refugee welcome zone€¦ · 1.3 history of asylum seekers in the ahc area it is relevant to note...

Welcome

Refugee

Zone

What it means for Adelaide Hills Council to be a

Refugee Welcome Zone and how it can be achieved

By Themis Scanlon July 2016

Prepared for Adelaide Hills Council in conjunction with the University of Adelaide

A Refugee Welcome Zone: What it means for Adelaide Hills Council & how it can be achieved | 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Firstly, I thank the members of the Adelaide Hills community who dedicated their time for an interview or participated in our focus group. The insights they provided were invaluable. I feel privileged to have met some incredible people and hear their stories. I thank Lynne Griffiths for supervising me at Adelaide Hills Council and the whole Community Development team for welcoming me so warmly. I thank my academic supervisor, Dianne Rodger, for her advice, support and encouragement whenever I needed it. Finally, I thank Robert Ewers and Amanda Phillis for facilitating the Arts Internship course and showing the utmost care for their students.

THE AUTHOR

Themis Micah Moutzouris Scanlon Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of International Development, University of Adelaide Course: ARTS 3200 – Arts Internship | Semester 1 2016 Student Number: a1194038 Email Address: [email protected] Front cover image created by author using map from Adelaide Hills Council (2016)


CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 4 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 What is a Refugee Welcome Zone? ......................................................................................... 5 1.3 History of Asylum Seekers in the Adelaide Hills Council Area .................................................... 6 1.4 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................... 7

2. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Audit of Existing Strategies and Initiatives .............................................................................. 8 2.2 Population Data ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Interviews and Focus Group ................................................................................................. 10

2.3.1 Individuals with Diverse Cultural Backgrounds ............................................................... 10 2.3.2 Relevant Community Groups .......................................................................................... 11

2.4 Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 11

3. FINDINGS & DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Multicultural Policy in Australia ............................................................................................ 13 3.2 Building Social Cohesion in Our Communities ........................................................................ 14 3.3 Adelaide Hills Council ........................................................................................................... 16

3.3.1 Knowing the Community .................................................................................................. 16 3.3.2 Engaging the Community ................................................................................................ 20 3.3.3 What’s Already in Place ................................................................................................... 26

4. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 28

4.1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 29

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 31 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 33

Appendix 1: Primary Research Questions – Individuals with Diverse Cultural Backgrounds ........... 33 Appendix 2: Primary Research Questions – Relevant Community Groups .................................... 34 Appendix 3: Primary Research Participant Information – Individuals with Diverse Cultural

Backgrounds ........................................................................................................... 35 Appendix 4: Other Useful Resources ........................................................................................... 36 Appendix 5: Resources for New Overseas Arrivals ....................................................................... 37 Appendix 6: Relevant Community Groups’ Contact Details .......................................................... 38 Appendix 7: Relevant Facebook Groups ...................................................................................... 39


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Difference between a Refugee, Asylum Seeker and Migrant ......................................... 6 Table 2: Summary of Primary Research .................................................................................... 10 Table 3: Migration to AHC and Selected Regions from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2015 ............... 17 Table 4: AHC Residents’ Country of Birth 2011 and 2006; and Ancestry 2011 ............................ 18 Table 5: AHC Residents’ Language Spoken at Home by Proficiency in English 2011 ................... 19 Table 6: AHC Residents’ Religious Affiliation 2011 .................................................................... 20 Table 7: Existing AHC Strategies ............................................................................................... 26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Signing the RWZ Declaration ....................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Metropolitan Adelaide and Greater Adelaide Boundaries ............................................. 9 Figure 3: Overseas Arrivals to AHC and Greater Adelaide ......................................................... 16

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics ACELG Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government AHA Adelaide Hills Group of Amnesty International AHC Adelaide Hills Council APOD Alternate Place of Detention DSS Australian Government Department of Social Services HCOF Hills Circle of Friends LGA Local Government Area RCOA Refugee Council of Australia RWZ Refugee Welcome Zone


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background On 18 June 2015, the Adelaide Hills Council (AHC) declared itself a Refugee Welcome Zone (RWZ). This is an initiative of the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) and is defined as “a local government area which has made a commitment in spirit to welcoming refugees into the community, upholding the human rights of refugees, demonstrating compassion for refugees, and enhancing cultural and religious diversity in the community.” While the declaration does not confer any formal obligations,

AHC did not want it to simply be a token gesture. Therefore, research was conducted from March to July 2016 to discover what it means for AHC to be a RWZ and how it can be achieved. Methodology

Four types of research were conducted. Firstly, a brief audit was undertaken of AHC’s existing strategies and initiatives that work towards the same goals. Secondly, data on the AHC population were analysed to determine the number of refugees living in the area and the level of cultural and religious diversity. Thirdly, interviews and a focus group were conducted with members of the community. There were 20 participants in total who were either individuals with a refugee background and/or diverse cultural background, or members of relevant community groups. Finally, literature on multicultural policy in Australia was reviewed to determine the best framework for AHC to adopt in its implementation of the RWZ declaration.

Key Findings

Developing policy and action around multiculturalism was found to be the best way for AHC to implement the declaration. It was decided that the online interactive resource Building Social Cohesion in our Communities would be a useful tool to guide this process. While AHC is committed to multiculturalism at the strategic level, there is a lack of planned action. Members of the community would like to see more happening, and particular issues were identified which AHC can address in order to make the area more welcoming. It was found that there are very few refugees living in the AHC area, but that this provides an opportunity to welcome refugees in other ways, such as inviting them to visit the Hills. It was found that there is a substantial level of cultural and religious diversity in the AHC area and this was surprising to the participants.

Key Recommendations

The key recommendation to AHC is to develop a Multicultural Action Plan that outlines the projects and activities for implementing the RWZ declaration and the strategy for Cultural Diversity (in the Community Strategy 2015-2020). It is recommended that the Building Social Cohesion in our Communities resource is used for guidance, and extra considerations of what to include and exclude are also recommended. Types of projects and activities are recommended with examples provided.


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background At an Adelaide Hills Council (AHC) meeting on 26 May 2015, Councillor Nathan Daniell brought a motion on notice that the Council declare itself a Refugee Welcome Zone (RWZ) and that the CEO provide a report outlining possible initiatives that could be implemented to actively support this commitment. The motion was carried unanimously. On 18 June 2015, the RWZ declaration was signed by Mayor Bill Spragg at a public signing ceremony during Refugee Week (see Figure 1). Research has been conducted from March to July 2016 to produce this report, which outlines how AHC can put this commitment into practice. It has been conducted by a student intern from the University of Adelaide, under the supervision of Lynne Griffiths, Community and Cultural Development Officer for AHC. Figure 1: Signing the RWZ Declaration

Images courtesy of Lynne Griffiths 1.2 What is a RWZ? The RWZ is an initiative of the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA). RCOA is a non-profit, non-government organisation which is the national umbrella body for refugees and organisations and individuals who support them. A RWZ is defined as a local government area which has made a commitment in spirit to:

welcoming refugees into the community,

upholding the human rights of refugees,

demonstrating compassion for refugees, and

enhancing cultural and religious diversity in the community. The initiative began in 2002 and there are currently 143 RWZs around Australia, 13 of which are in South Australia (RCOA 2016a). Table 1 explains the difference between a refugee, an asylum seeker and a migrant. These definitions will be adopted throughout this report.

Mayor Bill Spragg From left to right: Ivan Copley (Peramangk elder), Bahiyeh

Samimi (former refugee & AHC resident), Mayor Bill Spragg,

Lesley Walker (Hills Circle of Friends member)


Table 1: Difference between a Refugee, Asylum Seeker and Migrant

Refugee Asylum Seeker Migrant

Any person who owing to a 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, unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.

Any person who is seeking protection as a refugee and is still waiting to have his/her claim assessed.

Every refugee has at some point been an asylum seeker.

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants; under Australian law a person is entitled to apply for asylum in our country if they are escaping persecution.

Any person who chooses to leave their country to seek a better life.

They choose where they migrate to and they are able to return whenever they like.

Table produced by author using information from RCOA (2016a)

As well as demonstrating support for refugees, the RCOA (2016b) states that signing the RWZ declaration can promote harmony, social cohesion and respect for human rights in the community. "It can help foster a culture of mutual respect and promote an appreciation of cultural diversity” (RCOA 2016b). The declaration does not confer any formal obligations; RWZs are not required to uphold any statutory responsibilities or financial commitments. It is a simply a way of demonstrating broad support for the principles it contains, and any actions and activities to implement it are voluntary (RCOA n.d.). 1.3 History of Asylum Seekers in the AHC Area It is relevant to note the history of asylum seekers in the AHC area as this is what motivated Councillor Daniell to bring the motion of becoming a RWZ. Between 2010 and 2014, the Inverbrackie Alternate Place of Detention (APOD) was in operation in Woodside. It was an immigration detention centre housing 400 asylum seekers while their claims for asylum in Australia were being processed. It was termed an APOD because it was unlike the usual prison-style accommodation of immigration detention centres: it resembled residential housing, was surrounded by ‘low security’ fencing and was monitored by guards (Curtis & Mee 2012: 358). It was specifically for families assessed as low risk and although they were not free to come and go, children were allowed to leave to attend local schools (Curtis & Mee 2012: 358). Countries of origin included Sri Lanka, Iran and Iraq (Haynes & Mennie 2010). The community response to the establishment of the Inverbrackie APOD was mixed. Curtis and Mee (2012: 358) have examined this, stating:

“The announcement of the establishment of an APOD in Woodside began a debate when one section of the Woodside community voiced their concern about having the facility so close to their town, and another section of the local community began mobilising support for the people that were going to be detained at the facility.”


Opposition to the APOD was vocal and frequent in the lead-up to its establishment. However, once it became operational, opponents’ voices began to fade (Curtis & Mee 2012: 357). Throughout its four years in operation, AHC residents donated goods, visited families and organised and participated in special events at the facility, as well as in the community raising awareness of refugee issues (Curtis & Mee 2012: 367). Curtis and Mee (2012: 368) argue that by being part of these events, residents signalled powerfully that they believed asylum seekers are welcome in Woodside, and Australia. Councillor Daniell stated that when the Inverbrackie APOD closed in 2014, “it was like a loss to the community” (Interview 11/05/16). He believes it shifted people’s perceptions about asylum seekers, especially because residents were able to have direct contact with the families there. It is this history of people caring for asylum seekers in the AHC area that motivated him to encourage AHC to become a RWZ. 1.4 Project Objectives

Although signing the RWZ declaration does not confer any formal obligations, AHC does not want it to just be a token gesture. However, as the Inverbrackie APOD is no longer in operation and Council suspects that the number of refugees living in the AHC area is low, what does it mean for AHC to be a RWZ? And, how can it be achieved? These are the research questions that guided this project.


2. METHODOLOGY

To consider what it means for AHC to be a RWZ and how it can be achieved, four types of research were conducted. Firstly, a brief audit was undertaken of AHC’s existing strategies and initiatives. Secondly, data on the AHC population were analysed. Thirdly, interviews and a focus group were conducted with members of the AHC community. Finally, literature on the topic was reviewed. Each will be discussed in turn. 2.1 Audit of Existing Strategies and Initiatives A brief audit was conducted to gauge what AHC already has in place regarding the commitment to and implementation of objectives similar to those in the RWZ declaration. This involved reviewing the AHC’s guiding document, the Strategic Plan 2014-2018, as well as the subsequent Community Strategy 2015-2020. Community Development staff were asked about any initiatives they have run which work towards welcoming refugees or enhancing cultural and religious diversity in the community (whether intentionally or not). 2.2 Population Data Population data were used to determine how many refugees live in the AHC area and the level of cultural and religious diversity. To cover the AHC comprehensively, it would have been ideal to have data on those who live, work or spend significant time in the area. However, most of the data available are in relation to residents only. Some data are available on those who work in the AHC area, but they are less detailed and may not capture all workers. Therefore, the population data that was analysed was limited to residents. The most relevant data that could be sourced regarding the number of refugees living in the AHC were from the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS). Their Settlement Database contains data on people with permanent visas and some temporary visas that lead to settlement in Australia (DSS 2014: 55). The visas are classified into Migration Streams, which are a collection of related visa subclasses, grouped together by their purpose of entry (DSS 2014: 43). At present there are three main streams: Skilled, Family and Humanitarian. The Humanitarian Stream includes refugees and others in refugee-like situations. Data are available on how many people settle in each local government area (LGA) and which Migration Stream they came through. Data on AHC was compared with that of neighbouring LGAs, Metropolitan Adelaide and South Australia. Only data for the last five years could be found. The Settlement Database also provides information on which countries the settlers came from. Due to time constraints, this was not analysed in this project. Data indicating cultural and religious diversity in the AHC area were sourced directly from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The most recent data available are from the 2011 Census of Population and Housing. The next Census will be conducted in August 2016 with the results released in 2017. It is recommended that AHC review the new data when they become available and consider any differences to what is presented in this report. The ABS’ Expanded Community Profile for the Adelaide Hills LGA was used as this provides the most detailed information. Data are


Metropolitan Adelaide Area shaded in purple

Greater Adelaide Area shaded in purple plus the LGAs of Gawler, Adelaide Hills & Mount Barker

also available on smaller areas within LGAs but this was considered beyond the scope of this project. The data chosen to capture cultural and religious diversity in the AHC were residents’:

country of birth,

ancestry,

language spoken at home by proficiency in English, and

religious affiliation.

Regarding the overseas born population of the AHC, data were also considered based on the period of time that they arrived in Australia, making a comparison with Greater Adelaide. As both Greater Adelaide and Metropolitan Adelaide have been used for comparison, Figure 2 defines these two areas.

Figure 2: Metropolitan Adelaide and Greater Adelaide Boundaries

Figure produced by author using images from the Australian Government Department of Infrastructure,

Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (2009)


2.3 Interviews and Focus Group Primary research was conducted because this topic has not been researched before. This took the form of seven interviews and one focus group. The aim was to gain insight into the experience of refugees in the AHC, and of people with diverse cultural and religious backgrounds. Community groups involved with issues relevant to the RWZ principles were also interviewed. Ethics approval was not obtained from the University of Adelaide, so the interviews and focus group were conducted by Lynne Griffiths from AHC. I played a central role in creating the interview schedule and questions. Table 2 provides an overview of the research and Appendix 1 and 2 contain the questions that were asked. Table 2: Summary of Primary Research

Type of Participant Type of Research Number of Participants

Individuals with Diverse Cultural Backgrounds

Focus group 6

Face-to-face interview 1




Relevant Community Groups



Over-the-phone interview 1

2.3.1 Individuals with Diverse Cultural Backgrounds To recruit individuals with a refugee background or a diverse cultural background, an advertisement was placed in the AHC’s local newspaper (the Weekender Herald) and posters were put up in AHC’s libraries and community centres. There was no response from these public advertisements. Advertisements were also spread internally throughout the AHC organisation, via email, an article in the electronic staff newsletter, and a poster in staff rooms for staff do not have access to computers. These advertisements asked for employees who themselves came from a refugee or diverse cultural background, or if they knew anyone who did who would like to participate in the research. Many of AHC’s volunteers with the community centres were recommended from staff as potential participants. They were contacted and asked if they were interested in participating. Most participants were recruited this way. Of the 10, five were AHC volunteers, two were friends of AHC volunteers, two were AHC employees, and one was known to an AHC employee. It is a limitation of this research that most participants were involved with AHC in some way, as this may mean they were more integrated into the community than others. All participants lived in the AHC area and were born outside Australia. They migrated here between eight and 60 years ago, two of them coming as refugees. They were aged between 30 and 79; it is recommended that further research is conducted among youth as this group of the population was not represented. The cultures that were represented included: Baha’i, Taiwanese,


Dutch, English, Central African and Japanese. Further research could be conducted to reach a broader range of cultures (Table 4 provides an indication of what other cultures people may identify with in the AHC area). More detailed information about each participant is contained in Appendix 3. Pseudonyms have been used to maintain confidentiality. 2.3.2 Relevant Community Groups

Two community groups were approached by Councillor Daniell in May 2015 to endorse the AHC becoming a RWZ. It therefore seemed appropriate to speak with these groups. They are the Hills Circle of Friends (HCOF) and the Adelaide Hills Group of Amnesty International (AHA). The HCOF provides hands on support to refugees and asylum seekers living in the community, or visits those in detention. They were highly active when the Inverbrackie APOD was in operation, and when it closed they continued fundraising for ex-Inverbrackie families. They have now broadened their reach to assisting any refugees and asylum seekers in Adelaide (Interview 04/05/16). The main focus of the AHA is advocacy for human rights issues. They run monthly and quarterly stalls at various markets in the AHC area, and a yearly exhibition in the Stirling Library. They have been in existence since 1984 and are one of the most active Amnesty International Groups in South Australia (Interview 16/05/16). The HCOF informed me about the Inverbrackie Good Neighbour Council. This community group is no longer in operation but a brief over-the-phone interview was conducted with the previous convenor to see if she had any insights. They drew on the wider community to provide volunteers, donations of goods, friendly visitors, events and activities to benefit asylum seekers at the Inverbrackie APOD (Interview 23/05/16). 2.4 Literature Review Literature written about how councils can implement the principles of the RWZ declaration was reviewed. The RCOA (2016) recommends councils use an online interactive resource developed by the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG) titled Building Social Cohesion in Our Communities. The ACELG was a consortium of universities and professional bodies in operation from 2009 to 2016. Its mandate was to enhance professionalism and skills in local government, showcase innovation and best practice and facilitate a better-informed policy debate (Institute for Public Policy and Governance, University of Technology Sydney 2016). As the ACELG conducted its own literature review in order to produce a resource which was evidence-based, it seemed appropriate for AHC to use the resource to guide its implementation of the RWZ declaration. However, as evidenced by its title, the resource is intended to help local governments build strong, socially cohesive communities (ACELG 2015). The RWZ declaration is aimed at welcoming refugees and enhancing cultural and religious diversity in the community. While these principles are key components of the ACELG resource, they are embedded within the overarching aim of achieving social cohesion. It was therefore necessary to review further literature to determine whether this is an appropriate framework for the AHC to adopt. This involved reviewing literature on multicultural policy in Australia by leading authors in the area Jakubowicz, Ho and Koleth.


It was pleasing to see that the two types of research conducted prior to the literature review are recommended in the Building Social Cohesion in Our Communities resource. ‘Knowing the Community’ and ‘Engaging the Community’ are two important elements, which I essentially did when analysing population data for the AHC area and interviewing members of the community. However, it would have been more beneficial to do the literature review first, as this would have better informed the rest of my research. Indeed, this is the standard way of doing research and it is recommended that AHC take this into consideration for future projects. My findings from the literature will therefore be presented first.


3. FINDINGS & DISCUSSION

3.1 Multicultural Policy in Australia

For implementing the RWZ declaration, the RCOA suggests councils use an online interactive resource produced by the ACELG titled Building Social Cohesion in our Communities. Why social cohesion? How is this linked with welcoming refugees and enhancing cultural and religious diversity? To answer these questions and determine whether AHC should use this resource, it is necessary to understand the evolution of multicultural policy in Australia. Multicultural policy was first adopted in the 1970s, following the abandonment of racially restricted immigration policies (Koleth 2010). Its core principle – acknowledging and respecting Australia’s culturally diverse society – has been maintained throughout the decades (Ho 2013: 32; Koleth 2010). However, it has been constantly contested and the way it has been enacted has varied (Ho 2013: 32; Koleth 2010). Ho (2013: 31) argues that the evolution of multicultural policy has comprised of three main phases, reflecting different ideological orientations and political contexts. These phases are: ‘social justice,’ ‘productive diversity’, and the current one which is relevant for this project, ‘social cohesion.’ Multicultural policy began focused on improving ethnic welfare due to concern about the disadvantage experienced by migrants (Ho 2013: 31). In the late 1980s the focus shifted away from this as a culturally diverse workforce and an open multicultural society came to be recognised as economic assets. While this is still the case (evidenced by Australia’s migration program which consists predominantly of skilled migrants), since the 2000s and especially the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the USA, the emphasis of multicultural policy has shifted to ensuring social cohesion in a diverse population (Ho 2013: 38; Koleth 2010). The Labor Government’s 2010 multicultural policy The People of Australia suggested a potential shift due to its strong anti-racism focus (Ho 2013: 39; Koleth 2010). However, maintaining a cohesive society was still an underlying objective and Jakubowicz and Ho (2013: 283) argue that in 2013, movement beyond this was yet to be realised across the broad policy portfolio on multiculturalism in Australia. The Building Social Cohesion in our Communities resource suggests that this is still the case. Ho (2013) is very critical of the ‘social cohesion’ framework in multicultural policy. She argues that in its attempt to address the potential threats posed by Muslim Australians who have failed to integrate into Australian society, it has been more about promoting a coherent set of national values rather than respect for cultural difference (Ho 2013: 39). Koleth (2010) highlights that others including Babacan, Akbarzadeh and Das, have criticised it for excluding and marginalising the contributions and voices of many Australians, including those of migrant background. For Ho (2013: 38), this has been a “soft” approach to multiculturalism, focused on promoting dialogue and intercultural exchange in a celebratory manner which has been incapable of addressing the “hard” issues of racism and inequality. She describes public festivities such as Harmony Day as “‘feel good’ attempts to experience arguably superficial aspects of other cultures” (for example food, costume and performance) (Ho 2013: 39). For multicultural integration to be truly effective, Jakubowicz and Ho (2013: 287) conclude that diversity needs to become normal and difference needs to be accepted in policy as part of the everyday reality of life. Moreover, multicultural policy needs to be, and be seen to be, owned by and for all Australians, not just communities considered culturally diverse or with a more recent history of migration (Pagonis 2013: 159).


3.2 Building Social Cohesion in our Communities While multicultural policy was first introduced in Australia at the federal level, state, territory and local governments have subsequently developed their own multicultural policy frameworks (Koleth 2010). Local government legislation in all jurisdictions provides a clear role for local government to support social cohesion, equity and multiculturalism (ACELG 2015).1 In recognition of this, the ACELG developed the online interactive resource Building Social Cohesion in our Communities. Based on international best practice, it provides a broad framework for local governments to follow, structured around the following five elements:

1. Get your local government ready 2. Engage the community 3. Build long term partnerships 4. Take place-based, targeted action 5. Evaluate and share outcomes

It is very clear in the introduction to the resource that its focus is multiculturalism. Unlike what Ho (2013) claims about social cohesion trying to address threats posed by Muslim Australians failing to integrate, the ACELG seems to be concerned with the exact opposite – community opposition to Islam:

“[M]aintaining social cohesion can be a challenge. Prejudicial attitudes persist, with nearly 20 per cent of Australians having experienced discrimination because of their race or religion. Most recently, rallies around the country have indicated disquiet about the perceived influence of Islam on Australian society, although Muslims make up only around two per cent of the population. Broader social tensions can play out at a local level. For example, numerous councils have experienced community opposition to the building of mosques.”

An analogy can be drawn here with the AHC’s experience of community opposition to the opening of the Inverbrackie APOD. This may support the adoption of a social cohesion framework for implementing its declaration as a RWZ. The above quote also highlights the ACELG’s strong anti-racism focus. Building Social Cohesion in our Communities was in fact developed for the Australian Human Rights Commission under the National Anti-Racism Strategy (which came out of The People of Australia policy). The ACELG argues that racism damages all elements of social cohesion and encourages local governments to support bystander action. The resource is therefore not simply a “soft” approach to multiculturalism to use Ho’s (2013) terminology. However, identifying tensions between different groups in the community and responding to incidents that may arise are concentrated on in the resource, rather than fostering respect for difference. This is one of the resource’s main drawbacks, along with the fact that there is little on addressing inequality. Community capacity building is encouraged by increasing participation, intercultural dialogue and English language training, among other things. Building Social Cohesion in our Communities advocates a ‘whole of council’ approach and places a strong emphasis on local government being representative and inclusive of everyone in the community. These are some of its most valuable aspects. The ACELG includes Aboriginal and

1 For South Australia, sections 6 and 7 of the Local Government Act 1999 (SA).


Torres Strait Islander peoples within its consideration of cultural diversity in Australia, despite recognising that this group tends not to identify with this terminology. While multiculturalism must necessarily include engagement with issues of reconciliation, some academic commentators caution that to conflate issues facing Indigenous Australians with those facing Australians of migrant background fails to recognise the unique consideration due to Indigenous peoples as the first peoples of Australia (Koleth 2010). If AHC keeps reconciliation efforts separate, and takes into consideration the other drawbacks identified, Building Social Cohesion in our Communities provides a useful framework to guide its implementation of the RWZ declaration. It is not necessary that the terminology of social cohesion be adopted; the resource still applies if it is not used. Other useful resources identified by the author that can be used in conjunction are listed in Appendix 4.


3.3 Adelaide Hills Council 3.3.1 Knowing the Community According to the ABS (2011), the AHC had a resident population of 38,628 in 2011. The percentage of residents born outside Australia was 18, which is nearly one in every five. This is less than in Greater Adelaide where 25 percent were born outside Australia, or one in every four. Figure 3 shows when the overseas born population arrived in Australia. The AHC has a smaller proportion of recent overseas arrivals than Greater Adelaide, with the highest proportion (22%) having arrived between 1961 and 1970. However, both AHC and Greater Adelaide experienced an increase during the period from 2001 to 2011 (note that this period is represented over two sections on the graph in Figure 3, unlike the other 10 year periods).

Figure 3: Overseas Arrivals to AHC and Greater Adelaide

Graph produced by Profile.id 2011 using data from ABS 2011 Census

According to the DSS (2015), 450 people from overseas settled in the AHC between 2010 and 2015. Table 3 shows the breakdown by Migration Streams and allows comparison between neighbouring LGAs, Metropolitan Adelaide and South Australia. AHC follows the same pattern as the other areas with most settlers coming through the Skilled Stream, fewer through the Family Stream and even fewer through the Humanitarian Stream. Around 90 percent of the total overseas arrivals to South Australia settled in Metropolitan Adelaide. The northern LGAs of Salisbury, Port Adelaide Enfield and Playford had the majority of refugees (DSS 2015). The AHC was the only LGA bordering Metropolitan Adelaide where refugees also settled. Some regional LGAs had notable refugee settlements which included Murray Bridge (47), Naracoorte and Lucindale (133), Tatiara (101) and Mount Gambier (267) (DSS 2015). Researching why the number of refugees settling in the AHC is low was beyond the scope of this project. This could be researched further.


Table 3: Migration to AHC and Selected Regions from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2015

Area Migration Stream

Total Skilled Family Humanitarian

Adelaide Hills Council 276 163 11 450

District Council of Mount Barker 288 172 0 460

The Barossa Council 120 87 0 207

Alexandrina Council 70 99 0 169

Metropolitan Adelaide 45,758 18,695 6,839 71,292

South Australia ~50,000 ~20,000 ~7,500 ~77,500

Table produced by author using data from DSS (2015)

Table 4 summarises the country of birth for AHC residents from the 2006 and 2011 Census’; and their ancestry from the 2011 Census. After Australia and England, Germany was the most common country of birth followed by New Zealand, Scotland, Netherlands, Italy and South Africa. Of interest are the changes that have occurred between 2006 and 2011. The emerging counties are Iran which increased from 22 to 137, Sri Lanka which increased from 24 to 102, Vietnam which increased from 21 to 60 and Iraq which increased from 3 to 26. The concept of ancestry can be used to understand the depth of cultural diversity in the AHC as it includes people who were not born in another country but may still be affiliated with its culture. This is particularly obvious in ancestries associated with early migrant groups. For example, while 428 people were born in Germany, 4,256 indicated they have German ancestry. Similarly, 219 were born in Italy while 1,526 indicated they have Italian ancestry. In the 2011 Census, 1,183 AHC residents did not state their country of birth and 464 residents were born in countries not listed in Table 4 – this is because the ABS only lists the 50 most common countries of birth reported for the whole of Australia in the previous Census. Similarly, the ancestry results for 2011 only include the top 30 ancestry responses for Australia in the 2006 Census. This is why there are no data for many. Other ancestries for residents of AHC in 2011 that are not included in Table 4 because they do not correspond to the countries of birth listed are:

Russian: 114

Spanish: 66

Australian Aboriginal: 48

Maori: 17

Macedonian: 10

Sinhalese: 6


Table 4: AHC Residents’ Country of Birth 2011 and 2006; and Ancestry 2011 [N/D = no data]

Country Country of Birth Ancestry

2011 2006 Change 2011 Australia 30,477 29,551 +926 14,995

England 3,174 N/D N/D 17, 586

Germany 425 428 -3 4,256

New Zealand 328 340 -12 230

Scotland 257 N/D N/D 3,677

Netherlands 255 271 -16 908

Italy 219 259 -40 1,526

South Africa 204 157 +47 166

United States of America 193 172 +21 N/D

Iran 137 22 +115 N/D

Sri Lanka 102 24 +78 N/D

Canada 87 77 +10 N/D

Wales 87 N/D N/D 357

Poland 81 79 +2 409

Ireland 80 84 -4 3,315

Malaysia 66 58 +8 N/D

India 65 73 -8 92

Vietnam 60 21 +39 75

China 51 42 +9 274

Philippines 46 28 +18 62

Northern Ireland 46 N/D N/D N/D

Hungary 40 36 +4 165

Austria 39 44 -5 N/D

Hong Kong 39 38 +1 N/D

Singapore 37 36 +1 N/D

France 36 27 +9 225

Zimbabwe 33 N/D N/D N/D

Japan 31 30 +1 N/D

Papua New Guinea 31 31 0 N/D

Thailand 30 16 +14 N/D

Greece 28 33 -5 304

Iraq 26 3 +23 N/D

Cyprus 17 18 -1 N/D

Indonesia 17 21 -4 N/D

Malta 17 19 -2 103

South Korea 17 11 +6 21

South Eastern Europe 16 21 -5 N/D

Taiwan 14 7 +7 N/D

Croatia 12 18 -6 95

Egypt 11 14 -3 N/D

Cambodia 9 10 -1 N/D

Chile 9 6 +3 N/D

Fiji 9 18 -9 N/D

Lebanon 6 9 -3 61

Serbia 6 N/D N/D 39

Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 3 +1 N/D

Mauritius 3 0 +3 N/D

Turkey 3 6 -3 7

Table produced by author using data from ABS (2011) & ABS (2006)


At least 2,064 AHC residents spoke a language other than English at home in 2011, which represents approximately five percent of the population. Table 5 shows the languages and residents’ proficiency in English. At least 34 different languages were spoken, the most common being German, Italian, Greek, Polish and Dutch and French. For all these languages the majority of residents indicated they spoke English ‘well’ or ‘very well’. While the majority of Italian speakers spoke English ‘well’ or ‘very well’ they had the largest number (25) who spoke English ‘not well’ or ‘not at all’. The languages where higher proportions spoke English ‘not well’ or ‘not at all’ were Vietnamese and Mandarin. Overall, 119 residents spoke English ‘not well’ or ‘not at all’. This indicates that it would be beneficial for AHC to provide services in Italian, Vietnamese and Mandarin. Table 5: AHC Residents’ Language Spoken at Home by Proficiency in English 2011

Language Total Speaks English

very well or well not well or not at all

German 395 376 8

Italian 351 326 25

Greek 102 97 5

Polish 97 91 6

Dutch 91 87 4

French 76 73 3

Cantonese 69 65 4

Vietnamese 59 36 23

Spanish 58 53 5

Mandarin 56 46 10

Japanese 46 39 7

Russian 35 35 0

Persian (excluding Dari) 30 30 0

Hungarian 25 25 0

Portuguese 25 22 3

Sinhalese 24 21 3

Australian Indigenous languages 22 22 0

Serbian 20 20 0

Arabic 18 15 3

Croatian 15 15 0

Thai 17 10 7

Filipino 12 12 0

Indonesian 12 12 0

Other Chinese languages 11 11 0

Hindi 10 10 0

Maltese 9 9 0

Other Indo-Aryan languages 8 8 0

Khmer 7 7 0

Other Asian Austronesian languages 7 7 0

Korean 6 6 0

Macedonian 6 3 3

Turkish 6 6 0

Tagalog 5 5 0

Samoan 3 3 0

Table produced by author using data from ABS (2011)


Table 6 outlines AHC residents’ religious affiliation in 2011. Just over 50 percent affiliated with Christianity. The major Christian religions were Anglican (26%), Catholic (25%), Uniting Church (18%) and Lutheran (12%) (ABS 2011). ‘No religion’ was the next most common response, from 35 percent of the population. One percent were Buddhist and there were small numbers that indicted affiliation with Judaism, Islam and Hinduism. 3,320 residents did not state their religion. From the primary research that was conducted as part of this project, it was discovered that there is an established community of approximately 40 people in the AHC who follow the Baha’i faith. This highlights the value of primary research as this information was not revealed in the ABS data and is likely included in the category ‘Other’. Table 6: AHC Residents’ Religious Affiliation 2011

Religion Total

Christianity 20,440

No religion 13,608

Buddhism 468

Judaism 48

Islam 37

Hinduism 36

Australian Aboriginal Traditional Religions 6

Other 667

Table produced by author using data from ABS (2011)

3.3.2 Engaging the Community Individuals with Diverse Cultural Backgrounds Cultural diversity in the AHC area Among the individuals with diverse cultural backgrounds that were spoken to, there was an overwhelming view that the AHC is not a culturally diverse place. A number of participants recognised the AHC’s German history, but apart from that there was a consensus that “it looks Anglo-Saxon” (Donya). One participant thought the AHC area is not as culturally diverse as other parts of Adelaide. One of the Japanese participants in the focus group was surprised to discover that the other participants came from such culturally diverse backgrounds, because it was not obvious from their appearance – they “looked Australian” (Azusa).

“When I think about cultural diversity I automatically think about Asian faces, or different from European faces…when I am somewhere I think I am the only person who comes from a different culture” (Azusa).


After revealing to participants some of the population data on the level of cultural diversity in the AHC, all participants were surprised. Joris stated:

“Knowing that about a fifth of our population is not Australian, I think it’s amazing how monocultural the Hills actually is. Even though you meet people from various backgrounds, in the overall culture you don’t really see that…it doesn’t stand out in any way” (Joris).

Furthermore, one participant stated that “the Indigenous population and culture is totally underrepresented” and that “it would be nice to see a bit more on that” (Rebecca). Only two of the 10 participants thought the AHC is a culturally diverse place, with one stating though that “this is not the image the Hills has” (Julia). The other (Rose) emphasised the number of volunteers involved with The Summit Community Centre who come from diverse cultural backgrounds, of which she is one. Feeling welcomed When reflecting on their experience of living, working or volunteering in the AHC area and whether they felt welcomed, participants’ responses were varied. Four participants said yes, four said yes but with some reservations, and two said no. Those that said yes mentioned having friendly neighbours and one said she had the church for meeting people. The difficulty in building friendships was a reservation that two participants had. Joris and his wife felt welcomed but on a “superficial level”: “coming to a new country is hard to build meaningful, deep friendships because everyone already has their friends.” Joris did not think this necessarily reflected on the AHC area though. On the contrary, Julia correlated her inability to make new friends with the fact that the small township she lives in in the AHC has no central place where people can congregate. She said she made lots of friends in the city but felt isolated in the Hills. However, she does think there are more possibilities nowadays to meet other people in the AHC area, for example at events like the markets in Stirling and festivals in Birdwood and Gumeracha. But, she emphasised that you need to be aware of these events which is not always easy, especially for people who have arrived recently. Ayako felt welcomed by her neighbours and work colleagues, but not in what she described as “lifestyle” – for example “going to the Council or shopping” – where she experienced people being rude. She felt this was because of her lack of proficiency in English and this will be discussed below when addressing the difficulties faced by participants. Elena also mentioned being laughed at during her earlier years in Australia for not knowing the language. One participant, Roland, felt discriminated against based on his ethnicity. He felt that a community leader from the local church group took issue with his cultural background, and that this influenced the way the rest of that community interacted with him. This resulted in him feeling insecure to go about his business in the local township, for example purchasing goods and visiting the bank, because he felt he wasn’t being given fair treatment. He said he also received a threatening phone call, where he was called a “wog”. Roland described the discrimination he experienced as “redneck racism” and felt that it mainly occurred during the period from 1995 to 2005, when Howard was Prime Minister. Roland had been in Australia since 1957 and living in the AHC area since 1975. He felt that now he “only occasionally gets the cold shoulder” (Roland).


In the working environment, Azusa stated she did not feel welcome for 10 years. Although she worked in the city, not the AHC area, her experience is still relevant. She explained that her difficulty was in not knowing what is normal in Australia, what is acceptable in the workplace and if and when you can make complaints. “You don’t have judging ability when you first arrive” (Azusa). She felt she was not given enough information nor did she know where to access any. Ayako, who has become friends with Azusa since she arrived in Australia, explained how helpful it has been to have Asuza to provide her with lots of information. If Ayako searches for information herself she finds it very confusing and difficult, especially as government rules are always changing. It was mentioned by one participant that mentoring programs for new arrivals exist in the city, which could be also organised in the AHC. When discussing what it means for the participants to feel welcomed, another point raised in the focus groups was the importance of effort being two-sided – some participants felt that the big effort made by migrants in leaving everything behind and starting a new life somewhere else should be reciprocated with some effort from the community that the migrants are stepping into. For example, in moving over to Australia with two young children, Joris felt very welcomed when the principal of a local primary school invited them in and explained how the school system in Australia worked. Many participants stated that they feel welcomed when someone shows an interest in them. Ayako highlighted that it is not just about people being willing to help her, it’s about people also recognising that she has a contribution to make to the community. Difficulties experienced Language was the biggest difficulty experienced by participants. As stated by Julia, who has lived in many different countries throughout her life:

“language is an integral part of adapting to another place; without it you can’t talk to people, read the newspaper or be aware of regulations for work and the country as a whole.”

Ayako added that language is “so important to show your character and use your skill.” She felt that when she needs to say or ask for something complicated, for example at the supermarket or the Council, because it takes her longer to explain it in English “people just say no and are a little bit rude”. She said she often needs to go back three or four times just to get a simple task achieved. She thinks “people in the Hills are not experienced with speaking with people from other languages” (Ayako). She stated that AHC does not translate any information, there are few translators in the AHC area and there are less English education options than in the city. This makes her feel like she’s “rubbish” and can’t do anything, despite having a high level of skill in her home country. Donya and Azusa agreed that if you don’t speak the language you feel you are judged less than yourself, and often you are treated like a child. Both felt that their English was not good enough, as did Elena who for that reason does not want to go out to events, including Council meetings where she wants to have her say on particular issues. Myself, Lynne and the other participants in the focus group agreed that we could understand each of them very well. This suggests a lack of confidence on their part and a lack of patience among members of the community when speaking with people from linguistically diverse backgrounds.


Other difficulties experienced by participants were: finding work and volunteering; not knowing where health services were located (especially upon arrival); feeling isolated; and the occurrence of cultural misunderstandings, for example it was discussed that in some cultures it is not necessary to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ because they are implied, where as in Australia this is essential. What AHC can do Participants were asked to consider how the AHC can make the area a more welcoming place for people from diverse cultural backgrounds. Regarding language, it was suggested that AHC offer free or low cost English classes, not only for the benefit of the individuals but for the benefit of everyone: “because then we can use our skills for the community” (Ayako). Translating information and offering a larger selection of books written in other languages in the libraries was also suggested. It became apparent that improved advertising of events and activities happening in the AHC (not only those culturally related or run by the AHC) was also desired by participants. During the focus group, one participant mentioned the Harmony Day event and the Persian cooking classes that are run at The Summit Community Centre. A number of other participants, including one who worked for AHC, had never heard of these events and stated that they would have loved to be involved. Julia felt that the advertising of things happening in the AHC area is extremely dispersed and haphazard, through various Council mediums such as the Hills Voice magazine and the community centres, and through private organisations like the theatre in Stirling, the Country Fire Service, churches, local newspapers and schools.

“You have to go to the effort to sign up to their individual mailing lists or go through 20 people to find out what’s happening, otherwise it’s impossible to know what’s out there” (Julia).

For Julia, creating a central, permanent platform where everything could be advertised is desperately needed in the AHC because these activities “are the glue that holds the community together”. She stated that this would be especially helpful for new migrants as current advertising tends not to reach them. Furthermore, Joris felt that although the multicultural events run by The Summit Community Centre are wonderful, they are not council wide. He said they also depend on the person who drives the community centre and who the volunteers are: “it is very localised” (Joris).

“As a whole, Council doesn’t express a lot of interest for culture or any cultural expressions, nor does it acknowledge the variety of cultures that we have in the Hills” (Joris).

All participants agreed with Joris that AHC should acknowledge the variety of cultures. Participants said they would like more multicultural events such as festivals where there is the chance to meet people and learn more about their culture. While food is a fantastic way of doing this, it was also recognised that culture is more than just food. For example, Ayako stated that while people are interested in sushi and martial arts now in Australia, “it would be good to have the opportunity to


show other aspects of my culture.” Celebrating cultural difference was also considered by Roland as a way of eliminating the ignorance and fear that causes racism. Another key point that was raised by a number of participants was involving youth. In making reference to their children, they stated the tendency for the younger generations to want to integrate and shy away from their cultural background. Participants felt that culture should be a source of pride, but it’s not if the culture is not known or accepted in the community. It was suggested that AHC could collaborate with schools on this. Donya suggested that the Baha’i community in the AHC area could work with the AHC to help bring more awareness of how a community can build itself and be more connected, as this is what the Baha’i faith is centred on. “You don’t have to be Baha’i to be part of this vision” (Donya). Donya also suggested that AHC invite more people from diverse cultural backgrounds to live in the AHC area. Recommendations based on findings Based on the above findings from the interviews and focus group held with individuals with diverse cultural backgrounds, it is recommended that AHC:

Raise awareness about the cultural diversity in the area, and celebrate it - Including Aboriginal culture - Beyond the Community Centres and across the whole of AHC - For example, through multicultural events which are more than just about food

Provide new overseas arrivals with basic but essential information about living and working in Australia

- This could be facilitated through a mentoring program - Appendix 5 contains some suggested resources

Consider translating Council information into other languages

Offer English language classes

Provide cultural awareness training to staff

Provide more opportunities for residents to meet other people and/or better advertise the opportunities that already exist

- For example, by creating a platform where everything is advertised in one place which is easy to access

Develop ways of preventing and responding to incidents of racism and discrimination

Engage with youth from diverse cultural backgrounds


Relevant Community Groups The three community groups that were interviewed expressed support for AHC’s research in this area. The HCOF and AHA stated they would be willing to collaborate with AHC in running events and activities that implement the principles of the RWZ declaration. Both groups stated that they have contacts which may be useful for AHC, such as artists and speakers. The groups also mentioned the possibility of cross advertising each other’s events. The contact details for HCOF and AHA are provided in Appendix 6. HCOF felt that despite the very small number of refugees and asylum seekers currently living in the AHC area, AHC can still play a role in welcoming those who live in other parts of Adelaide. They suggested the possibility of organising day trips for refugees and asylum seekers to visit the Adelaide Hills. They explained that these kinds of activities are very popular among refugees and asylum seekers because they do not normally have the means to travel far from where they live. Also, many have come from rural areas in their home countries and find it difficult to adjust to urban life in Adelaide. HCOF felt that a visit to the Adelaide Hills would give them a chance to be back in the country side, in familiar territory and more connected with nature. It would also provide an opportunity to showcase to refugees and asylum seekers another side of Adelaide that they may not be aware of. HCOF also highlighted the benefits for the AHC community in running such an activity. It could foster a sense of pride in the area, as well as a sense of compassion towards refugees and asylum seekers; as was the experience with the Inverbrackie APOD, having direct contact with these people rather than reading about them in the media goes a long way in changing people’s perceptions. Members of the HCOF offered their properties as visit locations, and suggested the AHC could organise a bus to pick people up from one of the refugee centres in Adelaide. Thus, this activity would be reasonably simple to run. In the interview with AHA, the group emphasised the importance of language use in this area and the care that should be taken by AHC. For example, it was suggested that describing people as coming from “other cultures” should be avoided as this tends to imply a dominant Anglo-Saxon culture, when in fact in Australia we all come from “other” cultures as we are a multicultural society based on an Aboriginal foundation. A second, related suggestion made by the AHA was that the AHC showcase its cultural diversity more. While the AHC area appears Anglo-Saxon on the surface, one member of the group stated that “this is an illusion”. Something as simple as placing a banner on an AHC building was suggested, as this has been done in the City of Melbourne. The group also felt that more awareness could be raised about the former German names of towns in the AHC area that were changed during World War 2 and Peramangk names too. In the interview with the former convenor of the Inverbrackie Good Neighbour Council, it was suggested that because the number of refugees settling in the AHC area is so small, AHC could have a more targeted and personal approach to welcoming them. In her view, settlement services provided by the agencies are inadequate for meeting the true needs of new arrivals and AHC could contribute to making the experience better for those settling in the AHC area. Two Facebook groups were mentioned by the former convenor of the Inverbrackie Good Neighbour Council. They are titled: ‘I welcome refugees to the Adelaide Hills!!’ and ‘Adelaide Hills Welcomes You!’ With 138 and 77 members respectively, they show broader support for refugees and asylum seekers in the AHC area and provide an additional platform for advertising events, to people who are likely to be interested. Links to the groups can be found in Appendix 7.


3.3.3 What’s Already in Place AHC already has some things in place that work towards implementing the principles of the RWZ declaration. Multicultural groups are recognised in AHC’s Strategic Plan 2014-2018 and ‘Cultural Diversity’ is a strategy in the Community Strategy 2015-2020. Table 7 outlines the relevant parts. This shows that AHC is committed to multiculturalism as a strategic priority. The Community Strategy 2015-2020 states that specific projects and activities relating to each strategy will be determined when developing Action Plans. An Action Plan has not been developed for the strategy of ‘Cultural Diversity’. It is recommended that one is developed, and through this the principles of the RWZ declaration are implemented. Table 7: Existing AHC Strategies

Strategic Plan 2014-2018 Community Strategy 2015-2020

Goal 1: A Safe and Connected Community Key Theme 1.1: Community Planning 1.1.1: Develop and implement a Community Strategy that will:

undertake a needs analysis,

develop a demographic profile,

identify gaps in services, programs, facilities, to meet community need, and

cater for our diverse community, including young people, older people, traditional indigenous custodians and multicultural groups.

Goal Area 2: Community Wellbeing Strategy: Cultural Diversity Strengthen the focus on understanding and promoting cultural diversity within the Adelaide Hills including:

Development of a Reconciliation Action Plan

Understanding and promoting the Aboriginal heritage of the area through the availability of library materials and information

Working with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities (CALD) to establish activities and events that are inclusive to all people in the community

The continued provision of access to hard copy and online resources in languages other than English through the libraries

Relevance to community groups: All generations

Goal 1: A Safe and Connected Community Key Theme 1.2: Community Participation 1.2.3: Include the community in Council processes through engagement of groups, such as younger people, older residents, indigenous people, people living with a disability, mental health, multicultural and other specific population groups.

Table produced by author using information from AHC (2014) & AHC (2015)

Furthermore, it is recommended that multiculturalism and the principles contained in the RWZ declaration are strengthened as strategic priorities in AHC’s upcoming Strategic Plan 2016-2020. AHC has identified key topics that it is considering for inclusion; the ones relevant are: ‘Diversity, Access and Inclusion’ and ‘Culture, Arts and Heritage.’


On the ground, AHC has inadvertently run activities that implement the principles of the RWZ declaration, especially from its community centres. For example, a ‘Multicultural Feast’ was held to celebrate Harmony Day at The Summit Community Centre. Persian cooking classes run by an AHC resident have also been very popular over the last few years. The Torrens Valley Community Centre has made an effort to address the needs of the local Vietnamese population, of which there are about 70, who have come as skilled migrants to work at the Thomas Foods meat-processing company in Lobethal. Letters written in Vietnamese were sent to the community asking what their needs were and as a result, English classes were run from the centre for 18 months (Personal Communication 23/06/16). These types of initiatives can be continued and expanded.


4. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

In considering all the research that was conducted during this project, what does it mean for AHC to be a RWZ and how can it be achieved? The literature revealed that policy and action around multiculturalism is the most effective way of putting the RWZ declaration into practice, and that this is in fact best practice for local government. Trying to build social cohesion in the community is one framework that is currently used for addressing multiculturalism. The ACELG provides a useful online interactive resource, Building Social Cohesion in our Communities, which can assist AHC to achieve this. However, it is not necessary that AHC adopt the language of social cohesion. In critiquing this resource, a few limitations were identified which would need to be considered to ensure it is most effective. Analysing population data for the AHC area confirmed that there are very few refugees, but revealed a substantial level of cultural and religious diversity. The key findings were (from 2011 data):

Nearly 1 in 5 residents were born overseas from at least 47 different countries

The percentage of people born overseas living in the AHC area increased during 2001-2011 compared to the previous 30 years

At least 60 percent of the population have ancestry that is other than Australian

Over 34 different languages are spoken at home

65 percent of the population have a religious affiliation

A very small proportion of the people migrating to South Australia are settling in the AHC area (from 2015 data)

Most people settling in the AHC area are coming through the Skilled Migration Stream from 2015 data)

11 refugees settled in the AHC area during 2010-2015 The primary research revealed that the AHC area does not seem culturally diverse to members of the community. There is a desire for cultural diversity to be more celebrated and specific issues were identified which can be addressed to make the AHC a more welcoming place. Primary research also suggested that although the number of refugees settling in the AHC area is small, AHC can play a role in welcoming those living in other parts of Adelaide through organising visits to the area. The small number may also enable a stronger effort towards welcoming them. The audit of what AHC already has in place showed that there is a commitment to multiculturalism at the strategic level, but this needs to be translated into more action on the ground. The specific recommendations proposed for AHC are listed below.


4.1 Recommendations Recommendation 1: Maintain and strengthen the commitment to multiculturalism and the principles of the RWZ declaration in the upcoming Strategic Plan 2016-2020. Recommendation 2: Develop a Multicultural Action Plan that outlines the specific projects and activities relating to the strategy for Cultural Diversity in the Community Strategy 2015-2020 and the RWZ declaration. Recommendation 3: Use the ACELG resource Building Social Cohesion in our Communities to guide the development of the Multicultural Action Plan. Three other resources that may be useful are listed in Appendix 4. Recommendation 4: Include in the Multicultural Action Plan efforts towards fostering respect for difference and reducing inequality. Recommendation 5: Do not address reconciliation in the Multicultural Action Plan. This topic should be kept separate. Recommendation 6: Include in the Multicultural Action Plan projects and activities that:

Raise awareness about, and celebrate, cultural diversity in the AHC area For example:

- run multicultural events or festivals - acknowledge the former German and Peramangk names of areas - include more information on the AHC website about cultural diversity in the area

Assist residents with English as a second language For example:

- translate Council information into other languages (analysis of population data indicated that the most required are Italian, Vietnamese and Mandarin)

- offer English language classes

Provide opportunities for new overseas arrivals to meet other people

Provide new overseas arrivals with information about living and working in Australia For example:

- distribute the resources contained in Appendix 5 - develop a mentoring program

Prevent and respond to incidents of racism and discrimination

Engage with youth

Engage with refugees and asylum seekers living in other parts of Adelaide For example:

- run day trips to the AHC area in collaboration with the HCOF


Recommendation 7: When developing the Multicultural Action Plan, also consider:

not limiting projects and activities to the AHC community centres

improving how events are advertised so that everyone in the community is informed

providing cultural awareness training to staff

using inclusive language

Recommendation 8: Review new population data when it becomes available, taking note of changes and emerging groups in the AHC area. 2016 Census results will be available in 2017. Recommendation 9: Continue to engage with the community, especially groups that were not engaged with in this project. Recommendation 10: Conduct further research into:

the role AHC can play in the provision of settlement services for refugees and other migrants settling in the AHC area

why the number of refugees settling in the AHC area is so low Recommendation 11: Ensure a literature review is conducted at the outset of any future research so that it is well informed.


REFERENCES

Adelaide Hills Council 2014, ‘Lofty Aspirations Sustainable Actions,’ Strategic Plan 2014-2018, viewed 29 June 2016, <www.ahc.sa.gov.au/ahc- council/Documents/Strategic%20Management%20Plan%202014%20-%202018.pdf >. Adelaide Hills Council 2015, Community Strategy 2015-2020 [not available on Adelaide Hills Council’s website]. Adelaide Hills Council 2016, Adelaide Hills Council Ward Areas, viewed 29 June 2016, <www.ahc.sa.gov.au/ahc-council/Documents/AHC%20Map%20of%20Council%20and%20Wards%202c%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf>. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, ‘Adelaide Hills (DC) Local Government Area, Expanded Community Profile’, Census of Population and Housing, viewed 29 June 2016, <http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2006/communityprofile/LGA40120?opendocument&navpos=220>. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, 'Adelaide Hills (DC) Local Government Area, Expanded Community Profile', Census of Population and Housing, viewed 2 July 2016, <http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/LGA40120?opendocument&navpos=220>. Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government 2015, Building Social Cohesion in our Communities, viewed 29 June 2016, <http://www.acelg.org.au/socialcohesion>. Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 2009, ‘South Australia (Adelaide and Regions),’ Regional Development Australia, viewed 29 June 2016, <http://rdametroadelaide.com.au/node/25>. Australian Government Department of Social Services 2014, ‘Data Dictionary,’ Settlement Reporting Facility, viewed 29 June 2016, <https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/programs-policy/settlement-services/settlement-reporting-facility/help-for-settlement-reports/data-dictionary>. Australian Government Department of Social Services 2015, ‘Local Government Areas by Migration Stream,’ Settlement Reports, viewed 29 June 2016, <https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/settlement-reporting-facility/settlement-quick-reports/migration-stream-by-local-government-area>. Curtis, F & Mee, K 2012, ‘Welcome to Woodside: Inverbrackie Alternative Place of Detention and performances of belonging in Woodside, South Australia, and Australia,’ Australian Geographer, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 357-375. Haynes, J & Mennie, S 2010, ‘Asylum seekers move in to Inverbrackie in Adelaide Hills,’ Sunday Mail 19 December.


Ho, C 2013, ‘From social justice to social cohesion: a history of Australian multicultural policy’, in ‘For those who’ve come across the seas…’ Australian multicultural theory, policy and practice, eds Jakubowicz, A & Ho, C, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, pp. 31-41. Institute for Public Policy and Governance, University of Technology Sydney 2016, About ACELG, viewed 29 June 2016, < http://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/public-policy-and-governance/about-institute/about-acelg>. Jakubowicz, A & Ho, C 2013, ‘An agenda for the next decade’, in ‘For those who’ve come across the seas…’ Australian multicultural theory, policy and practice, eds Jakubowicz, A & Ho, C, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, pp. 277-289. Koleth, E 2010, Multiculturalism: a review of Australian policy statements and recent debates in Australia and overseas, Parliamentary Library Research Branch, viewed 29 June 2016, <http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1011/11rp06#_Toc275248116>. Pagonis, C 2013, ‘Local government: access, equity and social inclusion’, in ‘For those who’ve come across the seas…’ Australian multicultural theory, policy and practice, eds Jakubowicz, A & Ho, C, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, pp. 148-160. Profile.id 2011, Adelaide Hills Council Community Profile, viewed 29 June 2016, <http://profile.id.com.au/adelaide-hills>. Refugee Council of Australia 2016a, Refugee Week 2016 Resource Kit, viewed 29 June 2016, <http://www.refugeeweek.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Refugee-Week-2016-Resource-Update-1-June-2016-FINAL1-1.pdf>. Refugee Council of Australia 2016b, Refugee Welcome Zones, viewed 29 June 2016, <http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/our-work/refugee-welcome-zones/>. Refugee Council of Australia n.d., Refugee Welcome Zones: An initiative of the Refugee Council of Australia, viewed 29 June 2016, <http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/RWZ-Councils-1509.pdf>.


APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Primary Research Questions – Individuals with Diverse Cultural Backgrounds Questions about cultural diversity: What does cultural diversity mean to you? Do you think the Adelaide Hills is a culturally diverse place? Questions about feeling welcomed: When you reflect on your experience living or working in the Hills, have you felt welcomed? (Elicit how, how not & examples) What does it mean for you to be welcomed? Do you feel that your culture is respected in the Hills? (Elicit how, how not & examples) Do you feel comfortable sharing your culture? (Elicit how, how not & examples) Have you had any difficulties while living or working in the Hills, specifically because of your cultural background? How do you think these difficulties could be addressed? How do you think the Hills compares in terms of how accepting it is of other cultures? Questions about cultural communities: Is there a community of people in the Hills who come from your cultural background? How big is the community? (Elicit actual numbers if possible) What kinds of things does the community do? (E.g. regular meetings, social activities, events for the wider public?) Questions about Council: Would you like to see your culture more recognised in the Hills? How? (E.g. festivals, events, food, books in library, public art pieces) What do you think the Council can do to make the Hills a more welcoming place for people from diverse cultures? Is there anything else you’d like to share?


Appendix 2: Primary Research Questions – Relevant Community Groups

How long has your group been around for? Why did it begin? What is the purpose of the group now? What do you do to achieve your purpose? (I.e. operations of the group) What did the group do around the Inverbrackie Alternate Place of Detention which operated in the Hills between 2010 and 2014? How is the group connected with the Hills? (I.e. is this where activities are run and/or where members are from?) How many members? What do you think AHC can do to be a RWZ? Do you know whether there are refugees currently living in the AH? My research has shown that from 2010-15, only 11 migrants coming via a humanitarian migration stream settled in the AH. Due to this, we think the fourth commitment in being a RWZ is currently the most relevant for AHC: to enhance cultural & religious diversity in the community. We are also looking at cultural & religious inclusivity. In this context, what do you think AHC can do? (If not already addressed) Externally (w/in AH community); Internally (w/in the org). Do you have any specific advice from your experiences? Do you know of anyone that comes from a refugee background who lives in/works in/visits the AH who we could interview or who could participate in one of our focus groups? Would you be interested in collaborating with AHC on initiatives in this area down the track? Do you know of any other groups in the Hills working in this area? Is there anything else you’d like to say?


Appendix 3: Primary Research Participant Information – Individuals with Diverse Cultural Backgrounds [N/D = no data]

Name Age

Range

Connection to the Adelaide Hills Year connection

commenced

Year of arrival in Aus.

Country of Birth

Came as Refugee

Culture/s Identify

With Resident Worker Volunteer

Donya 40-49 Y N Y 2004 1984 Iran Y Baha’i

Helen 50-59 Y Y Y 2011 2008 Taiwan N Taiwanese

Roland 70-79 Y Y N 1975 1957 Hungary Y N/D

Julia 60-69 Y N Y 1996 1996 Brazil N Australian

Joris 40-49 Y Y Y 2006 2006 Netherlands N Dutch

Rose 70-79 Y N Y 1963 1963 Scotland N Australian

Elena 70-79 Y N N 1991 1967 Italy N Australian

Rebecca 50-59 Y Y N 2010 1988

England (but moved to

Malawi when a few weeks old)

N English & Central African

Ayako 30-39 Y Y N 2008 2008 Japan N Japanese

Azusa 60-69 Y N Y 1994 1994 Japan N Japanese


Appendix 4: Other Useful Resources

1. The People of Australia

Author: Australian Multicultural Advisory Council Year: 2010 Available: https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/publications/the-people-of-australia-australias-multicultural-policy

2. Refugee Welcome Zones: Local Councils building a culture

of welcome for refugees

Author: Refugee Council of Australia Year: 2013 Available: http://refugeecouncil.org.au/g/131219_RWZ.pdf

3. ‘Local Government: Access, Equity and Social Inclusion’

in ‘For those who’ve come across the seas…’: Australian Multicultural Theory, Policy and Practice

Author: Con Pagonis Year: 2013 Available: Book store or library.


Appendix 5: Resources for New Overseas Arrivals

1. Beginning a Life in Australia

Author: Australian Government Department of Social Services Year: 2012 Available: https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-services/beginning-a-life-in-australia Description: This booklet welcomes newly-arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants to Australia. It provides useful national, state/territory and local settlement information for migrants, humanitarian entrants, their sponsors and service providers. This information is available to download in English and 37 community languages.

2. Community Connections

Author: Cities of Campbelltown, Charles Sturt, Port Adelaide Enfield, Marion, Norwood Payneham & St Peters, West Torrens, Prospect and The Australian Refugee Association Year: 2007 Available:https://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/project/Community_Connections_-_Welcome_to_Your_Local_Council_-_Your_Local_Community.pdf Description: This is a South Australian Local Government booklet for residents with low English literacy levels (residents from culturally diverse communities and new arrivals). The guide uses basic language and appropriate graphics to explain the role of Local Government, the services it provides, the areas that it governs and the way in which Councils act as a link to the wider community.

3. Support for Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Author: Margaret Calder from the Circle of Friends 111, Wayville & the Effective Living Centre, Wayville Year: 2015 Available: www.effectiveliving.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Refugee-support.pdf Description: This booklet sets out details for resources available in and around Adelaide for refugees and asylum seekers.


Appendix 6: Relevant Community Groups’ Contact Details

Hills Circle of Friends

Website: http://hillscircleoffriends.org/ Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/hillscircleoffriends/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/hillscircleoffriends/ Coordinator: Michelle Harvey, 0405 916 456, <[email protected]> Other Members: Barry Long <[email protected]> Catherine Russell <[email protected]> Jill Golden <[email protected]> Lesley Walker <[email protected]> Mandi Whitten-Current <[email protected]> Nathan Rogers <[email protected]> Adelaide Hills Group of Amnesty International

Website: http://www.amnesty.org.au/sa/group/20501/ Convener: Laurie Lever, 0432 048 639, <[email protected]> Other Members: Lesley Walker <[email protected]> Michelle Harvey <[email protected]> Peter Mayer <[email protected]> Vivien Hazel <[email protected]>

mailto:[email protected]










Appendix 7: Relevant Facebook Groups ‘I welcome refugees to the Adelaide Hills!!’ Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/welcomerefugees/ Description: “This group began, as community response, when the Inverbrackie Detention Centre opened, in the Adelaide Hills, Dec 2010. Be part of creating a culture of WELCOME in the Adelaide Hills, and Australia. ♥ Peace and Welcome to all.” ‘Adelaide Hills Welcomes You!’ Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/448173465367466/ Description: “If Jay Weatherill is able to get Tony to agree to allow Syrian refugees to use the Inverbrackie facility, then lets show them our Hills hospitality! If it happens, it would be brilliant to be able to offer Welcome Packs to the families and individuals! If you are interested in being involved, please join this group. It might not eventuate but here's hoping humanity overrides ignorance. NO ANTI REFUGEE PERSON WELCOME! You have your rights to believe what you want, but unless you are supportive to this drive, please do not comment. Negative/abusive posts will be removed and persons blocked. Charity, hospitality and generosity is the Hills way”