Settlement and the Suburbs

by Alex Sanchez

2001 was not Labor's finest year. After starting the year with all the complacency of a team leading at the half way mark, Labor couldn't see it through to the final whistle. The election loss opened up Federal Labor's weak flank - real policy grunt and modern policy alternatives. With the cold truth of opposition setting in, Labor has began its policy rebuilding process, something that internal critics argued should have taken place after the Keating defeat in 1996. Labor's work on policy is now occurring at the same time that a rebuild is taking place on personnel. We can only hope that from these little things, better things will grow.

In going forward post 2001, Labor should categorically reject any notion that "we was robbed". In particular, the ALP should set aside the belief that the election was lost purely on the Tampa issue. Tampa did play a significant part. No analyst worth their weight would suggest otherwise. However, to suggest that Kim Beazley was headed for the Lodge until the boat was turned around simply belies the truth, not least of which was the Aston by election. In Aston, middle Australia rejected the ALP and this view carried forward throughout the remainder of the year. Labor did not understand the suburbs. In the end, middle Australia, as reflected in the outer urban seats of Sydney such as Macarthur, Lyndsay, Parramatta, Hughes and Dobell remained unimpressed with Labor's pitch to the suburbs. For a party so grounded in appreciating the plight of the suburbs, why did it go so wrong in Sydney?

Of all Australia's capitals, Sydney is clearly the most globally orientated. It is also Australia's most service based, knowledge centred and competitive. Sydney's creation has been the work of Labor governments, from Whitlam through to Hawke/Keating. It has been Labor administrations that have cut protection, deregulated financial markets, nurtured the tourism industry and promoted the internationalization of education and health. These policy initiatives have been the engine fuel for Sydney's boom. With it's global brand, Sydney draws the bulk of Australia's new arrivals. Sydney is Labor's work.

But Sydney's transformation has also added up to a new equation for skill and human resources. Routine manual and unskilled work is largely redundant. More than basic English language capability is now a prerequisite for labour force participation. Competition is tough at the low end service game. Unlike when my parents arrived in the mid 1960's there is very little unskilled work. There are no textile and footwear factories, no major car plants in NSW, and the steel plants are diminished if not closed. Whereas in the past, de facto new arrival settlement could take place in the workplaces of Sydney's manufacturing industries, a changed landscape has rendered this newt.

If Tampa resonated in the marginal seats in Sydney's outer suburbs it did so because of concerns about settlement in the suburbs. Evidence of what Bob Birrel calls ethnic underclass, intergenerational welfare dependency and worse still, crime and disorder meant Tampa took on a different meaning in the outer suburbs. While pro Tampa and pro refugee cries came from those lucky enough to live a long way from the suburbs in stress, traditional working families wanted their suburbs fixed. Were Labor's priorities with the struggling suburbanite doing his/her best in an ever changing landscape, or were Labor's priorities with those in the lofty suburbs who argued eloquently for compassion, but seemed indifferent to the problems in the suburbs?

In a cynical and stone hearted fashion, John Howard knew which button to press. It was the battler versus the elites. It was Howard empowering the battler. (Remember, the line "we will decide who comes into the country") Whatever one thinks of the morality of Howard's campaign, Labor must recognize that it was concern over settlement in the suburbs that punched the conservatives messages through.

There has been a demographic shift in Sydney's outer suburbs. There is of course the aspirational shift. Sydney's property prices, the growth in small contractors and the self employed, superannuation and share ownership have precipitated an asset hungry constituency. Wealth creation is desired, if not expected.

However, at the same time there has been another, more subtle shift. The outer suburbs have seen evidence of "white flight", wherein large numbers of Australians of Anglo Celtic background leave their older (and more ethnically diverse) suburbs for newly developed communities on the outer fringe. This trend has seen the older suburbs become more ethnically concentrated, and the outer suburbs less so.

Research from Monash University by Professor Bob Birrell pinpoints this trend. In his paper, "Sydney's Ethnic Underclass", Birrell highlights the increasing concentration of overseas born males in the inner south western Sydney belt of Bankstown, Canterbury, Auburn and Fairfield. This has occurred largely through the departure of Australian born residents. By contrast, the ethnic concentration of the outer fringe areas such as Camden and Penrith has declined as Australian born settlers move in.

A number of factors may help to explain the white flight trend. Homeowners may be appropriately seeking to capitalise on older home sites and reinvest such gains with upgraded homes. However, there may also be concern about the accumulation of disadvantage and aspects of the social disorders that may ensue. It is little surprise that it is the older suburbs of Bankstown, Lakemba, and Cabramatta that are often cited as Sydney's crime hot spots.

In dealing with immigration post Tampa and the election, Labor can ill afford to ignore the issues of settlement in the suburbs. This means that a debate on immigration needs to extend beyond processing and arriving to a wider discussion on settlement and assimilation. The term assimilation was unfortunately disparaged with the steep rise of multicultarism. Assimilation conjured up images of meat, potatoe and three veg dinners for all. Yet Australia has moved a long way since, and assimilation should be rejuvenated using the values that has made immigrant nations successful for centuries - respect and reward for hard work and effort, education as the ladder for future generations and mutualism.

Along with refashioning immigration politics with a values based approach, Labor needs to tackle the impacts of immigration on the ground. It needs to work through the settlement and suburbs agenda by on the ground programs in these areas and recast mutual obligation provisions in welfare. New solutions to fighting poverty and disadvantage should be the task of Labor, whether it occurs in ethnically concentrated suburbs or in public housing estates. There should be no room for cultural relativism.

Finally, the ALP needs to look at how it internally manages discussion on immigration and settlement. This means it needs to examine it's branch structure and in particular, the use of ethnic branch stacking. Ethnic branch stacking is a blight. On the outside, it looks as if the ALP is being manipulated by vested interests seeking political favours. On the inside, it belittles migrant capacity and strength. But ethnic branch stacking also imposes a quasi silence on the ALP. It becomes hard to discuss immigration and settlement issues if party leaders or representatives are shaped by local imperatives.

At the very minimum, the ALP should insist that all members of the ALP are Australian citizens and hence eligible to vote. It is an anomaly that the NSW ALP admits as members, individuals who are not eligible to vote in a general election. This encourages branch stacking by allowing permanent residents or those on special visas, the opportunity to participate in local ALP affairs. However, these same people are ineligible to vote in a general election. This rule should change as part of the broader reform of the party structure.

After flirting with symbolism and the safety net, Labor needs to tackle the other two S's - the suburbs and settlement. The outer suburbs are not turning against us, they are just asking to Labor to be more relevant, more in touch with their needs. Let's hope that by the time of the next election, we have the policies and values that reach out to them.