 74
90
20
47* 55*
conc.
3 20 12 10
25 -
9 11 11 -
7* 2* 30* 83*
conc.
1 -
16 9 2 20
-
2 -
4* 8*
conc. conc. conc.
14 -
13 6
-
11
-
conc. conc. conc.
16 + 47 Somali families 608 + 55 Somali families + Sudanese conc. 3 + 7 Somali families 43 42 + 2 Somali families 44 + 30 Somali families 65 + 83 Somali families + Sudanese conc. 11 Sudanese conc. 11 30 20 + 4 Somali families 22 7 2 + Sudanese conc. 57 + 8 Somali families + Sudanese conc. 13 + Sudanese conc. 19 Sudanese conc. 17 + Sudanese conc.
4116 4118 4120 4121 4122
7 5 15 55
6 6 -
-
4127 4131 4132 4151 4152 4169 4170 4178 4207
11 11 9 11 6 37
3 16 6 -
4217 4300 4305 4350
5 -
-
223
Appendix 10 Duration of stay in accommodation First accommodation 3 months 10 days 3 years 3 months 1 month 6 months 4 years 3 years 6 months 2 months 7 months 6 months 6 months 1 year 1 month 2 years 3 months 2 months 1 year 1 month 2 years 3 months 6 weeks 3 years 11 months 2 years 1 year 1 year 9 months 6 weeks 8 months 3 years 2 years 2 months 6 months 2 years 6 months 2 years 3 years 9 months 2 years 3 months 10 weeks 6 months 4 years 4 weeks 1 year 2 months 3 years 6 months 6 months 2 years 6 months 6 months 5 years 6 months (9 participants did not answer)
Second accommodation 3 weeks 2 years 6 months 3 years 1 year 3 years 3 years 3 years 6 months 2 years 6 months 6 months 1 year 1 year 2 years 10 months 9 months 3 years 5 years 2 years 2 years 1 year 1 year 2 years 1 year 6 months 1 year 4 months 1 year 6 months 1 year 1 year 6 months 2 years 6 months 2 months 6 months 1 year 6 months
Third accommodation 4 years 2 years 8 months 8 months 1 year 1 year 7 months 5 years 1 year 6 months 2 years 1 year 3 months 1 year 1 year 3 months 1 year
Fourth accommodation 1 year 5 years 5 years 1 year 1 year 6 months 8 months 2 years 4 years 1 year 6 months
224
Appendix 11 Reasons for moves from accommodation From first accommodation Size Inappropriate Size Size Age of house Bought property No public transport Temp on-arrival accommodation Temp on-arrival accommodation Temp on-arrival accommodation Temp on-arrival accommodation Size Property condition Temp on-arrival accommodation Temp on-arrival accommodation Cost Closer to networks Given public housing Property sold Climate Closer to networks Lease expired Property sold Temp on-arrival accommodation Employment Bought house Given public housing Property condition Cost Bought house Temp on-arrival accommodation Property condition Cost Lease expired Cost Cost Closer to networks
From second accommodation Size Size Bought property Size Given public housing Given public housing Property sold Evicted
From third accommodation Cost Employment Employment Property sold Property sold Property sold Cost Size
From fourth accommodation Evicted Lease expired Lease expired Given public housing Given public housing Lease expired Cost Size
Cost Closer to networks Given public housing Given public housing Property sold Size Size Property sold Size Snake in yard Evicted Evicted
225
Appendix 12 Participants’ experience in the Australian housing market Case study community Sierra Leonean Congolese Ethiopian Rwandan Burundian Liberian Somali Sudanese Totals Case study community Sierra Leonean Congolese Ethiopian Rwandan Burundian Liberian Somali Sudanese Totals
Discrimination Y 1 6 1 1 0 6 1 2 18
N 2 2 2 3 8 1 3 6 27
References U 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 6
DNA 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 6
Y 2 5 1 0 0 3 1 5 17
DNA 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 6
Expectations of Area and Landlords Y N U DNA 3 2 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 7 1 0 2 5 1 2 1 3 0 2 3 7 0 1 19 29 3 6
Bond Money Y 1 5 1 0 1 4 1 2 15
N 3 1 3 3 6 4 3 8 31
U 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 5
N 3 2 3 3 7 5 3 5 31
U 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3
DNA 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 6
Understanding Australian System Y N U DNA 3 1 0 1 4 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 6 1 0 2 6 0 2 1 3 0 2 2 7 0 2 17 28 4 8
Unemployment
Appropriate Housing
Overcrowding
Y 3 5 0 3 1 6 0 5 23
N 2 2 4 1 6 2 4 4 25
U 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 4
DNA 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 5
Y 2 6 0 2 2 1 1 5 19
Y 3 5 0 2 5 6 3 5 29
N 2 1 3 2 7 4 3 4 26
N 2 2 3 0 2 3 1 4 17
U 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 4
DNA 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 8
U 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 6
DNA 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 5
Y (yes) N (no) U (unsure) DNA (did not answer)
226
