Blaming migrants won’t solve Western Sydney’s growing pains



File 20170515 7011 86autq
Many people in culturally diverse populations in Western Sydney have lived in Australia for many years, if not several generations.
Shutterstock

Shanthi Robertson, Western Sydney University and Kristine Aquino, University of Technology Sydney

Population growth has profound impacts on Australian life, and sorting myths from facts can be difficult. This article is part of our series, Is Australia Full?, which aims to help inform a wide-ranging and often emotive debate.


Western Sydney is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia. It’s also one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse, as a key arrival point for refugees and new migrants when they first settle in Australia.

Various public figures and media outlets have connected asylum-seeker intake and immigration to traffic congestion and queues at hospitals in Western Sydney.

However, this kind of reaction can pin the blame for infrastructure and affordability problems on culturally diverse populations who may have already lived in Australia for many years, if not several generations.

Growth from international and domestic migration

Greater Western Sydney includes Blacktown, the Blue Mountains, Camden,
Campbelltown, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cumberland, Fairfield
Hawkesbury, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith, the Hills Shire and Wollondilly.

We examined census data compiled by WESTIR Ltd, a non-profit research organisation based in Western Sydney, partly funded by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services. These data show that Greater Western Sydney’s population increased by 9.8% between 2011 and 2016. Over the decade from 2006 to 2016, it grew by 16%.

About 55% of those living there were born in Australia, and about 39% where born elsewhere (the remainder did not state their place of birth). Most put English or Australian as their first response when asked about their ancestry.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/hiy8X/1/

New births are slightly down in the region, meaning growth is coming from other sources. This includes new international migration arrivals, but also incoming residents from other parts of New South Wales and interstate.

Greater Western Sydney has long-established cultural and linguistic diversity. The percentage of residents born overseas has increased from 34.1% in 2006 to 38.7% in 2016. Overall, the west accounts for 50.2% of the overseas-born population for the whole of metropolitan Sydney.

Reasoned debates on sustainable migration intake levels are a crucial part of discussions of urban and regional growth. There are valid criticisms of “Big Australia” policies, based on resource and environmental sustainability.

But while the number of new arrivals settling in Western Sydney has increased steadily since the second world war, with a significant jump over the last decade reflecting accelerated skilled migration policies to fill labour shortages, the majority of overseas-born living in the region are long-term settlers who have been in Australia for ten years or more.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YSKD3/1/

Increasing diversity does not always mean more new migrant settlers

The data show that 64% of Western Sydney residents have at least one parent born overseas. This is greater than the number of those born overseas. This correlates with national data indicating that Australian-born second-generation migrant residents outnumber those born outside of Australia.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kGbyi/1/

So while critics may look at non-white Western Sydney residents and assume they are recent migrants, what they’re often really seeing is multiple generations of multiculturalism. Most of these people are long-term local residents, not necessarily a sudden influx of new arrivals.

In addition, not all overseas-born residents are permanent settlers. Australia takes far larger numbers of temporary entrants than it has in the past. Most of these temporary visa holders, such as international students and temporary skilled workers, live in major metropolitan areas and their surrounds, like Western Sydney.

While some portion of these populations do stay on longer-term, they are not all permanent settlers who will add to long-term population growth. Net migration figures, which take into account people who depart Australia every year as well as arrive, and exclude short-term visitors, have generally been decreasing over the past six years.

Who do we define as ‘migrants’?

New Zealand citizens moving under Trans-Tasman agreements and migrants from the United Kingdom are still among the largest migrant groups in Greater Western Sydney.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/p0Are/2/

In many local government areas in Western Sydney – such as Wollondilly, the Hills Shire, Penrith, Hawkesbury and Campbelltown – England and/or New Zealand feature in the top five countries of birth of overseas-born residents.

If anxieties about migration and population in Western Sydney are based on genuine sustainability concerns and not xenophobia, why target mostly refugees and non-white migrants? Why focus only on areas with large non-white and non-English-speaking background populations?

Migrants do use infrastructure, but also drive economic and jobs growth

It’s never as simple as one new arrival “using up” an allocation of limited resources, whether jobs, housing, or seats on trains. In fact, new arrivals fill the gaps of an ageing workforce, and current migration policies are targeted to favour younger migrants and specific skills shortages.

Western Sydney, like many regions in Australia, has an ageing population. Residents aged 65-74 years increased from 6.2% in 2011 to 7.2% in 2016.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/cEuur/1/

Large-scale infrastructure – whether the slated new airport or the Westmead hospital – requires young and often skilled workers.

Nationally, recently arrived overseas-born residents have a lower median age and a higher level of education than Australian-born residents.

Infrastructure problems are also problems of policy, planning and funding, rather than just population numbers. Problems in transport and health infrastructure in Western Sydney cannot be easily solved by reactive anti-immigration attitudes or policies.

Cuts to programs like the humanitarian program or skilled temporary work visas, where the intake numbers remain relatively small as a proportion of the overall population, will not solve those infrastructure problems.

Western Sydney is growing, and with growth comes growing pains. But equating the region’s rich cultural diversity with a population crisis is the wrong message to send.


The ConversationYou can read other articles in the Is Australia Full? series here.

Shanthi Robertson, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University and Kristine Aquino, Lecturer in Global Studies, University of Technology Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

‘Liveable’ Sydney has clear winners and losers


Roberta Ryan, University of Technology Sydney and Yvette Selim, University of Technology Sydney

Sydney is frequently placed in the top ten of global “liveability” rankings. But despite the growing popularity of the buzzword liveability, questions remain about what it actually entails. What does a liveable city look like? How do we measure liveability? And, most importantly, liveable for whom?

The idea of liveability and liveability rankings has some usefulness. However, such rankings mask the disadvantaged, marginalised and excluded within cities, including Sydney.

In yet-to-be-published research, our analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data from 1991, 2001 and 2011 indicates there are clear “winners” and “losers” in Sydney. Despite the strong economic growth in the 1990s, there is still a clear divide between eastern and western Sydney.

Who defines and rates liveability?

The term liveability has proliferated in planning and public discussions, but few definitions are provided.

Liveability is usually captured by published indices. Broadly speaking, there are three categories of indices: those that focus on decision-making from the perspective of individual lifestyle preferences, the firm, and policymakers.

The best-known liveability indices are developed commercially. These include the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Liveability Index, the Mercer Quality of Life Survey, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Cities of Opportunity Quality of Life, and the Global Liveable Cities Index.

More recently, Sydney suburbs have been ranked according to various liveability indices (such as Domain Liveable Sydney 2016 and the Urban Living Index). However, overall these liveability indices tend to simplify or disregard crucial factors.

These indices tell a particular and incomplete story about the city. When viewed through the lens of spatial geography, it is clear that Sydney’s ranking as a liveable city requires greater recognition of the ways in which some Sydneysiders experience inequality and disadvantage.

What did our study find?

We compared ABS data from 1991 or 2001 to the data from 2011, focusing on four issues: income, unemployment, travel to work, and housing tenure.

Our analysis of employment found that the proportion of people employed in Greater Sydney slightly increased (94% in 2001 compared with 94.3% in 2011) and the unemployed decreased (6% in 2001 compared with 5.7% in 2011). People in full-time employment decreased while the number of people working part-time increased, bringing it almost on par with the Australian figure.

However, the data does not reveal the disparities in people’s incomes according to where they live. When we viewed the data spatially, it was evident that people who live in the central city, inner east, inner west and the north shore of Sydney have higher weekly incomes than those living in the western parts of Sydney.

Income levels in Sydney

Highest-income areas are shown in red, with lowest-income areas in blue.
Author provided

Our analysis also found spatial disparities in the way people commute to work. Driving remained the main form of travel (49.2% in 1991 compared to 53.8% in 2011), demonstrating continued car dependence in Sydney.

The disparity between east and west was evident in people’s opinions and preferences about travel. People in eastern Sydney felt more able to live close to where they work (72% compared with 62% in western Sydney).

People in western Sydney were less likely to feel they had the transport they needed (86% compared with 91% in eastern Sydney). But, interestingly, they also felt that transport was less important than eastern Sydney residents.

Finally, our analysis of housing tenure over the 20 years to 2011 found the level of outright home ownership fell by almost 10%. The proportion of people with mortgages increased (26.6% in 1991 compared with 33.2% in 2011), as did the number of people renting (28% in 1991 compared to 30.4% in 2011).

Housing tenure in Sydney

Areas with highest rates of outright home ownership are shown in blue, with areas of highest rates of mortgages in red.
Author provided

To sum up, the winners: live in the city, inner east, inner west and parts of northern suburbs, have relatively easy access to well-paid work, and own their homes.

The losers: live further from the concentrations of economic activity (jobs), have higher job insecurity, longer travel-to-work times, poorer transport choices and connections, lower incomes, more rental stress, less time with families, and poorer reported wellbeing.

Our analysis aligns with other recent research – see, for example, findings by the Grattan Institute, the Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and the Australian Housing Urban Research Institute.

How can liveability be better shared?

How then do the various liveability indices account for spatial inequality and disadvantage? In 2012, the Economist Intelligence Unit added a category based on “spatial adjustments”. The Spatial Adjusted Liveability Index now makes up 25% of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability score.

Various programs and policies have also been designed to tackle liveability. These are helpful initiatives, but a more holistic and interdisciplinary approach is needed. Approaches to liveability need to be integrated (both place-based and people-based).

  • First, to be effective, institutions need to decrease fragmented responses.

  • Second, greater social inclusion is vital. This includes participatory approaches to planning and equitable access to jobs, services and amenity.

  • Third, cities need co-operative governance whereby citizens can affect decision-making through legitimate involvement.

The ConversationA greater focus on these recommendations might bring Sydney a little closer to being a liveable city for all.

Roberta Ryan, Professor and Director, UTS Institute for Public Policy and Governance and UTS Centre for Local Government, University of Technology Sydney and Yvette Selim, Senior Researcher and Lecturer, UTS Institute for Public Policy and Governance, University of Technology Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Government to build second Sydney airport



File 20170502 17287 daxzio
Malcolm Turnbull expects the second Sydney airport to inject more than $1.9 billion into the economy during construction.
AAP/Lukas Coch

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The federal government has confirmed it will build Sydney’s second airport after the Sydney Airport Group, owner of Kingsford Smith, announced on Tuesday it would not take up its right of first refusal to construct and operate the Badgerys Creek airport. The Conversation

Sydney Airport Group chief executive Kerrie Mather said despite the opportunities the new airport would present, “the risks associated with the development and operation are considerable and endure for many decades, without commensurate returns for our investors”.

Next week’s budget will give details of the western Sydney project, which will be part of the budget’s major infrastructure focus.

The government has been paving the way for the airport project and its plan to inject funds into a Melbourne-to-Brisbane freight line by distinguishing between “good” and “bad” government debt. In broad terms, it says “good” debt is for investment that brings growth, while “bad” debt is borrowing for recurrent spending.

In a joint statement, Malcolm Turnbull and Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher said the project was vitally important for western Sydney, Sydney, and the nation.

They said the airport would inject more than A$1.9 billion into the economy during the construction phrase. “It is expected to deliver 9000 new jobs to western Sydney by the 2030s, and 60,000 in the long term,” they said.

They said the government had been planning for either the acceptance or rejection by the Sydney Airport Group, and was “well positioned to move forward”.

Jennifer Westacott, chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, said often governments had to step in for the early stages of a nation-building project but that always should be a catalyst for private sector investment in the longer term.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Australia: Hillsong and Mark Driscoll


The link below is to an article that reports on Australia’s Hillsong Church and its invitation to Mark Driscoll for its Sydney convention later this month. Mark Driscoll was lead pastor at the Mars Hill Church in Seattle, USA.

For more visit:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3112154/Hillsong-Church-receives-backlash-inviting-disgraced-pastor-described-women-penis-homes-conference.html