settlement patterns of african refugee communities in southeast queensland
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 20 November 2014, At: 15:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Australian GeographerPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cage20
Settlement Patterns of African RefugeeCommunities in Southeast QueenslandWendy Harte a , Iraphne R.W. Childs a & Peter A. Hastings aa Queensland University of Technology , AustraliaPublished online: 19 Mar 2009.
To cite this article: Wendy Harte , Iraphne R.W. Childs & Peter A. Hastings (2009) SettlementPatterns of African Refugee Communities in Southeast Queensland, Australian Geographer, 40:1,51-67, DOI: 10.1080/00049180802656960
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049180802656960
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Settlement Patterns of African RefugeeCommunities in Southeast Queensland
WENDY HARTE, IRAPHNE R.W. CHILDS & PETER A.HASTINGS, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
ABSTRACT Over 4000 African refugees have resettled in Queensland through the
Australian government’s Humanitarian Program. Research on the settlement geography of
this immigrant group is, however, limited. The present study is set within the context of
research and debates concerning the residential concentration and/or dispersion patterns of
immigrant settlement in Australia. The paper investigates the settlement and secondary
migration geography of eight African refugee communities in Southeast Queensland.
Discrepancies are identified between the official data and the actual distribution according
to community members’ views obtained via focus group surveys and interviews.
Preliminary results indicate that there is a relatively high rate of secondary migration in
the African communities. The paper also discusses the two key factors underpinning this
secondary migration: housing and social networks. These findings have implications for
settlement service providers, particularly in the area of housing.
KEY WORDS African refugees; refugee settlement; secondary migration; Southeast
Queensland; Australia.
Introduction
African refugees are one of the most disadvantaged groups to resettle in
Australia over the past 60 years and settlement support for these communities is
therefore critical. Allocations of such support are dependent upon accurate
knowledge of African refugee numbers and geographic locations. The Depart-
ment of Immigration and Citizenship1 (DIAC) is the peak body responsible for
refugee welfare in Australia, and it has only recently begun to maintain records
of refugee settlement. To date there has been no verification of the DIAC
settlement data and little formal study of the distribution of African refugees in
Southeast Queensland. This may be partly due to the difficulties in gaining
relevant information on actual settlement locations and household movements. It
also likely reflects the relative recency of African refugee immigration to
Southeast Queensland. This paper addresses the gap by reviewing existing
official data sources on eight African refugee communities in Southeast
Queensland, developing a methodology to access additional, improved data via
a community-based approach, identifying gaps in the settlement and secondary
ISSN 0004-9182 print/ISSN 1465-3311 online/09/010051-17 # 2009 Geographical Society of New South Wales Inc.
DOI: 10.1080/00049180802656960
Australian Geographer, Vol. 40, No. 1,
pp. 51�67, March 2009
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
migration data, mapping distribution of the communities and explaining factors
underpinning secondary migration flows.
African refugees in Australia
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a
‘refugee’ in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its
1967 Protocol as a person who has fled his/her country of nationality because of
a fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality or affiliation (UNHCR
1996). People who are identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees as refugees can apply for refugee status in Australia under one of the
Humanitarian Program’s offshore resettlement categories (‘Convention refu-
gees’). People who are not classified as refugees under the Convention and the
Protocol, but are in a refugee-like situation and are proposed and sponsored by
an Australian citizen, permanent resident or community organisation, can apply
for entry into Australia through the Special Humanitarian Program (DIAC
2007a). Many Special Humanitarian Program proposers are often recently
arrived refugees themselves who sponsor family members to join them in
Australia. In 2006�07, approximately 46 per cent of Humanitarian Program
places were allocated to Convention refugees and 54 per cent to Special
Humanitarian Program entrants (DIAC 2007a). Distinctions between refugee
status in Australia do have significant implications for housing and service
provision, despite the two groups having similar pre-settlement experiences and
settlement needs (CRC 2006). For this reason, the term ‘refugee’ is used here
when referring to people who enter Australia either through the offshore
component of the Humanitarian Program as Convention refugees or as Special
Humanitarian Program entrants, unless otherwise stated.
The first small intake of African refugees to Australia through the Humanitarian
Program occurred in the 1980s, with the numbers steadily increasing during the
1990s. The regional focus of the Humanitarian Program shifted from Europe, the
Middle East and Southwest Asia in the 1990s to Africa in 2001. The proportion of
African Humanitarian Program entrants increased from 25 per cent in 2000�01 to
70 per cent in 2003�04 and 2004�05 and then steadily reduced to 30 per cent in the
2007�08 intake year (DIAC 2007a, 2008) (see Table 1).
African refugees in Queensland
The present research initially aimed to focus on refugees from Burundi, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra
Leone, Somalia and Sudan on the basis of these nine being the largest African
refugee communities in Southeast Queensland. Despite several requests by the
researchers, the Eritrean community decided not to participate in the research,
thus reducing the number of case study communities to eight. Between 1996
and February 2007, 4016 African refugees from the eight case study commu-
nities nominated Queensland as their initial settlement location (see Table 2)
(DIAC 2007b).
52 W. Harte et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
TABLE 1. Australia’s resettlement program by region, 2000�2001 to 2007�08
Rank 2000�01 2001�02 2002�03 2003�04 2004�05 2005�06 2006�07 2007�08
1 Europe 43.32% Africa 33.12%
(2801)
Africa 48.30%
(5628)
Africa 70.78%
(8353)
Africa 70.15%
(8486)
Africa 55.65%
(7100)
Africa 50.9%
(5695)
Middle
East &
SW Asia
35.25%
2 Middle
East &
SW Asia
26.96% Middle
East &
SW Asia
32.43% Middle
East &
SW Asia
39.96% Middle
East &
SW Asia
24.29% Middle
East &
SW Asia
26.24% Middle
East &
SW Asia
33.97% Middle
East &
SW Asia
27.94% Asia33.66%
3 Africa 25.43%
(2032)
Europe 32.03% Europe 9.94% Asia 3.00% Europe 3.43% Asia 9.87% Asia 20.69% Africa30.47% (3291)
4 Asia 3.95% Asia 2.23% Asia 1.78% Europe 1.87% Asia 0.16% Europe 0.43% Europe 0.44% Europe 0.54%
5 Americas 0.34% Americas 0.19% Americas 0.03% Americas 0.06% Americas 0.008% Americas 0.06% ��
America 0.05%
Notes:Numbers in parentheses are actual numbers of African Humanitarian Program entrants.Source: adapted from DIAC (2007a, 2008).
Settlem
ent
Pattern
sof
Africa
nR
efugee
Com
munities
53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Review of data sources: identifying gaps
Many studies of settlement and secondary migration patterns use census data as
their main secondary data sources (e.g. Burnley 2005; Logan et al. 2002; Newbold
1999; Perrin & Dunn 2007; Quintero 2005). In Australia prior to the most recent
(2006) national census, however, not all African country-of-birth data were
available through this source. Instead, many African communities were represented
at a regional scale, for example the category ‘North Africa’ included immigrants
from Sudan, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and the Western Sahara
(Perrin & Dunn 2007, pp. 257�8). Furthermore, it is not possible to differentiate
humanitarian from non-humanitarian immigrants from the same country of birth
using the census data (Bloch 1999, p. 369; Perrin & Dunn 2007, p. 257). Dale and
Marsh (in Bloch 1999, p. 369) also highlight the undercounting in the census of
people who live in temporary accommodation and those who are not literate in
English, which is true for many African refugees in Southeast Queensland. There is
also a suggestion of high levels of non-compliance of African refugees in completing
census forms because of a perceived fear of authority figures and government
departments and how their personal information might be used (MDA Repre-
sentative 2006). For these reasons, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006
census data are only used in the present research to compare with data gathered
from other sources (Bloch 1999).
Another key immigration data source is the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship Settlement Database, which contains records since January 2001.
While this is considered to be the most comprehensive information source for the
present research, limitations of these data are recognised. Firstly, while the database
provides information about the geographic location of refugees, it cannot be used to
examine secondary migration patterns or to clarify the reasons for these move-
ments. In a submission to the CRC (2006) investigating African humanitarian
settlement in New South Wales, the Department of Immigration noted that
‘assessment of secondary migration [of Humanitarian Program entrants] is
inherently difficult to verify through [these] available statistics’ (p. 40). Secondly,
country-of-birth data do not necessarily indicate ethnicity because of the displace-
ment of large numbers of people in Africa. For example, most Kenyan- and
Egyptian-born refugees on the Settlement Database were actually born to Sudanese
TABLE 2. Population numbers of the nine largest African refugee communities in SoutheastQueensland according to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship Settlement
Database
Country of birth Number of people
Burundi 192Democratic Republic of the Congo 60Ethiopia 174Liberia 268Rwanda 64Sierra Leone 226Somalia 242Sudan 2790Total 4016
Source: DIAC (2007b).
54 W. Harte et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
parents in refugee camps in those two countries*and identify themselves as
Sudanese rather than Kenyan or Egyptian (CRC 2006, p. 30; Middleton 2008a).
Thirdly, the data for the Settlement Database are collated from a number of
government agencies (e.g. Medicare) when services are accessed by Humanitarian
Program entrants (DIAC 2007b). If these services are not accessed, however, the
Department of Immigration and Citizenship has no other method of recording and
updating the entrants’ data (DIAC 2007c, p. 27). The Australian Bureau of
Statistics Migrant Research Unit is testing packages to statistically match the
Settlement Database and Australian Bureau of Statistics census data to overcome
this issue. At the time of the fieldwork for the present research, however, these were
still being assessed by the Migrant Research Unit, which had identified problems
with the accuracy of the packages (Middleton 2008b).
Despite these shortcomings, the Settlement Database is considered to be the best
data source available for analysing the distribution of African refugee communities
in Southeast Queensland. Data specific to the present research were obtained
through the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in Canberra.
Accessing additional data via focus groups
The process of capturing more comprehensive data on African refugee settlement
and migration occurred through a combination of critical review of existing data,
discussion within focus groups representing the case study communities, and
interviews with community leaders.
The settlement data were entered into ArcGIS and processed to produce maps of
the distribution of the case study communities. These maps were used in the focus
groups to obtain a comparison of the maps derived from the settlement data with
participants’ knowledge of community distribution. Further comment on the
outcomes of these discussions is made below.
As outlined above, the Settlement Database quantitative data give no indication
of secondary migration patterns and neither do they explain the triggers for
secondary migration. Additional information was therefore required, which could
only be obtained directly from the communities themselves through qualitative
data-collection techniques. Such multi-method approaches to data gathering are
used frequently in geographic research on settlement and secondary migration (e.g.
Burnley 2005; Dunn 1998; Glavac & Childs 1993; Hardwick 2003; Hardwick &
Meacham 2005; Hume & Hardwick 2005) As Hugo (2003), p. 301) observes:
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.
The primary data in the present research were gathered by the researchers through
focus groups and interviews with members of the eight African case study
communities. In total, 57 members of these communities participated. Focus
groups have become common in the field of human geography (Hugo 2003, p. 296)
and in research with refugees (e.g. Carrington et al. 2007; Hardwick & Meacham
2005; Migrant Information Centre and South Central Region Migrant Resource
Settlement Patterns of African Refugee Communities 55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Centre 2007). They are ‘a highly effective vehicle for exploring the nuances and
complexities associated with people�place relations’ (Cameron 2005, p. 120) and
therefore useful to explore the reasons underpinning residential distribution and
secondary migration decisions. Focus group participants were asked to comment
on the information portrayed in the prepared (Department of Immigration and
Citizenship data) maps. Other topics that were discussed included: where people
move to, why they move to these areas, and factors underlying the decisions to
move.
While this process was critical for gathering information from the communities,
there were also some unavoidable limitations to the approach, the most obvious of
which was the cultural and language differences between the researcher and the
participants. This barrier was bridged by close and continued assistance of
community leaders and bilingual community consultants. It should be noted that
the principal author spent considerable time meeting, explaining the research, and
attending community functions and meetings prior to enlisting their assistance and
generally cultivating good rapport with community leaders throughout the field-
work.
Other problematic issues relate to accessing community members because of
their perceptions of over-consultation. The African communities, particularly the
Sudanese, have already been targeted by a number of agencies for various research
purposes. For this reason, the principal author worked with the Queensland African
Communities Council, the peak body representing the interests of African
communities in Queensland. Focus groups were organised (by negotiation with
individual leaders and groups, represented on the Communities Council) to
coincide with scheduled community meetings. Some problems arose with
coordinating the focus groups with these meetings because of frequent postpone-
ments and/or irregularly scheduled meetings. All leaders were also consulted about
the need to hold separate women-only focus group meetings in their community to
prevent potential impacts that gender hierarchies might have on data collection and
to overcome the general trend of gender-blindness in geographical studies of
migration (Hugo 2003, p. 302). An additional unexpected difficulty arose after an
announcement by the (former) immigration minister in October 2007 regarding
the reduction in the African refugee quota of the Humanitarian Program. After this
announcement some groups began to regard intrusions into the community with
enhanced suspicion. This was overcome by continuous involvement in the various
communities by the principal author as well as continued endorsement of the
research by the Community Council.
Mapping the settlement patterns and secondary migration
The Settlement Database data were manipulated using GIS software to produce
maps of the distribution of the case study communities. For clarity, the numbers of
residents per postcode, according to the Settlement Database, were displayed on
the map for each of the communities (see Figure 1). Following the focus groups
and interviews, a second set of maps was produced to display the community
knowledge of the distribution of its members (see Figure 2). These two sets of data
were then compared to identify differences between the communities’ knowledge of
where their members are located and the Settlement Database data. The spatial
patterns displayed in the community knowledge maps for each of the study groups
56 W. Harte et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
FIGURE 2. Congolese community distribution in Southeast Queensland according to focusgroup participants.
FIGURE 1. Congolese settlement distribution in Southeast Queensland according to theDepartment of Immigration and Citizenship Settlement Database.
Settlement Patterns of African Refugee Communities 57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
were also compared to models of migrant settlement patterns identified in the
literature. The rich data gained from the focus group discussions were similarly
analysed in terms of comparable contemporary findings by other researchers.
The distribution of the Congolese community2 in Southeast Queensland
according to Department of Immigration and Citizenship data is shown in
Figure 1. Figure 2 is an example of the community’s knowledge of where their
members are located. The differences between the two maps are evident, but not
surprising given the data gaps discussed above. The importance of public transport
networks to the locational choices of these communities is consistent with the
findings of Dunn (1993) and Wilson (1987, 1990) on the Vietnamese community
in Australia. This finding is supported by focus group participants, who
emphasised the importance of households living close to public transport networks
especially in the initial settlement period. All African clusters are in close proximity
to, or centred on, either the railway or the bus networks.
Do African refugee communities conform to previous models of migration
settlement?
Residential concentrations of ethnic minority communities are generally the result
of migratory processes, for example chain migration and secondary migration. The
assimilationist and the pluralist models of ethnic minority integration are two
overarching perspectives on how these communities integrate into host societies.
Both perspectives agree that the settlement pattern of ethnic minority groups will
initially be segregated from the mainstream population and spatially concentrated
(Logan et al. 2002, p. 299). The assimilationist perspective suggests that members
of ethnic minority communities will eventually disperse into the host society and
that spatial concentrations will decrease over time (Massey 1985). The pluralist
perspective, in contrast, suggests that segregation of ethnic minority communities
will continue and that spatial concentration will be reinforced by further
immigration and internal secondary migration (Peach 1999; Quintero 2005).
From this perspective, groups may become more geographically concentrated over
time (Hou 2005, p. 5).
The spatial manifestation of enforced pluralism is ghettos, while that of voluntary
pluralism has traditionally been thought of as ethnic enclaves. More recently, Logan
et al. (2002) have suggested ethnic community formation as an alternative
perspective of voluntary pluralism. 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, and enclaves and communities are
formed through voluntary membership (Johnston et al. 1994, p. 231). The
contemporary definition of a ghetto describes a segregated area in which a large
proportion of the population is of one ethnic, cultural or racial origin, and a high
percentage of the total group is found in that particular area (Burnley 1989, p. 130;
Peach 1996, pp. 216�17; 1999, p. 320). Ghetto residents are unlikely to disperse
into the host society because of discrimination and/or constrained choices in the
housing market elsewhere (Johnston et al. 2001). Theories of enforced pluralism
are derived largely from the USA, where they refer to African-American hyper-
segregation. Australian cities, however, have low levels of segregation relative to
comparable countries (Johnson et al. 2001; Poulsen et al. 2004). Previous research
58 W. Harte et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
has found no evidence of ghettos in Australia (Burnley, 1989; Jupp et al. 1990;
Poulsen et al. 2004; Viviani et al. 1993).
In contrast to the negative view of ghettos, enclave theory and the ethnic resource
perspective argue that ethnic residential concentrations can have positive socio-
economic benefits (Burnley 1989, p. 131; Ellis & Goodwin-White 2006, p. 902).
Ethnic enclaves and communities are consolidated by chain migration and
secondary migration (Quintero 2005) and residential dispersion from these is
unlikely because of the beneficial proximity to ethnic networks and institutions
(Fang & Brown 1999; Skop 2001). The distinguishing factor between ethnic
enclaves and ethnic community formation is that ethnic enclaves ‘are typically seen
as a temporary neighbourhood of convenience containing ethnic resources to be
drawn upon until immigrants assimilate into the host society and relocate’, while
ethnic community formation is seen by some ethnic and cultural groups ‘as the
desired residential endpoint, typically a neighbourhood with a single group
dominant and at the same time relatively prosperous’ (Walks & Bourne 2006,
p. 276).
From analysis of the mapped community knowledge data and discussions with
community members, ghettos are not a feature of African communities in
Southeast Queensland because residential concentrations are voluntary. Pre-
liminary results indicate that in some cases communities are tending towards
ethnic community formation (i.e. ethnic residential concentration as the desired
end-point) and in other cases towards ethnic enclaves (i.e. ethnic residential
concentrations that are temporary neighbourhoods of convenience). Residential
concentrations of African refugee communities are occurring predominantly in
suburbs in Brisbane’s southern corridor, with clusters around the inner southern
suburbs, for example Moorooka and Annerley and the outer southern suburbs
such as Logan Central and Woodridge. There are emerging clusters to the north
of the Brisbane River, but these are not as large as those to the south. The main
exceptions are the residential clusters in the regional city of Toowoomba in the
Darling Downs, which are the result of the federal government’s decision in
2004 to resettle refugees in regional centres (DIMA 2006a); and the more
recent cluster around Gatton, which is the result of the uptake of farm labour by
African refugees in the area.
The general trend towards the clustering occurring in the southern corridor is
consistent with the previous studies on other refugee groups in Australia
(Burnley 1989; Dunn 1993; Glavac & Childs 1993; Glavac & Waldorf 1998;
Viviani et al. 1993; Wilson 1987, 1990). That is, the initial place of settlement
upon arrival is an important influence on the formation of residential
concentrations because immigrants and refugees are more likely to move within
areas with which they are familiar. This was confirmed in focus groups and
interviews, and is demonstrated by the fact that many of the earlier African
refugees were placed in short-term accommodation around the Moorooka and
Woodridge areas*spatially associated with the present settlement patterns.
Secondary migration: where are they moving to; why are they moving?
Secondary migration is the movement of people or households from their initial
settlement location to another location. Research suggests that refugees have a
very high rate of secondary migration in their resettlement country (Hou 2005;
Settlement Patterns of African Refugee Communities 59
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
CRC 2006; Newbold 1999; Simich 2003), moving on average three times in the
first year of resettlement (Beer & Foley 2003, 2005) compared to the general
Australian population average of once every 7 years (AHURI 2006, p. 33).
Secondary migration was predicted to be a major force shaping contemporary
settlement geography of the African refugee communities of Southeast Queens-
land. There were difficulties, however, extracting estimates of moves within the
communities from focus group participants. These data required a survey of
individual households, which was outside the scope of the present research.
Instead, participants completed a short individual questionnaire in which they
were asked about their own experience of secondary migration in resettlement.
Table 3 shows the number of times participants had moved since resettling in
Australia. Almost two-thirds of participants had moved between one and three
times; only 10 participants out of a total of 57 had not moved at all. This may
reflect the recency of their arrival in that 6 of the 10 arrived in Australia within
the last 2 years.
Understanding secondary migration flows is important for strategic planning of
effective service provision. Reasons for secondary migration in the case study
communities are varied. Although access to employment was identified as
important in other studies (e.g. Nsubuga-Kyobe & Dimock 2002; Taylor &
Stanovic 2005; Wilson 1987, 1990), it was not found to be a key factor in the
present research. The two most important drivers of secondary migration to
emerge from focus groups and interviews are (1) housing-related issues and (2)
access to social and ethnic networks.
Housing
Ideally, refugees should be placed in rental accommodation in affordable
neighbourhoods, where residences are the appropriate size to accommodate large
households. The proximity of the accommodation to affordable public transport
options and local service providers (e.g. schools and public hospitals) and to people
of the same ethnic group is also critical (Hardwick & Meacham 2005; Nsubuga-
Kyobe 2004; Taylor & Stanovic 2005). In reality, for African refugees accommoda-
tion is often expensive relative to the household’s income, and too small and poorly
TABLE 3. The number of times that focus group participants moved since resettling inAustralia
Number of moves Number of respondents Percentage
0 10 17.51 15 26.32 9 15.83 11 19.34 3 5.35 4 76 � �7 2 3.58 � �9 1 1.8Not stated 2 3.5Total 57 100
60 W. Harte et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
located relative to their household’s needs (cf. Carrington et al. 2007; Ley &
Murphy 2001).
Access to appropriate and affordable housing was a very important issue for
most focus group participants, supporting the findings of Beer and Foley
(2005), Beer and Morphett (2002), Murdie (2005) and Waxman (1999). Two
of the main housing-related issues underpinning secondary migration in the case
study communities include the cost of housing and the size of the housing unit:
‘[You] need to find accommodation that fits your family and that is affordable.’
The size of African households is generally larger than the average Australian
household and, as a result, finding accommodation that is large enough to house
all family members is often difficult. For example, one participant said:
African families are large and Australian homes only have 2, 3 or 4
bedrooms . . . African families share bedrooms, but landlords do not want
so many people in one house . . . landlords do not want so many people
using the water and lights.
In the past 5 years the median rental price for a two- or three-bedroom unit in
Queensland has increased by 58�66 per cent (Schwarten 2008). Refugee
unemployment and under-employment rates are high in all resettlement
countries (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury 2006; Danso 2002; Hume & Hardwick
2005; Nsubuga-Kyobe 2004; Taylor 2004). Black African refugees, in particular,
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 to Australia (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury 2006, p. 222; Cox et
al. 1999, p. 37). Such increases in rent have, therefore, been difficult to absorb.
Participants spoke about the difficulty of surviving in the current housing-
affordability crisis. For example, one participant noted that:
. . . part-time employment and Centrelink benefits do not increase the
same amount that rent and food increases . . . for example, rice went up
from $13 for a 10 kg bag to $25.
Some participants knew of households that had to move away from an area in
which others from their community live in order to find housing that was
affordable and large enough to accommodate all their family members.
The difficulty of competing for private rental accommodation in the current
housing market emerged as another common topic in focus group discussions,
lending support to a recent report into refugee housing issues (MDA Report
2007). For example, one participant said: ‘[It is] very difficult for Africans to
compete against 20 other people who are trying to rent the same house.’ Many
believed that the difficulties competing in the Australian housing market were
exacerbated by discrimination, again supporting the MDA Report (2007) and
the findings of Beer and Foley (2005); see also Cox et al. (1999); Migrant
Information Centre and South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre (2007);
Murdie (2005); Nsubuga-Kyobe and Dimock (2002) and Perrin and Dunn
(2007). For example, participants said: ‘Africans have no chance of getting a
house’ and ‘Real estate agents reject applications because of [our] family size’.
In another example, a participant told how his household was evicted because
groups of his friends would gather at his house; a neighbour complained and the
Settlement Patterns of African Refugee Communities 61
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
household was evicted. Others said they believed they were not granted leases or
were evicted for no particular reason other than that they were black Africans.
A few households represented at the focus groups had moved because they
bought property. Invariably, these moves were to outer Brisbane suburbs, often
away from existing social and ethnic networks, where housing is more affordable.
Social and ethnic networks
Much of the literature on refugee secondary migration highlights the need and
desire that refugees have to rebuild their social and ethnic networks in resettlement
(Burnley 1989; Dalglish 1989; Dunn 1993; During 2006; Glavac & Childs 1993;
Hardwick 2003; Hardwick & Meacham 2005; Hume & Hardwick 2005; Simich
2003; Simich et al. 2002; Waxman 1999). In the context of refugee studies, social
networks usually consist of kinship systems (e.g. nuclear and extended family) and
social groups (e.g. religious groups) (During 2006). Ethnic networks are defined
more broadly as ties that are based on shared commonalities such as language,
culture, religion and country or region of origin that provide members with ‘ethnic
social capital’ (Hardwick 2003, p. 169). The group affinity hypothesis suggests that
‘pre-existing ethnic communities have a strong effect in both attracting and
retaining immigrants [or refugees]’ because ethnic networks and ethnically based
institutional resources (e.g. schools, religious institutions and communication
media) are more likely to flourish in large, viable ethnic communities (Hou 2005,
p. 6).
Overall there was general consensus among research participants that proximity
to social and ethnic networks was one of the more important reasons why members
of their communities moved in the initial stage of resettlement. For example, one
participant said: ‘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 . . .’.For some case study communities accessibility to social and ethnic networks
remains one of the key reasons for secondary migration after the initial settlement
period. Other reasons given include practical support with child care, assistance
with negotiating procedures and bureaucracies that are unfamiliar, and being close
to people who share the same language and culture. Being able to speak their
mother tongue was important to many participants:
If new arrivals are given a choice, they may want to live in a suburb where
people speak the same language . . . they may move to a suburb even if
there are only 2 or 3 families. Language is the most important to have
someone to speak to and to help.
Similarly, participants spoke about the importance of communal childcare support:
‘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.’ These findings lend
support to previous studies that found secondary migration decisions are strongly
influenced by pre-existing ethnic networks (Dunn 1993; Glavac & Waldorf 1998;
Gurak & Kritz 2000; Kritz & Nogel 1994; Newbold 1999), and that refugees who
are not accommodated close to such important networks have a higher risk of
becoming secondary migrants (Simich et al. 2002).
62 W. Harte et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Some focus group participants and community leaders also spoke about inter-
and intra-state migration to reconnect social networks, which is consistent with the
findings of Simich (2003). For example, some Muslim families have migrated out of
Southeast Queensland to Sydney to be closer to that city’s large Muslim
community, while members of another African community migrated from inter-
state to Southeast Queensland after attending a local Queensland community
function while on holiday there. A reason for these long-distance moves was
explained as such:
Many people move from other cities to Brisbane . . . when we were in the
refugee camps, we have lost our families but we made friends. When we
were told we are coming to Australia, we don’t have a say in which city
they send us to, so once people arrive in Australia, they get in touch with
their friends and they move to live close to them.
Conclusion
From results so far, the overall settlement pattern of African refugees in Southeast
Queensland is one of ethnic enclaves or ethnic community formation. The study
noted the divergence between official data (from the Department of Immigration
and Citizenship Settlement Database) and the knowledge of the distribution from
the community perspective. Data gathered in this study demonstrated that the
initial placement of earlier African refugees in short-term accommodation in
Brisbane’s southern corridor has resulted in residential clusters, particularly in and
around the suburbs of Moorooka and Woodridge. This finding is consistent with
previous research of refugee settlement in Australia (Burnley 1989; Dunn 1993;
Glavac & Childs 1993; Glavac & Waldorf 1998; Viviani et al. 1993; Wilson 1987,
1990). For example, Wilson (1987, 1990) found that most Vietnamese refugees
lived within 10 km from their initial in-migrant hostel accommodation in Sydney.
Similarly, Glavac and Childs (1993) found that most Vietnamese refugees in
Brisbane moved from short-term accommodation in the suburb of Wacol to the
adjacent suburbs of Darra, Inala, Durack and Oxley.
Preliminary results also indicate that African refugees have a relatively high rate
of secondary migration, with most focus group participants having moved since
they resettled in Australia. This finding lends support to studies of other refugee
groups in Australia (CRC 2006; Beer & Foley 2003, 2005), Canada (Hou 2005;
Simich 2003) and the USA (Newbold 1999). Consistent with previous studies, the
present research found that access to social and ethnic networks (e.g. Dalglish
1989; Dunn 1993; Glavac & Waldorf 1998; Gurak & Kritz 2000; Kritz & Nogel
1994; Newbold 1999) and the desire to live in appropriate, secure and affordable
housing (e.g. Beer & Foley 2005; Beer & Morphett 2002; Murdie 2005) were key
factors underpinning secondary migration in the case study communities. In
contrast to the findings of previous research, however, access to employment
opportunities (e.g. Nsubuga-Kyobe & Dimock 2002; Taylor & Stanovic 2005;
Wilson 1987, 1990) was not considered an overly important reason to move by
most focus group participants.
The desire to rebuild social and ethnic networks has contributed to the
residential concentration of some of the case study communities; however, the
search for appropriate, secure and affordable housing has been, and continues to
Settlement Patterns of African Refugee Communities 63
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
be, a countervailing force driving residential dispersion. These findings have
implications for settlement service providers, particularly in the area of housing.
A full analysis and further validation of the results via consultation with community
leaders is still underway and will be presented in further publications.
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks are due to the African community leaders and members of the case
study communities for their valuable contribution to this research, and to the
Queensland African Communities Council (QACC) for endorsing the research and
for its continued support. Thanks are also due to Nicholas Burridge from the
Department of Immigration and Citizenship for compiling the original data set
from the Settlement Database, to Carly Hall for her assistance with ArcGIS, and to
the anonymous referees for comments on the earlier draft of this paper. This
research has been supported in part by a Queensland Government ‘Growing the
Smart State PhD Funding Program’ grant (2007�09).
Correspondence: Wendy Harte, Geography and Environmental Studies, Humanities
Program, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. E-mail:
NOTES
[1] The Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous 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. DIMA has been used for all references between 27January 2006 and 30 January 2007, and DIAC for references after 30 January 2007.
[2] People from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Republic of Congo(ROC) call themselves Congolese. While Australia has settled a small number ofrefugees from ROC, most of these are likely to be children born to parents who wererefugees from DRC (DIMA 2006b, p. 3). For this reason, both ‘Congo’ and ‘DRC’data were used in the DIAC Settlement Database map.
REFERENCES
AUSTRALIAN HOUSING AND URBAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE (AHURI) (2006) Researchagenda 2007, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, available from: http://www.ahuri.edu.au/downloads/Research_Agenda/Research_Agenda_2007.pdf (accessed20 Augugst 2007).
BEER, A. & FOLEY, P. (2003) Housing need and provision for recently arrived refugees inAustralia, final report, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, SouthernResearch Centre, October.
BEER, A. & FOLEY, P. (2005) ‘Housing need and provision for recently arrived refugees inAustralia’, AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin 58.
BEER, A. & MORPHETT, S. (2002) ‘The role of housing and other services in successfulsettlement of new arrivals to Australia’, AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin 14.
BLOCH, A. (1999) ‘Carrying out a survey of refugees: some methodological considerationsand guidelines’, Journal of Refugee Studies 12, pp. 367�83.
64 W. Harte et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
BURNLEY, I.H. (1989) ‘Settlement dimensions of the Vietnamese-born population inmetropolitan Sydney’, Australian Geographical Studies 27, pp. 129�54.
BURNLEY, I.H. (2005) ‘Generations, mobility and community: geographies of threegenerations of Greek and Italian ancestry in Sydney’, Geographical Research 43, pp. 379�92.
CAMERON, J. (2005) ‘Focusing on the focus group’, in Hay, I. (ed.) Qualitative researchmethods in human geography (2nd edition), Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 116�32.
CARRINGTON, K., MCINTOSH, A. & WALMSLEY, J. (2007) The social costs and benefits ofmigration in Australia, Centre for Applied Research in Social Science; University of NewEngland, Armidale.
COLIC-PEISKER, V. & TILBURY, F. (2006) ‘Employment niches for recent refugees:segmented labour market in twenty-first century Australia’, Journal of Refugee Studies19, pp. 203�29.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NSW (CRC) (2006) Investigation into Africanhumanitarian settlement in NSW, Community Relations Commission, Sydney, June.
COX, D., COOPER, B. & ADEPOJU, M. (1999) The settlement of black Africans in Australia,Department of Social Work and Social Policy; Latrobe University, Melbourne.
DALGLISH, C. (1989) Refugees from Vietnam, Macmillan, London.DANSO, R.K. (2002) ‘Ethnic community networks, public policy, and the resettlement of
Ethiopian and Somali refugees in Toronto’, unpublished PhD, Queen’s University atKingston, Canada.
DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP (DIAC) (2007a) Fact sheet 60. Australia’srefugee and humanitarian programme (electronic version), available from: http://www.im-mi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm (accessed 8 August 2007).
DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP (DIAC) (2007b) Settlement Databasedata, e-mail correspondence from representative to W. Harte, 27 February.
DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP (DIAC) (2007c) Queensland settlementtrends and needs of new arrivals 2007, Department of Immigration and Citizenship,Canberra.
DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP (DIAC) (2008) Fact sheet 60. Australia’srefugee and humanitarian program (electronic version), available from: http://www.immi.-gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm#e (accessed 7 October 2008).
DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS (DIMA) (2006a) Fact sheet97. Humanitarian settlement in regional Australia (electronic version), available from: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/97humanitarian_settlement.htm (accessed 27 No-vember 2006).
DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS (DIMA) (2006b) Congolesecommunity profile, DIMA, Canberra, August.
DUNN, K.M. (1993) ‘The Vietnamese concentration in Cabramatta: site of avoidance anddeprivation, or island of adjustment and participation?’, Australian Geographical Studies 31,pp. 228�45.
DUNN, K.M. (1998) ‘Rethinking ethnic concentration: the case of Cabramatta, Sydney’,Urban Studies 35, pp. 503�27.
DURING, E.C. (2006) ‘Transitional lives: Sierra Leone immigrants and refugees inmetropolitan New York’, unpublished PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York.
ELLIS, M. & GOODWIN-WHITE, J. (2006) ‘1.5 generation internal migration in the U.S.:dispersion from states of immigration?’, International Migration Review 40, pp. 899�926.
FANG, D. & BROWN, D. (1999) ‘Geographic mobility of the foreign-born Chinese in largemetropolises, 1985�1990’, International Migration Review 33, pp. 137�55.
GLAVAC, S.M. & CHILDS, I.R.W. (1993) ‘Vietnamese settlement patterns in Brisbane: therole of chain migration’, Queensland Geographic Journal 8, pp. 23�36.
GLAVAC, S.M. & WALDORF, B. (1998) ‘Segregation and residential mobility of Vietnameseimmigrants in Brisbane, Australia’, Professional Geographer 50, pp. 344�57.
GURAK, D.T. & KRITZ, M.M. (2000) ‘The interstate migration of U.S. immigrants:individual and contextual determinants’, Social Forces 78, pp. 1017�40.
Settlement Patterns of African Refugee Communities 65
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
HARDWICK, S.W. (2003) ‘Migration, embedded networks and social capital: towardstheorising North American ethnic geography’, International Journal of Population Geo-graphy 9, pp. 163�79.
HARDWICK, S.W. & MEACHAM, J.E. (2005) ‘Heterolocalism, networks of ethnicity, andrefugee communities in the Pacific Northwest: the Portland story’, Professional Geographer57, pp. 539�57.
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.
HUGO, G. (2003) ‘Trends in population geography’, paper presented at the Geography’sNew Frontiers conference, University of New South Wales, Kensington, 21 March.
HUME, S.E. & HARDWICK, S.W. (2005) ‘African, Russian, and Ukrainian refugee resettle-ment in Portland, Oregon’, Geographical Review 95, pp. 189�209.
JOHNSTON, R., FORREST, J. & POULSEN, M. (2001) ‘The geography of an EthniCity:residential segregation of birthplace and language groups in Sydney, 1996’, Housing Studies16, pp. 569�94.
JOHNSTON, R.J. GREGORY, D.& SMITH, D.M. (eds) (1994) The dictionary of humangeography (3rd edition), Blackwell, Oxford.
JUPP, J. MCROBBIE, A. & YORK, B. (1990) ‘Metropolitan ghettoes and ethnic concentra-tions’, working papers on multiculturalism (Volume 1), Centre for Multicultural Studies,University of Wollongong.
KRITZ, M.M. & NOGEL, J.M. (1994) ‘Nativity concentration and internal migration amongthe foreign-born’, Demography 31, pp. 509�24.
LEY, D. & MURPHY, P. (2001) ‘Immigration in gateway cities: Sydney and Vancouver incomparative perspective’, Progress in Planning 55, pp. 119�94.
LOGAN, J.R., ZHANG, W. & ALBA, R.D. (2002) ‘Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communitiesin New York and Los Angeles’, American Sociological Review 67, pp. 299�322.
MASSEY, D. (1985) ‘Ethnic residential segregation: a theoretical synthesis and empiricalreview’, Sociology and Social Research 69, pp. 315�50.
MIDDLETON, A. (2008a) ‘Statistics on Africans in Australia’, paper presented at the AfricanStudies Association of Australasia and the Pacific, Australian National University,Canberra, 31 January.
MIDDLETON, A. (2008b) E-mail correspondence to E.W. Harte, Australian Bureau ofStatistics, National Migrants Statistics Unit, Adelaide, 19 February.
MIGRANT INFORMATION CENTRE AND SOUTH CENTRAL REGION MIGRANT RESOURCE
CENTRE (2007) Finding a home: a research report on supporting newly arrived migrants andrefugees to secure housing, Migrant and Refugee Rental Housing Assistance Project,Melbourne, January.
MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (MDA) REPORT (2007) Summary ofhousing issues for refugees, Multicultural Development Association, Brisbane, 25 June.
MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (MDA) REPRESENTATIVE (2006) Informalmeeting, Multicultural Development Association, Brisbane, 24 July.
MURDIE, R.A. (2005) ‘Pathways to housing: the experiences of sponsored refugees andrefugee claimants in accessing permanent housing in Toronto, Canada’, paper presented atthe European Network for Housing Research Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland, 29 June�3July.
NEWBOLD, K.B. (1999) ‘Spatial distribution and redistribution of immigrants in themetropolitan United States, 1980 and 1990’, Economic Geography 75, pp. 254�71.
NSUBUGA-KYOBE, A. (2004) ‘Possible antecedents and implications to African-Australiansparticipating in the proposed pilot program of settlement in rural Victoria: a study ofstrategic management of service delivery to an emerging community in rural areas: acritical review’, paper presented at the African Studies Association of Australia and thePacific, University of Western Australia, Perth, 26�28 November.
NSUBUGA-KYOBE, A. & DIMOCK, L. (2002) African communities and settlement services inVictoria: towards better service delivery models, Australian Multicultural Foundation,Melbourne.
PEACH, C. (1996) ‘Does Britain have ghettos?’, Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers NS 22, pp. 216�35.
66 W. Harte et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
PEACH, C. (1999) ‘London and New York: contrasts in British and American models ofsegregation’, International Journal of Population Geography 5, pp. 319�51.
PERRIN, R.L. & 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 38, pp. 253�73.
POULSEN, M., JOHNSTON, R. & FORREST, J. (2004) ‘Is Sydney a divided city ethnically?’,Australian Geographical Studies 42, pp. 356�77.
QUINTERO, J. (2005) ‘Cambodian settlement patterns in Long Beach, California’,unpublished MA, Department of Geography, California State University, Long Beach,California.
SCHWARTEN, R. (2008) ‘Queensland bucks national public housing trend’, media release,Queensland Government (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information andCommunication Technology), Brisbane, 14 August.
SIMICH, L. (2003) ‘Negotiating boundaries or refugee resettlement: a study of settlementpatterns and social support’, Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 40, pp. 575�91.
SIMICH, L., BEISER, M. & MAWANI, F. (2002) ‘Paved with good intentions: Canada’s refugeedestining policy and paths of secondary migration’, Canadian Public Policy 28, pp. 597�617.
SKOP, E.H. (2001) ‘Race and place in the adaptation of Mariel exiles’, International MigrationReview 35, pp. 449�71.
TAYLOR, J. (2004) ‘Refugees and social exclusion: what the literature says’, Migration Action26, pp. 16�31.
TAYLOR, J. & STANOVIC, D. (2005) Refugees and regional settlement: balancing priorities,Brotherhood of St. Laurence, Fitzroy, Victoria, May.
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR) (1996) Convention andProtocol relating to the status of refugees, Public Information Section, UNHCR, August.
VIVIANI, N., COUGHLAN, J. & ROWLAND, T. (1993) Indochinese in Australia: the issues ofunemployment and residential concentration, Australian Government Publishing Service,Canberra.
WALKS, R.A. & BOURNE, L.S. (2006) ‘Ghettos in Canada’s cities? Racial segregation, ethnicenclaves and poverty concentration in Canadian urban areas’, Canadian Geographer 50, pp.273�97.
WAXMAN, P. (1999) ‘The residential location of recently arrived Bosnian, Afghan and Iraqirefugees and humanitarian entrants in Sydney, Australia’, Urban Policy and Research 17,pp. 287�99.
WILSON, W. (1987) ‘The socio-spatial adjustment and settlement of Vietnamese refugees inSydney’, Migration Monitor July, pp. 11�16.
WILSON, W. (1990) ‘Residential relocation and settlement adjustment of Vietnameserefugees in Sydney’, Australian Geographical Studies 28, pp. 155�77.
Settlement Patterns of African Refugee Communities 67
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Sim
on F
rase
r U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014