This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]On: 28 October 2014, At: 01:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian PlannerPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapl20

Planning for social inclusion in a multicultural urbanSouth East QueenslandDonovan Storey a , Salut Muhidin a & Peter Westoby aa School of Geography, Planning & Environmental Management , The University ofQueensland , Brisbane, AustraliaPublished online: 30 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Donovan Storey , Salut Muhidin & Peter Westoby (2010) Planning for social inclusion in a multiculturalurban South East Queensland, Australian Planner, 47:3, 142-151, DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2010.508202

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2010.508202

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and 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 Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or 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. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Planning for social inclusion in a multicultural urban South East Queensland

Donovan Storey*, Salut Muhidin and Peter Westoby

School of Geography, Planning & Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

South East Queensland is projected to grow by an estimated 1.3 million people over the next 20 years. To date,much of the debate on how best to respond to this unprecedented rate of growth has focused attention on theneed to provide better infrastructure, more housing and to sustain and protect ecosystems and habitats. Lessattention has been paid to the human dimensions of growth, and how the needs of an increasingly diverse

population are to be met � including planning for a more multicultural urban future. Utilising a social inclusionframework this article explores the challenges for planning where nearly half of South East Queensland’s growthresults from overseas migration. In providing a case study of Moorooka, Brisbane, we argue that the

sustainability and liveability of a more urban South East Queensland depends greatly on the creation of a sociallyinclusive and progressive environment. This will inevitably involve renewing the very practices of planning itself.

Keywords: social inclusion; community planning; multicultural cities; South East Queensland

Introduction

With a total population of about 3.1 million in 2010,

South East Queensland (SEQ) has been recognized as

one of the fastest growing metropolitan regions in

Australia. According to the most recent forecasts,

the region’s population is expected to be around

4.4 million by 2031, fuelled by an estimated 70% of

new residents settling in SEQ. Such growth will create

obvious and significant social, economic and envir-

onmental planning pressures for the region.A growing number of people have been attracted

to Queensland searching for and expecting better

socioeconomic conditions. This flow has for some

time been directed to SEQ and it intensified during

the 1990s when Queensland experienced a peak net

gain of 145,459 people (Brown et al., 2006). The

principal sources of such migration though have

changed over time. For many years, interstate

migration has been the primary supply of growth,

but recently overseas migration has surpassed all

other drivers. This change represents a very signifi-

cant socio-cultural shift for SEQ. Accounting for

little more than a quarter up to 2000, overseas

migrants now make up almost half of all new arrivals.Migration to SEQ is of course not new, but the

ethnic composition is. A great proportion of non-

English speaking migrants over the 2001�2006 period

settled in the region. In descending order the major

destinations for migrants were Brisbane (37,498);

Gold Coast (7,584); and the Darling Downs (2,453).

These three areas of SEQ alone became the destina-

tion for nearly 82% of all predominantly non-English

speaking arrivals over the 2001�2006 period (Brisbane

itself being 64%), with 85% of these households

recording that they spoke no or little English (Bourke

et al., 2010: 133�136).Recent growth has intensified the regional urba-

nisation pattern now well established in the State’s

southeast. Indeed, it is difficult to now speak of the

challenges facing cities such as Brisbane, Ipswich and

the Gold Coast without reference to a broader

urban footprint extending beyond conventional ur-

ban boundaries (Spearritt, 2009). Such growth has

been recognised as contributing to tensions resulting

from ‘fringe dwelling’ of urban areas (Rawsthorne

et al., 2009). Yet the challenges facing an urbanising

South East Queensland are not only represented by

those communities living on the edge of cities. There

are evident and quite striking socio-cultural and

economic changes taking place within established

metropolitan areas. A more diverse and multicultural

southeast quarter portends a dynamic social and

economic future, but also promises a number of

challenges for planning.

*Corresponding author. d.storey@uq.edu.au

Australian PlannerVol. 47, No. 3, September 2010, 142�151

ISSN 0729-3682 print/ISSN 2150-6841 online

# 2010 Planning Institute Australia

DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2010.508202

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:39

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Mapping the demographic transformation

The changing characteristics of migration to the

South East Queensland and the distribution effects

are further illustrated in Figure 1. This shows a map

of migrant settlement over two different periods

of arrival in Australia (i.e. the previous 10 years

and 20 years). Over this period, the greater concen-

tration or ‘clustering’ of migrant groups is evident.

Specifically, the concentration focuses on SLA re-

gions in inner Brisbane, Brisbane outer ring, the

southern corridor of the Gold Coast, some northernsuburbs, and the Sunshine Coast. Using the mappeddistribution of overseas born population, it is furtherpossible to extrapolate the patterns of majoritygroups among overseas migrants. This indicates thefurther concentration of migrant groups in theregion, and the strengthening of the concentrationof these groups over time. As argued below throughthe case study on Moorooka, such patterns createchallenges as well as opportunities in South EastQueensland’s urban development and planning.

Figure 1. Distribution of overseas born population by period of arrival in Australia: South East Queensland, 2006.

Australian Planner 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:39

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Migration has, of course, fuelled almost all

Queensland’s population growth over the past twocenturies. What has changed in recent years thoughhas been a significant shift toward ‘new’ migrantorigin sources, raising challenges for integration and

the development of networks where few establishedones exist. As migration will likely continue to be themain driver of growth, particularly overseas migra-tion, it is also likely that the South East Queensland

region will see a further ‘clustering’ along ethnic lines,or what Ip (2006) has referred to as ‘ethnoburbia’.Indeed this has become evident in the emergence in a

number of communities, particularly in Brisbane’sWestern and Southern suburbs. While such clusteringoccurs along the established patterns of sharedidentity and community (Harte et al., 2009), it is

also correlated with problems of affordability and

areas of relative poverty of opportunity. Indeed, there

is a strong association of the patterns illustrated in

Figures 1 and 2 with the recent mapping of indicators

of social exclusion and poverty in the South East

Queensland region (see Bourke et al., 2010).

Social inclusion amidst urban transformation

The World Summit for Social Development, held in

Copenhagen in 1995, was instrumental in establish-

ing social integration and inclusion as key goals of

social development, and consequently planning. The

Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action

pledged to make social integration an objective for

planning in both developed and developing countries.

Figure 2. Distribution of overseas born population by the majority groups: South East Queensland 2006.

144 D. Storey et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:39

28

Oct

ober

201

4

In particular, emphasis was placed on the attainmentof inclusive societies which are stable, safe, just andtolerant, and respect diversity, equality of opportu-nity and participation of all people, inclusive ofdisadvantaged and vulnerable groups and persons.1

Emphasis was also given to institutions and forms ofplanning that are able to realise greater levels ofparticipation and social interaction through inclusivelegal, regulatory and policy frameworks. Greaterequality of access to education, public space, facil-ities, services and information are fundamental toinclusive cities, but so too are planning cultures thatvalue and build upon diversity and cultural pluralism(Hague et al., 2006; UNDESA, 2009).

There is no standard definition of social inclusionor a set of policies through which it can be realised,although many countries have adopted specific socialinclusion principles, including Australia (Atkinsonand Marlier, 2010; Social Inclusion Board, 2008).Indeed, social inclusion can be approached as anobjective and a process and is often defined inrelation to social exclusion, which can be understoodas ‘the involuntary exclusion of individuals andgroups from society’s political, economic and societalprocesses, which prevents their full participation inthe society in which they live’ (Atkinson and Marlier2010, p. 1). Social inclusion can then be described as a‘multidimensional process aimed at lowering eco-nomic, social and cultural boundaries between thosewho are included and excluded, and making theseboundaries more permeable’ (Therborn. 2007, p. 2).Therborn (2007, p. 3) has stated that there are fivekey elements to effectively planning for social inclu-sion, those being; visibility, consideration, the abilityto interact, rights, and resources. As such, inclusion isthe realisation in policy and practice of individual andcommunity influence over, and ownership of, bothphysical and intangible resources (Lombe, 2007, p. 3).

Social inclusion is not a fixed state � socialinclusion is a dynamic process that changes overtime and space. Consequently, Sen (2000) has de-scribed social inclusion as being shaped by norms thatresult from active participation by citizens, supportedby equality of opportunity and through basic levelsof well-being. Ensuring participation and voice forincreasingly diverse, and potentially fragmentingurban communities in civic, social, economic, andpolitical activities, as well as participation in decision-making processes, remains an essential challengefor planning (Hague et al., 2006). Needless to say,such goals are also aspirational to a great extent asthey are fundamentally about the rights to andexpressions of (urban) citizenship (Baubock, 2003;Sandercock and Kliger, 1998a, 1998b). Planning andurban policy in general has a key role to play in

translating the potential of citizens and resourcestoward the re-transformation of political, social andeconomic environments at the broader urban andcommunity level.

Consequently, planning for social inclusion is theprocess by which efforts are made to include policiesand actions that promote equal access to (public)services as well as enabling citizen participation in thedecision-making processes that affect their lives.Successful social inclusion processes simultaneouslycreate space for consensus and difference, whileconsciously and explicitly putting value on maintain-ing diversity. Social integration represents the at-tempt not just to make people adjust to society, butrather to ensure that society is accepting of diversity.

The Australian Social Inclusion Board has alsodocumented various measures of disadvantage anddemonstrated that certain groups are more vulnerableto persistent relative exclusion, often resulting inpoverty. Among groups identified by the Board arepeople of non-English speaking backgrounds, whoare also more likely to face multiple forms ofexclusion (as migrants, as women, children, peoplewith disabilities etc) (Social Inclusion Board, 2010).Achieving social inclusion thus requires simultaneousaction on capacity building, through education andtraining, employment (inclusive of both paid andvoluntary work), engagement (connecting peoplewith services and enhancing participation in localcivic, cultural and recreational activities) and voice, ininfluencing the decisions that affect them (Common-wealth of Australia, 2010). These challenges areparticularly evident and felt in Australia’s rapidlychanging cities.

Migration, social inclusion and planning urban

Australia

In the context of Australian urban experience Baum(2008, p. 41) has argued that:

Policies that attempt to build a more socially

inclusive society must account for where people live

and their connections with (or exclusions from) the

wider society. Socially inclusive policies need to also

be space- or people-based.

In recent years, growing concern has been expressedabout social exclusion in Australian cities, and inparticular on evident trends of urban division (Baum,2008). To date this has focused on the larger and morediverse cities of Melbourne and Sydney (Gleeson andLow, 2000, pp. 35�68). Much less attention has beenpaid to Brisbane, and South East Queensland, to theextent that it appears to exhibit few problems in termsof relative deprivation and division (Baum, 2008;

Australian Planner 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:39

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Smyth et al., 2004; Stimson and Taylor, 1999). Yetclear divides do exist within Brisbane, and morebroadly in South East Queensland (Bourke et al.,2010). These are, of course, not necessarily new. Formany decades Brisbane has been characterisedby a ‘North-South/West’ divide, in which wealthiernorthern suburbs have enjoyed less relative depriva-tion than Logan City in the South, and the city ofIpswich to the West. These are the more typicalfissures represented in research and the popular press,but there are also new forms of polarisation, which arearguably increasing in scale (QCOSS, 2008; Singh,2006). This represents a lesser discussed element ofwhat Premier Anna Bligh has referred to as ‘crisis ofliveability’ in South East Queensland’s otherwisemuch celebrated transformation (Bligh, 2010; seealso England, 2007, pp. 141�142).

Although there are many planning challengesfacing Queensland as a whole, and indeed a numberof sources of social exclusion, there are particulardemands resulting from a more multicultural urbanregion. These are both ‘typical’, for example creatingemployment, providing infrastructure, adequatehousing and recreational space; but there are alsounique challenges for planning. These include tack-ling issues such as isolation, sub-standard housing(especially ‘temporary’ housing for refugee migrants),vulnerability to crime, poor education, an inability tocommunicate in English, inadequate family support,limited social networks, the absence of good rolemodels and identified leadership, poor health, andphysical disabilities (which may have been a factor inmigration to Australia) (Bourke et al., 2010, p. 133).Access to public and safe space is also often a criticalneed. Recent research has also identified the inter-sections of broader challenges facing migrantcommunities in Australian cities with particularchallenges of livelihoods (Waxman, 2001); health(Khoo, 2010); the elderly (Ip et al., 2007); gender(Yusuf and Siedlecky, 1996) and youth (Windle,2008). Managing shifts in the use of space in waysthat create and retain accessible and communal areasis a challenge not only for ‘place management’ butalso in the creation of inclusive and accessible citiesand communities (Bourke, 2001; Bourke and Crane,2000; Skinner et al., 2008). This is an example of the‘soft infrastructure’ needs of non-Western cultures inparticular.

Such demands of course are not new for planning.Indeed, migration is concomitant with urban growthand, therefore, the objectives of planning. Yet, asVitiello (2009, p. 246) has noted in the case ofAmerican cities, planning has had an ‘ambiguousand often ambivalent’ relationship with migrantcommunities, and planners have often played a lesser

role in their lives than for example communitydevelopment workers. Indeed, in the attempt topractice planning as a ‘rational regulatory’ exercise,planning has often excluded migrant populations(Vitiello, 2009, p. 246). Although social planninghas arguably a stronger role in Australia, disjuncturesbetween physical and social planning are similarlyevident, as are the ‘glaring omissions’ in research andpolicy of the impacts of migration on urban growthand management (Sandercock and Kliger, 1998a).

Social exclusion may also result from planningpractices (rather than just their absence) (Hagueet al., 2006; Pile et al., 1999, pp. 202�216). This maybe inadvertent or more direct. Social and economicpolicy that marginalises individuals and whole com-munities, or policy that renders alternative lifestylesas outside the norms of planning practice areexamples. Planning may thus serve to stigmatisethrough its ‘colour blindedness’, in which planningis practised as a ‘neutral’ act for the ‘common good’(Fincher and Iveson, 2008; Sandercock, 2003, p. 132;Sandercock and Kliger, 1998a, p. 127). Indeed, inseeking social inclusion, policy and planning mayreinforce the ‘norm’ to which other categorisedcultural practices must conform, for example in termsof economic activity, use of space, or use of resources(Cameron and Gibson, 2006; Iveson, 2006). Givinggreater voice to marginalised populations shouldtherefore be seen as an important aspiration ofplanning and governance in the remaking of urbanspace and function (Social Inclusion Board, 2008).

It is important to note that problems and patternsof exclusion do not result from greater urban diversityand multiculturalism per se. Indeed, enhanced socialinclusion can lead from a greater mix of communities,in which processes of social interaction and change arelinked to more resilient and progressive environments(Harte et al., 2009). Hence, social mix has been seen byplanners as a tool for the strengthening of commu-nities (Arthurson, 2002, p. 250). As is evident in theMoorooka case study which follows,2 a more diverseSouth East Queensland offers many opportunities forplanning and planners. But this will require innovativepractices and a renewed understanding of the city andthe changing relationships within it.

Challenges and innovations in planning for social

inclusion: a case study of Moorooka, Brisbane

The inner southern suburb of Moorooka is a located9 km south of the city centre, and has a populationof a little under 10,000. In many ways it reflects thekind of ongoing rapid patterns of social and demo-graphic change within middle and outer suburbanBrisbane discussed above. As Turner (2008, p. 568)

146 D. Storey et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:39

28

Oct

ober

201

4

argues, middle suburban development, such as re-

flected in the story of Moorooka, ‘runs against the

grain of the traditional conception of the suburb inthe Australian national imaginary’. Historically,

patterns of globalization, with its accompanyingmigrations, have led to the cosmopolitan inner city.

However, as Turner (2008) further argues, middle

and outer suburban rapid change, in terms ofmigration patterns, is a relatively new phenomenon.

Moorooka is a neighbourhood that has been

predominantly populated by waves of ‘white sett-lers’ (mainly Anglo-Saxons) and ‘white refugees’

(from Europe) up until the late 1990s. Historically,Moorooka experienced division along class lines � the

relatively wealthy on one side of the Beaudesert Road

and the ‘working class’ poor on the other. Such classdivisions were built on the social dynamics of long-

term ‘Anglo’ settlers mixing with European pre- andpost-Second World War migration patterns. These

dynamics were further shaped by the location of

migration camps at Wacol and Goodna, which sawnewly arrived European refugees moving to the

most affordable central areas of Brisbane, of which

Moorooka was one. Such patterns of settlement werereinforced, particularly with the arrival of Serbian

and Croatian refugees in the 1990s, by the thenDepartment of Immigration decision to locate refu-

gee settlement flats within Moorooka.

However, most residents of Moorooka did not

‘feel’ the refugee presence until the late 1990s, which

saw a rapid and very visible influx of African refugees� Sudanese, Somali, Eritrean, Ethiopian, and then

later Burundi, Rwandan, Congolese and so forth � inlarge part a legacy of the humanitarian migration

program.3 As Khoo (2010, p. 329) has noted,

amongst migrants such communities are more likelyto suffer greater levels of housing stress, lack lan-

guage proficiency, have difficulties finding employ-ment and suffer poor health. They then provide

particular challenges for both social integration and

for planning. Figure 3 demonstrates the higherpercentage of African settlers, alongside European,

compared with other surrounding neighbourhoods.‘Feelings’ about this (black African) refugee

arrival started to build up in the early 2000s, and

were further compounded by the opening up of clearlyidentifiable African shops on main streets. Stories

started to circulate within the neighbourhood that ‘the

Africans’ were being given free rent, cars, houses andso on. Furthermore, as African shops opened up and

their presence expanded, groups of African people

(particularly youths) started to congregate � on thestreets, in the parks, and in local African-run cafes.

Around this time, Moorooka developed the tag ofbeing Brisbane’s ‘Little Africa’, or more precisely

‘Brisbane’s Morocco’ (sic).

Figure 3. Social change in Moorooka and surrounding suburbs.

Australian Planner 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:39

28

Oct

ober

201

4

At this time, research conducted by Brisbane CityCouncil (BCC) and University of Queensland (UQ)research students highlighted that approximately:

. 20�30% of the local population were excitedby the newcomers and all the perceivedbenefits of cultural diversity;

. 50% were ‘sitting on the fence’ taking a ‘waitand see’ attitude. Such people tended to beeither curious about the new African arrivals, ora little suspicious. However, they were reluctantto embrace change without qualification;

. 20�30% reported feeling ‘quite challenged’ bythe new arrival group(s).

The research also highlighted that people held manyassumptions about the newly arrived African refu-gees, mainly to do with perceptions about their lackof cleanliness, the dangers of large groups of menhanging around in groups, and stories circulating thatwhile such groups were said to be poor ‘they seem tohave enough money to set up shops’. However, thekey message from the third cluster of responses wasthat ‘it’s not our place anymore’. The ‘influx’ led tosignificant social fractures, well reported in the press,that required a careful response from key stake-holders, including the BCC. These responses havechanged over time and provide an important exampleof how city planners can utilise a social inclusionframework within their engagement with local com-munities.

In 2007, one of the local political representativesproposed to BCC community development workersthat, ‘locals are feeling weary of African settlement’.The initial response of these BCC community devel-opment workers was that ‘some locals are actuallyfeeling quite excited’. They took what could be calledan advocacy stance and defended the rights of therefugees. In fact, BCC community developmentworkers had for some time been working in part-nership with Benarrawa Community DevelopmentAssociation to build a network of residents across theinner south of Brisbane to welcome refugees. Thefocus was on building a network of residents whowould ‘stand-up’ and welcome refugees within asuspicious and, at times, hostile climate.

However, in 2008, another small event occurredwhen a local woman sent a letter to BCC asking, ‘Whois bringing these people here, why are they coming toMoorooka?’ This letter triggered a re-think by BCCcommunity development workers, re-orienting themto move towards efforts of engagement with allresidents, despite evident and continuing tensionsacross the community. This required developing anapproach that was both ‘pro-refugee’ as well as one

that listened and engaged with the broader commu-nity, and especially those who were suspicious andhostile. Such a listening and engagement strategy re-defined the key questions as, ‘How do we build localopportunities for connection between people of dif-ference?’, and also, in the interests of long-termsustainability, ‘How do we foster the response as alocal response, rather than a BCC response?’

At the same time, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane,Campbell Newman, instructed the community devel-opment team to consider the response as a ‘test case’for understanding and responding to other suchsuburbs experiencing similar rapid demographicchange with accompanying stresses. Here there wasrecognition that suburban neighbourhoods neededboth preparation and engagement in the process ofdemographic and social change in a way that builtgreater inclusion through engagement with both newand established communities. In addition, planning(and planners) also needed to learn from both theprocess of negotiation and accommodation.

The response firstly included two local schoolswidening their Australia Day celebrations to includeAfrican performers and African volunteers. Thisrepresented a significant shift away from ‘AustraliaDay for the whites’ and ‘Harmony day for theothers’, to ‘All are a part of both Australia Dayand Harmony Day’. This ‘shift’ has continued and in2010 over one third of participants at Australia Dayevents were estimated to be ‘non-White’, up from amodest 10% in 2008. Secondly, local politicianspurposefully engaged the African constituency in‘Clean-Up Australia Day’, again reinforcing theperception that Africans are a part of the community,not ‘a-part’. A third strategy was initiated by aBrisbane Museum Project, which initially set out tofeature African businesses in Moorooka, but throughconversations initiated by BCC community develop-ment workers, were persuaded to focus more on thepositive contribution of all Moorooka businesses.This led to engagement with shop-keepers arounddiversity issues and again seemed to lead to aperception shift that ‘we’re all in this together’ asshop-owners. Finally, another strategy was the initia-tion of a ‘community reference group’ which con-sisted of locals and stakeholders who were interestedin facilitating inter-cultural exchange. Up until theBrisbane Museum Project this reference group wasstruggling to ‘get a handle’ on how to make thishappen. However, the Museum Project launch pro-vided a catalyst for enthusiasm and new ideas. Therewas a recognition that there were ways of bringingpeople together who were suspicious of each other �in ways that could actually lead to perception andbehavioural change. They initiated a number of

148 D. Storey et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:39

28

Oct

ober

201

4

community events, such as a Grandparents Day,

which brought African and non-African grandpar-

ents together at the local school to talk about

eldership.The work of the community reference group also

represented a role-change for BCC community devel-

opment workers, as the latter are now participants

supporting what is a more locally-shaped response.

The reference group now takes the lead and is even

starting to think about how to move their focus on

including diversity from ‘culture’ to other areas of

social exclusion, such as working with people with

disabilities.

Conclusions. Towards an inclusive and multicultural

urban South East Queensland

Moorooka is indicative of many of the challenges

facing South East Queensland communities as a

result of recent patterns of growth and social change.

In a number of ways Moorooka provides an example

of the ‘disruption’ cultural change brings to estab-

lished patterns of urban life and spatial ordering

(Sandercock, 1998a, p. 127). Such change presents

new challenges and opportunities for planning. In

terms of evolving responses Moorooka indicates both

the social tensions resulting from change � as well as

illustrating how processes of change can be managed

that result in greater opportunity to shape commu-

nities for all residents. A key lesson has been that in

order to achieve social inclusion, communities need

to be given the opportunity to take ownership of

program components, and, indeed, re-shape planning

at the local level. Communities are represented by

civil society but also include private sector interests.

Consensus on the kind of change that residents want

and can accept needs to be inclusive of all stake-

holders before any strategy is devised or plans put

into operation.A further planning challenge and opportunity is

in the renewal of institutional mechanisms, both in

working with communities toward shared desirable

goals and in responsibility for implementation. Plan-

ning in this respect needs to acknowledge and adapt

to the growing diversity of the southeast region, a

process relatively unacknowledged even a decade ago

(e.g. Stimson and Taylor, 1999). In achieving an

inclusive South East Queensland, where participation

and engagement strengthens communities, institu-

tions and the planning process, it is critical to

encourage or create a system where socially excluded

groups become stakeholders in both social, political

and economic processes and successes. In large part

this reflects a planning response that focuses on living

communities rather than simply the built environ-ment, or indeed land use planning.

The Moorooka case study exemplifies the kind of‘street-level’ engagement of stakeholders required (seealso Cuers and Hewitson, 2006, p. 21, on communityengagement strategies in Woodridge). Simply writinga policy that ‘includes them’ will not create this.4 Ifpeople feel that they have a voice then they will beencouraged to include themselves. The chance to usethis voice must be offered and members of societymust be engaged. In many ways this represents thebenefits not of ‘grand planning policies’ but recogni-tion of the impact at the local level of what Fincherand Iveson (2008, p. 131) have referred to as ‘smallerplanning gestures’.

Finally, it is important to understand that in-clusive policies apply to everyone, and should not beunderstood as a form of ‘special treatment’ for‘target’ groups � however great their apparent need.In the case of Moorooka such approaches initiallyacted to exacerbate existing divisions rather thancreate a shared community-based vision. This alsoilluminates the shifts required of BCC planners andcommunity development workers. In Moorooka,while initially focused on advocating the needs ofrefugees, there was a necessary shift toward engage-ment with all stakeholders. While there is a clearneed to target those who are excluded, it is alsoimportant to concurrently strengthen and engagewith ‘mainstream’ society. In Moorooka this requiredthe efforts of not only government, but also engage-ment with individuals, community representatives,society and faith-based organisations, the privatesector, those groups as identified as disadvantagedand marginalised � as well as those who were not.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the insightful comments of theanonymous referees who reviewed an earlier version of thispaper.

Notes

1. Social Integration was also a key theme at the 48thsession of the Commission for Social Development, held

in New York, 3�12 February 2010.2. This case study has been developed from the research-

practice work of one of the authors.

3. Between 1996 and February 2007, 4016 African refugeesfrom Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Eritrea, Ethiopia, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone,

Somalia and Sudan made South East Queensland theirhome. Many were initially housed in Moorooka, whichacted as a low cost housing option in Brisbane’s innersouth (Harte et al., 2009, pp. 52�54). Care should be

Australian Planner 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:39

28

Oct

ober

201

4

taken with census data however, as migrant commu-

nities have not been well tracked and recorded inAustralia.

4. For example, the Queensland Government’s Depart-ment of Communities provides a very comprehensive set

of policies and support strategies for African commu-nities (Department of Communities, 2008). Yet thesetend to frame such groups as ‘target’ communities

for policy � possibly to the exclusion of surroundingcommunities and wider relationships.

References

Arthurson, K., 2002. Creating inclusive communitiesthrough balancing social mix: a critical relationship

or tenuous link? Urban policy and research, 20 (3),245�261.

Atkinson, A. and Marlier, E., 2010. Analysing and measur-

ing social inclusion in a global context. New York:UNDESA.

Baubock, R., 2003. Reinventing urban citizenship I.Citizenship studies, 7 (2), 139�160.

Baum, S., 2008. Making space for social inclusion. Peopleand place, 16 (4), 32�42.

Bligh, A., 2010. Let’s get real on population. The

Australian, March 29, p. 14.Bourke, P., 2001. Place management in Brisbane

City Council: a Local Government perspective. In:

T Reddel, ed. Local governance and social inclusion:places and policies. Brisbane: The University ofQueensland School of Social Work and Social Policy.

Bourke, P. and Crane, P., 2000. Public place and localgovernment: working towards inclusive and integratedpractice in Brisbane. Paper presented at the 27thInternational Conference on Making Cities Liveable,

Vienna, July 4�8.Bourke, P., Caniglia, F. and Whiley, A., 2010. A scan of

disadvantage in Queensland. UnitingCare, Queensland

Centre for Social Justice.Brown, D., Bell, M. and Hugo, G., 2006. Trends and

patterns of internal migration. Paper presented at

Symposium on Australians on the Move: InternalMigration in Australia. Australian National University(ANU), Canberra, 21 November 2006.

Cameron, J. and Gibson, K., 2006. Representing

marginalisation: finding new avenues for economicand social intervention. Proceedings of the stateof Australian cities national conference, Griffith Uni-

versity, 30 November�2 December 2005. http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/soac2005/published_papers/governance/gov11a.pdf. Last accessed 12 April,

2010.Commonwealth of Australia, 2010. Social inclusion in the

Australian government, http://www.socialinclusion.

gov.au/Pages/default.aspx [Last accessed 3 April,2010].

Cuers, S. and Hewitson, J., 2006. Strong communitieshandbook. Queensland University of Technology/

Queensland State Government/Queensland Council

of Social Service.Department of Communities, 2008. New futures: the

Queensland Government’s engagement with African

communities. Brisbane: Queensland GovernmentDepartment of Communities.

England, P., 2007. The South East Regional Plan: alandmark in the demise of the ‘developmental State?’The Australasian journal of natural resources law and

policy, 11 (2), 119�144.Fincher, R. and Iveson, K., 2008. Planning and diversity in

the city: redistribution, recognition and encounter.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gleeson, B. and Low, N., 2000. Australian urban planning:

new challenges, new agendas. St Leonards, NSW: Allen& Unwin.

Hague, C., Wakely, P., Crespin, J. and Jasko, C., 2006.Making planning work: a guide to approaches andskills. Bouton on Dunsmore: Intermediate Technology

Publications.Harte, W., Childs, I. and Hastings, P., 2009. Settlement

patterns of African refugee communities in SoutheastQueensland. Australian geographer, 40 (1), 51�67.

Ip, D., 2006. Contesting Chinatown: place-making and the

emergence of ‘ethnoburbia’ in Brisbane, Australia.GeoJournal, 64 (1), 63�74.

Ip, D., Lui, C. and Chui, W., 2007. Veiled entrapment: a

study of social isolation of older Chinese migrantsin Brisbane, Queensland. Aging and society, 27 (5),

719�738.Iveson, K., 2006. Cities for angry young people? From

exclusion and inclusion to engagement in urban policy.

In: B. Gleeson and N. Sipe, eds. Creating child friendlycities. London, New York: Routledge.

Khoo, Siew-Ean, 2010. Health and humanitarian migrants’economic participation. Journal of immigrant andminority health, 12 (3), 327�339.

Lombe, M., 2007. Review of approaches and methods tomeasure social inclusion and cohesion. Presented at a

United Nations expert group meeting creating aninclusive society: Practical strategies to promote social

integration. Paris, September 10�13, 2007.Pile, S., Brook, C. and Mooney, G., eds., 1999. Unruly

cities? Order/disorder. London: Routledge.

QCOSS, 2008. Poverty and social exclusion, QueenslandCouncil of Social Services, Brisbane City.

Rawsthorne, M., Hillman, W. and Healy, K., 2009.

Families on the fringe: mental health implications ofthe movement of young families to non-metropolitan

areas. Rural society journal, 19 (4), 306�317.Sandercock, L., 2003. Cosmopolis II: mongrel cities in the

21st century. London: Continuum.

Sandercock, L. and Kliger, B., 1998a. Multiculturalism andthe planning system (Part One). Australian planner,35 (3), 127�132.

Sandercock, L. and Kliger, B., 1998b. Multiculturalism andthe planning system (Part Two). Australian planner,

35 (4), 223�227.Sen, A., 2000. Social exclusion: concept, application, and

scrutiny. Social development papers no. 1. Office of

150 D. Storey et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:39

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Environment and Social Development. Asian Devel-

opment Bank.Singh, P., 2006. Urban education, cultural diversity and

poverty. A case study of globalization: Brisbane,Australia. In: J. Kinchleloe and K. Hayes, eds.

Metropedagogy: power, justice, and the urban class-room. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 133�146.

Skinner, J., Zakus, D.H. and Cowell, J., 2008. Development

through sport: building social capital in disadvantagedcommunities. Sport management review, 11, 253�275.

Smyth, P., Reddel, T. and Jones, A., 2004. Social inclusion,

new regionalism and associational governance: theQueensland experience. International journal of urbanand regional research, 283, 601�615.

Social Inclusion Board, 2008. Social inclusion principles forAustralia. Canberra: Social Inclusion Board.

Social Inclusion Board, 2010. Social inclusion in Australia:How Australia is faring. Canberra: Department of the

Prime Minister and Cabinet.Spearritt, P., 2009. The 200km City: Brisbane, the Gold

Coast, and Sunshine Coast. Australian economic his-

tory review, 49 (1), 87�106.Stimson, R.J and Taylor, S.P., 1999. Brisbane. Cities, 16 (4),

285�298.

Therborn, G., 2007. Presentation to the United Nations

expert group meeting creating an inclusive society:

practical strategies to promote social integration. Paris,

September 10�13, 2007.Turner, G., 2008. The cosmopolitan city and its other: the

ethnicizing of the Australian suburb. Inter-Asia cul-

tural studies, 9 (4), 568�582.UNDESA, 2009. Creating an inclusive society: practical

strategies to promote social integration. New York:

United Nations Department of Economic and Social

Affairs.Vitiello, D., 2009. The migrant metropolis and American

planning. Journal of the American planning association,

75 (2), 245�255.Yusuf, F. and Siedlecky, S., 1996. Family formation

patterns among migrant women in Sydney. Journal of

biosocial science, 28, 89�99.Waxman, P., 2001. The economic adjustment of recently

arrived Bosnian, Afghan and Iraqi refugees in Sydney,

Australia. International migration review, 35 (2),

472�505.Windle, J., 2008. The racialisation of African youth in

Australia. Social identities, 14 (5), 553�566.

Australian Planner 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:39

28

Oct

ober

201

4