A whole-of-community approach: local community responses to refugee settlement–integration in rural Australia

ABSTRACT

Humanitarian migrants are moving to rural areas in Australia in increasing numbers, where it is often local communities who take responsibility for their settlement–integration. Current models acknowledge that settlement–integration is a two-way process between humanitarian migrants and the rural community but remain overly focused on the actions of humanitarian migrants while neglecting the conditions of rural communities. This article discusses the case study of a rural Australian town where humanitarian migrants, Hazaras from Afghanistan, have settled over the past decade. We draw on Jenny Phillimore’s ‘Five domains of opportunity structures’ model of settlement-integration – locality, discourse, relations, structure and initiatives and support – to explore how local government, the mayor and volunteer refugee/migrant support groups facilitate a welcoming community. The case study provides evidence for Phillimore’s ‘opportunity structures’ as effective conditions for positive humanitarian migrant settlement–integration in a rural context. Through the lens of Phillimore’s opportunity structures, we operationalise a Whole-of-Community concept in the context of rural humanitarian settlement–integration.

KEYWORDS:

• Refugees
• settlement–integration
• rural and regional Australia
• whole-of-community
• local government
• civil society
• mayors
• community leadership

Introduction

Important structural changes in regional areas – such as the neoliberalisation of the domestic agricultural sector, the reach of globalising forces of trade, the out-migration of youth, and the challenges of a growing ageing population – have facilitated the increasing international migration push into rural communities, including humanitarian migrants (HM)¹ (Argent and Tonts 2015). Since the 1990s immigrants from Asia, the Middle East and Africa have increasingly lived alongside traditional European immigrant groups and Aboriginal communities, shifting the dynamics of social cohesion, integration and identity in rural and regional² Australia.

HM are increasingly viewed as important for the long-term economic and social viability of many rural communities. This can be seen in the Australian government’s immigration policies that promote rural settlement, such as the Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) that encourages asylum seekers to work or study in rural areas (Boese and Moran 2021; Butler and Ben 2021). The proportion of HM settling in rural areas has more than doubled over the last decade to nearly 39 per cent in 2019–20 (Department of Home Affairs 2021) and in 2019 the Australian Federal Government communicated plans to settle up to 50 per cent of HM into rural communities.³ The settlement of HM in rural communities requires actors on all levels to work together – federal (national), state and local government, migrant support organisations, civil society and individuals – to ensure positive outcomes for HM, rural communities and Australian government policies. While state and federal governments in Australia play a significant role in the overall policy making around rural migration, it is inevitably rural communities that carry responsibility at a local grassroots level for the economic and population consequences of these policies – especially local government councils and civil society.

This article focuses on the experience of Leeton, a New South Wales (NSW) rural community, with the settlement–integration⁴ of Hazaras from Afghanistan⁵ HM. Leeton has three strategically placed signs in prominent parts of the town stating: ‘Leeton, a caring community, welcomes refugees, migrants, and new settlers’ (see Figure 1), demonstrating its strong public commitment to welcoming newcomers including HM. However, a welcoming community requires more than words on a sign. Hence, in this paper we explore the conditions and structures in which local government and civil society in Leeton have welcomed the settlement–integration of Hazaras.

Figure 1. Leeton welcome sign – Courtesy Heidi Hetz.

After providing a brief background to rural HM settlement in Australia, we identify key factors in the literature that affect settlement, specifically with the receiving society component of Jenny Phillimore’s (2021) ‘Five domains of opportunity structures’ model of settlement–integration, including: locality, discourse, relations, structure and initiatives and support. While much attention has been paid to the needs and experiences of HM in the settlement–integration process, it is equally important to consider the conditions in receiving communities that facilitate or hinder integration. Utilising Phillimore’s framework, we present an understanding of how a ‘Whole-of-Community’ approach can facilitate positive settlement–integration in a rural Australian context. We then discuss the research methodology, followed by analysis of the ways in which the Leeton community have welcomed and supported Hazara, especially through the Leeton Mayor, Leeton Shire Council (LSC) and the volunteer Leeton Multicultural Support Group (LMSG). We conclude that, while Leeton provides effective conditions leading to largely positive rural HM settlement–integration through a Whole-of-Community approach, there are nevertheless important concerns that can negatively affect positive settlement outcomes for rural communities and HM.

Rural migrant settlement

Studies have highlighted the tensions inherent in the attraction and retention of migrants to rural communities as well as the key issues involved in successful rural HM settlement. These involve addressing issues around economic, social and cultural integration – such as employment, available and affordable housing, migrant support services, health, education, volunteering and welcoming communities (i.e. Boese and Moran 2021; McAreavey and Argent 2018; Shergold, Benson, and Piper 2019). Woods (2018) discusses the difficulties that rural communities experience when receiving skilled, temporary or humanitarian migrants, including the capacity to support increased numbers of culturally diverse immigrants, the small size of individual ethnic communities, absent or limited support networks within these communities, limited employment opportunities and the visible ‘otherness’ of ethnic minority residents. McAreavey and Argent (2018) further question whether rural communities have the resources and capacity to effectively provide long-term support for HM settlement given their limited ability to address broader structural issues. For example, the nature of rural HM settlement is compounded by experiences of trauma and the precariousness of their residential status that exacerbate many practical and emotional challenges. Many asylum seekers are still caught up in the process of seeking asylum, face temporary rather than permanent protection and experience difficulties with family reunification (Arora-Jonsson and Larson 2021; Woods 2018). Other challenges include responding to rising nativism because of shifting local, national or global economic or social events such as economic downturns, terrorism events or refugee crises (Radford 2016; Woods 2018).

Some scholars have noted the contrasting opportunities and challenges regional communities afford for HM settlement. These have included issues around social cohesion (Moran and Mallman 2019), the role of colonial histories and legacy in upholding forms of structural inequality (Butler and Ben 2021), racism and cultural diversity (Forrest and Dunn 2013) and intercultural encounters between HM and longer-term local community members (Radford 2016; 2017). Others have focused on the devolving of responsibility for negotiating and managing local rural sites of cultural difference to local government and civil society (Boese and Phillips 2017; Forbes-Mewett, Hegarty, and Wickes 2021), the ways in which rural communities and new settlers collaborate in the production of a ‘rural multicultural’ identity (Wilding and Nunn 2018) and issues related to secondary settlement and well-being (Klocker et al. 2021).

Rural local government and civil society have limited ability to address wider structural factors including settlement policies and programmes which are largely driven by state and federal governments. Nevertheless, they have increasingly become essential for positive rural HM settlement and often negotiate and manage settlement issues on the ground (Boese 2015; Boese and Phillips 2017; Forbes-Mewett, Hegarty, and Wickes 2021; Galligan, Boese, and Phillips 2014). Herslund (2021), in a Nordic context, argues that there are challenges for these local organisations to successfully ‘integrate’ newer migrants into local communities due to their limited settlement knowledge, capability issues and inadequate resourcing by state and federal governments and because migrant programmes are driven by higher level government economic policies that do not adequately take into account the social, cultural and welfare needs of migrants themselves (Arora-Jonsson and Larson 2021; Curry, Smedley, and Lenette 2018; Galligan, Boese, and Phillips 2014). It has been suggested, however, that the collaboration between local government and civil society actors in rural HM and other types of migrant settlement can potentially offer an alternative form of migration governance ‘from below’ (Herslund 2021; Phillimore 2021). A focus on this ‘from below’ governance – which draws on the various voices, actors and needs of rural communities and newer HM – has the potential for more effective support and settlement outcomes. This alternate form of ‘from below’ governance emphasises the need for state and federal government authorities to intentionally engage with local rural actors in HM settlement–integration.

Meso-level community organisations in civil society, such as volunteer led groups, NGOs, churches, places of employment or business organisations and local governments who actively support settlement are important factors in HM and other Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Migrant settlement–integration. A key feature of meso-level groups is how they facilitate the development of bridging, bonding and linking capital between these newer diverse migrants and longer-term rural community members (Kilpatrick et al. 2015). Community or civic groups can take initiative in the attraction and retention of HM and other CALD migrants, provide services to support them and encourage a sense of belonging in the local community (Forbes-Mewett, Hegarty, and Wickes 2021; Herslund 2021). It is evident that a myriad of factors contribute to successful rural HM settlement; however, studies consistently indicate that a welcoming community is one of the most important (Shergold, Benson, and Piper 2019; Stump 2019).

Framing a ‘whole-of-community’ approach

While there is no agreement on a clear definition of ‘successful’ HM integration or settlement, Ager and Strang’s (2008) model of ‘refugee integration’ has been widely used by migration scholars (Cheung and Phillimore 2017; Ziersch, Walsh, and Due 2023). The model understands successful settlement through four domains: markers and means (housing, health, employment, education); social connections (social bonds, social bridges, social links); facilitators (language and cultural knowledge, safety, stability); and foundation (rights and citizenship) and emphasises the measurement of settlement–integration outcomes. Glorius et al. (2021) argue, however, that, although integration models like Ager and Strang’s have been helpful and explicitly draw on an understanding of ‘successful integration or settlement’ as a two-way process between HM and local communities, in practice, there remains a tendency to focus on the actions of HM in the settlement–integration process while largely neglecting the role or context of receiving communities.

Phillimore (2021) too argues for further research on the conditions of receiving communities in shaping the ‘settlement–integration opportunities’ of HM (p. 1947). She posits a multidimensional integration model that considers the influence of ‘five domains of opportunity structures’ (p. 1952) affecting the response of receiving communities. The five domains of opportunity structures are: Locality – the ‘places where refugees live’ – including the quality and availability of resources; Discourse – community discourses on HM immigration that influence public opinion; Relations – the extent to which the local community is ‘open and welcoming’; Structure – immigration and integration regimes; and Initiatives and support – social networks and specific integration programmes that support integration. The five domains of opportunity structures are key for Phillimore (2021) because, rather than focusing on HM responsibilities, the lens is widened to highlight the ‘multiple influences [of local contexts] on refugees’ ability to integrate that are beyond the control of individual or even groups of refugees’ (p. 1960). For Phillimore, the key questions are: How do refugee-receiving countries [we would add ‘communities’] influence integration? What opportunity structures shape refugee–integration outcomes? Phillimore emphasises the importance of her framework more in terms of the macro and large-scale rather than on small-scale, micro level settings (p. 1953). However, in this paper we seek to extend the relevance of her framework in local rural contexts, arguing that ‘small-scale’ rural contexts provide particular local conditions that impact on HM.

As it stands, an understanding of ‘successful’ HM relocation tends to oscillate around partnerships between a receiving community and HM, and how a community of practice should drive the settlement of HM in rural areas (Broadbent et al. 2007); as well as private–public partnerships between community providers and local government when it comes to the coordination and support of HM settlement (Feist et al. 2014). Assessing the settlement experience of HM in rural Australia, authors like Shepley (2007, 8) argue that ‘social capital initiative is a whole-of-community exercise’. However, they do not explicitly define what is meant by a ‘whole of community exercise’. As such, we suggest the term ‘whole-of-community’ currently lacks clarity when it comes to its utility in HM settlement practices.

We aim to present a clearer understanding of what ‘Whole-of-Community’ means in rural HM settlement. We posit that a Whole-of-Community approach can help receiving communities effectively leverage local resources, structures and conditions in a complementary manner to facilitate positive HM settlement-integration. We do so by utilising Phillimore’s (2021) five domains of opportunity structures as a framework to illustrate how the conditions in one rural town have influenced the ‘settlement–integration’ process for HM through a Whole-of-Community approach. In doing so we affirm that positive settlement–integration of HM exists as a two-way process between HM and rural communities. We emphasise here the more neglected aspect of this approach that addresses the conditions in receiving communities. By highlighting the roles that each of Phillimore’s opportunity structures play, we argue that a Whole-of-Community approach recognises that supporting HM requires engaging the whole of the rural community, not just a few people, to support these new arrivals. A Whole-of-Community approach recognises that HM need to be supported in a way that does not isolate them as a ‘special group’ but is inclusive of all migrants and non-migrants, including Aboriginal sections of the rural community.

Empirical setting and methodology

This article is based on research undertaken between 2020 and 2022 in Leeton (NSW), an Australian country town with a diverse population of 11,452 (ABS 2021). Leeton was the first irrigation town set up in Australia in 1913, purposely built as part of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Scheme. Italian, Greek, Lebanese, Dutch and, earlier, Californian farmers and Welsh Patagonians from Argentina were brought in because of their experience with intensive irrigated farming. More recent waves of immigrants and refugee settlers from the year 2000 onwards have included Sikhs from India, Pacific Island temporary seasonal workers, Hazara HM and those arriving through skilled and family reunion pathways.

The male Hazara participants included in this research arrived in Australia between 2010 and 2012 as HM. Most moved by choice to Leeton, rather than via government policy, through secondary migration seeking employment after initially settling in a capital city. In late 2020, one participant from a migrant support organisation estimated that around 40 Hazaras, including four families and several unaccompanied men, were living in Leeton at that time. Among the Hazara men who still lived in Leeton, most had previously been or were currently employed at the local abattoir. One male participant was engaged in seasonal work as a farm hand. The Hazara participants largely moved to Leeton as single or unaccompanied men with their families remaining overseas. While the Australian Census of Population and Housing data (2016) indicated that the entire Afghan-born population in Leeton was male, at the time of the research two participants had married after their arrival in Australia and another two participants had reunited with their families. Regrettably many others were still waiting to reunite with their families even though they had lived in Australia for many years.

This research involved semi-structured interviews (in-person and via Zoom) with eleven HM from the Hazara community (currently or previously residing in Leeton) and ten non-Hazara long-term Leeton residents, largely drawn from the LSC, the LMSG and migrant resource providers in Wagga Wagga and Griffith who have supported HM settlement in Leeton.⁶ While the data collected from key stakeholder participants has the potential to limit this research to one set of views from the community, these views nevertheless provide an opportunity to understand HM settlement–integration from many of those actively engaged in the process. Two research team members were Hazaras from outside of Leeton, who provided translation support and helped to facilitate relational and cultural engagement with the Hazara community.

In the following section we apply the framework of Phillimore’s ‘five domains of opportunity structures’ and draw on key examples from interviews collected to illustrate the various ways in which Leeton has welcomed and supported the Hazara community through a Whole-of-Community approach.⁷

Locality – building a welcoming rural community from the bottom-up

Locality refers to the ‘places where refugees live’ – including the quality and availability of resources. Phillimore’s Locality domain has a particular focus on the actions of local governments and their effect on settlement–integration outcomes and on issues of employment and housing (Phillimore 2021, 1953).

Leeton Shire council responses

Mayor Paul and the LSC recognised that it was not sufficient to have well-intentioned volunteers helping HM but that they needed to be proactive in providing this support through structured responses, including the implementation of policies and procedures. By building specific outcomes regarding support for these newer arrivals into their strategic plan, the LSC, which represents the whole community, is accountable for delivering on these outcomes for and on behalf of the community. One early action in 2014 was to set up three strategically placed welcome signs (Figure 1), expressing the community identity of the shire. The signs state, ‘Leeton, a caring community, welcomes refugees, migrants, and new settlers.’ Mayor Paul explained the importance of having community support for this initiative:

But we had to get the community to accept that what we were doing with the big signage coming to our town, that they needed to be a part of that. It couldn’t be about just myself and council saying, ‘we’re just going to do it … ’ We actually emphasised to our community the importance of being inclusive and having a connection to these, especially the refugees who were arriving at that time … We all have to be shown that we’re all in here together.

This Whole-of-Community approach by the LSC involved specific programmes and grant funding initiatives that benefited HM, but also other members of the rural community. Leeton Mayor Paul further elaborates that a Whole-of-Community approach means that no one in the community is left out:

We had to embrace all, because that’s what we’re all about, that’s why we have [signs that say] ‘Leeton welcomes migrants, refugees and new settlers’ … But if we just remained a refugee support group [i.e. LMSG] essentially you’re then saying, ‘well what about the rest?’ … The whole-of-community approach is most important … So essentially no one is ever left behind. Every strand of work has a crossover effect. So if you are running a mental health program, it’s [the] whole of community that will benefit from that program. If you are running sport programs, it’s the same. At the end of the day the entire community will also be thriving and settled.

Structural settlement support of humanitarian migrants

As increased numbers of culturally diverse migrants settled in Leeton, the Leeton Mayor and several community members acknowledged the need for practical assistance which was not being provided by federal or state government agencies. Many local people began to assist with identifying employment opportunities, locating housing and accommodation, and assisting with paperwork, particularly for non-English speakers. Sandy, a LMSG volunteer, described early efforts of supporting newly arrived migrants:

[The Mayor] started to welcome people, help find housing for them … They still had to find the job. So they turn up in the town and they’ve got nowhere to sleep, they don’t know where to go … but someone had to start [helping new arrivals] … there were a couple of [Hazaras] here who spoke really good English … Then those people and [the Mayor] got together … whenever someone was arriving they would welcome them [and take them to] find a job.

Some long-term local community members expressed a desire to help new migrants settling in the community. With the support and participation of the Mayor, a volunteer group, the LMSG, was formed. Mayor Paul explained the motivation that led to the establishment of the LMSG:

[Government policies/practice] didn’t matter to us as a body of multicultural support group because we could still do what we want to do as far as welcome people into our shire, being inclusive of all cultures, and recognising and understanding that we, as a community, can do a lot to help society.

Houman, a Hazara meat worker, said through the interpreter how much he appreciated the support he received in Leeton:

He feels very grateful and very happy to be here because everybody that they come across here, even if they’re in very high positions and high offices, they kind of … meet you eye to eye … and give you a lot of respect and importance; so that makes all the difference because not only do they solve your problems for you, but they also give you a lot of respect … [he] start feeling like [he] was born on this earth again when [he] started living here.

Aiming to address inequalities with employers’ actions towards HM employees, the LMSG took part in forms of advocacy. Sharon, from a migrant services provider, gave an example:

A paid position came up and they [refugee] have been doing it for two years [volunteering], and then they [employer] wouldn’t employ them. And I got on the phone and said, ‘Well, they are no longer volunteering. You have got a paid position there. Why aren’t you employing these people who have been working there for 20 h a week?’ So sometimes you just have to catch them out. You have to be a very strong advocate.

Support was given to assist members of the Hazara community’s continued engagement with their different social, cultural and religious practices. Hazara man Tarek, an agricultural seasonal worker, described how the Leeton community were always ready to support Hazaras when they needed to find somewhere to hold their community or religious (Muslim) events:

When you need to have a funeral or something … [the Leeton community] provide us with access to the church and, you know, if we needed to celebrate something they will … make sure we have access to a park, they are quite cooperative like that with us … if we had any events and stuff, they were more than happy to accommodate us.

At times newer migrant communities require specific help interacting with government authorities such as Centrelink⁸ or the police. Members of the LMSG spoke of how they accompanied members of the Hazara community when they needed assistance to engage with authorities. Mayor Paul gave personal examples where he intervened with the police on behalf of a Hazara family in a theft case that was poorly investigated. He provided another example with Centrelink:

[Hazaras] go to Service NSW⁹ with an issue and I hear about it, and they say, ‘No, they won’t allow this.’ I go around there … you wouldn’t believe how many times there [is] a different outcome because I’m there. Now, that shouldn’t take me to be there, but sometimes I feel, because of their language barrier … that they’re just pushed aside … I feel that they’re treating some of the people as second-rate citizens.

Local rural official attitudes and openness to HM can either create the socio-political conditions that facilitate a positive settlement–integration process or create obstacles and hindrances that potentially inflame negative responses, including community resistance, antagonism or racism (Radford 2016; Shaffer et al. 2020). Notwithstanding the important role played by local champions such as the local Mayor, it is evident that the concept of Leeton as a welcoming community was supported by the broader community. The critical role of the community itself is further demonstrated through their endorsement of a strategic plan proposed by the LSC and the formalisation of the LMSG that aimed to provide various ad hoc and voluntary support to HM and other migrants.

Discourse – addressing discourses of discontent

Phillimore (2021) refers to the effect that political and media discourse on HM and other migration issues has on public opinion, where these discourses ‘shape the kinds of reception and the emotional orientation of receiving communities’ (p. 1954). Applying this concept to a rural context, we suggest that broader political and national discourses can influence local community public opinion. Local champions, such as the Mayor, the LSC and LMSG particularly took responsibility addressing these discourses, but also included Hazaras who could communicate their own story.

An integral part of building a Whole-of-Community response is community leadership. We define community leadership as the manner in which the needs of HM, as well as the questions, concerns and fears of the rural community are responded to by community leaders during settlement. Mayor Paul and the LSC communicated a strong pro-HM and diverse migrant rural community identity while providing opportunity for various members of the community to express their concerns or fears. The public visibility and voice of the Mayor in this regard has been a key feature of the Leeton response to building a welcoming community in Leeton.

Mayor Paul often spoke at various community functions and local community groups, such as the local Lions and Rotary clubs. He engaged in informal conversations when approached by individual community members about their concerns related to increased settlement. Mayor Paul reflected on one incident when a local resident approached him, commenting that they did not want all these new migrants in the town, and that they should leave:

my reaction was to try and explain and get that person to understand that it was not about giving free rein and I didn’t open up any borders. I didn’t go and tell people to come to our town … I said anyone can come to a town and some people need more support than other people and I just have to be supportive of these people here … I don’t just help refugees, I help all people, like people that may have a disability, elderly people and others that are struggling in our society … 

Mayor Paul mentioned that there had been overt negative reactions from some in the wider community against HM settlement in the town. These were strongest when Hazaras first arrived, including racist graffiti on the Leeton welcome signs. According to LMSG participants the Hazaras’ participation in the life of the Leeton community is now largely seen as normal and everyday, suggesting that time is an important factor in positive settlement–integration. The local newspaper was significant in propagating a positive image about increased Hazara settlement by regularly reporting positive narratives around settlement–integration events and people. LMSG volunteer Rachel described how the local newspaper reported on local events that included the Hazara community:

And the local paper was good. We did quite a lot of stories in the beginning. And they would come to Harmony Day¹⁰ events and – oh they always come to the events … and do stories and put photos in the paper, which was a very new thing … 

Another step in addressing discourses of discontent was for the community to hear personally from Hazara HM. For example, Hussain, a former Hazara resident of Leeton who now works as a tiler in a capital city, reflected on the positive response he had when sharing his refugee experiences with students in a local primary school:

I remember that one day I and [Sandy] went to a primary school, and I explained to them about my story, and it was a very good experience, and they were asking questions and I was answering them, and that’s a good memory.

LMSG members spoke of the migration history of Leeton in their interviews to explain the multicultural nature and sense of welcome that they felt characterised the Leeton community while recognising the complexity of the issues that came with it. Katrina, a LMSG member, described ‘multicultural Leeton’ in the following way:

Leeton has changed so much … 25 or 20 years ago, it was Italians, Irish backgrounds and British and a few Greek people running cafes or what not … the Afghanis [sic] as part of that richness that is now here, it’s a dramatic change. So they sit within the wider change, yeah, definitely … of course every group changes a place … it’s a complex picture, isn’t it, as most pictures are … Is there racism here, is there racism everywhere? Yes, there are, you know, pockets of it.

Much of the negative discourse around HM has been driven by the longstanding nature of migration politicisation in Australia (McDonald 2015, 659–660). Therefore, it was critical that local stakeholders such as the LSC and LMSG addressed negative and false discourses that arose and provided positive counter-discourses to advance an alternative narrative for Leeton.

Relations – building communities of welcome through meaningful relationships

Phillimore (2021, 1955) argues that positive settlement outcomes for HM are more likely in locations where diversity is the norm, where there are inclusive rather than exclusive neighbourhoods and where relationships that go beyond occasional interactions between local members of the community and HM exist. Many Hazaras arriving in Australia are disadvantaged and isolated because of their limited English proficiency, which can create social and vocational barriers. While English classes offered by TAFE were helpful for Hazara participants, there were limitations because some Hazaras found it difficult to participate due to work or other commitments. In response, the LMSG initiated conversational English groups. These informal opportunities provided increased language learning, such as weekend classes, and ways for other local community members to share in forms of reciprocal relationship building with many Hazaras. Basir, a former Hazara resident of Leeton, now a business owner in a capital city, reflected on his time participating in one of the LMSG English classes:

[Leeton] was a quiet place and the Council was good and they were inviting us to their meetings, we had a very nice English teacher that were helping us to teach English and sometimes inviting us … to her own place to teach English and these were all good things about Leeton.

The LMSG noticed that more Hazara women were reuniting with their husbands when their family reunion applications were finally approved. A majority of Hazara women were not working, unlike most of the men and, together with limited English proficiency, this restricted social interactions with the wider Leeton community. Consequently, LMSG volunteer Sandy started a morning tea/coffee group called the ‘Ladies Conversation Group’, which met socially once a week. This network has continued to operate even after the departure of many Hazaras from Leeton. LMSG volunteer Rachel explained the importance of this group for the social inclusion and support of the Hazara women:

It was contact, and it was familiarity, and it was that feeling again of being included, of belonging, and – and really having a chance to relax and ask any questions they wanted to ask … many of the original members of that group have dissipated. But we used to communicate on Viber, and we still do. [Some] … have been away from Leeton for six years now, who send photos and chat, and [ask] how are you all, and how are you coping?

Rachel’s observations demonstrate how informal English language classes led to friendships that extended beyond these classes. Multicultural Affairs Advisor Ken explained that these relationships helped the Hazara community feel at home in Leeton:

Now, a job is a job and we know that and we are very grateful that most of those people have been able to get jobs in our community, but by having that support network around them, it gives them more of a feel about our town and … friendship can mean more than any other thing in some people’s lives, especially if they have come from a life of torture, trauma and persecution … So when you know that and you say, well, we’re a developed nation, we’re a little town of Leeton, what can we do? … we can’t take on all the problems of the world, but one thing we can do, we can make people feel comfortable and feel some friendship within, and warmth within our society when they come here.

Encouraging HM to participate in the broader social life of the community may require personal invitations from local community members. HM are new and ‘outsiders’ to the rural community. Further, due to limitations in English proficiency and cultural or social barriers, HM may be hesitant to take the initiative to invite themselves into community events or organisations. Radford (2016), for example, observed that, while most HM found it difficult to take this initiative to reach out in rural communities, it required ‘transversal enablers’ or cross-cultural bridge-builders from both HM and longer-term community members to make this happen.

Many organic opportunities for social engagement come out of informal, everyday invitations or events that help to build friendships between different cultural groups. These everyday interactions enable intercultural engagement beyond the apparently surface-level multicultural events, to a deeper, personal connection. Multicultural Affairs Advisor Ken explained:

[the Mayor, in his personal capacity] has a separate [informal] gathering of the Hazara[s] … they just decide to go to any park, light a barbeque … and just talk about life, etc. … So the way we as friends could check on each other and, you know, hang out and … that’s what he’s introduced. These people are so intertwined with your day-to-day lived experience that they’re a part of you.

Hazara man Gullam, a truck driver who moved from Leeton to a capital city, stated that he had been unable to find similar friendships with local people in a bigger city, to those he had formed in Leeton.

There were more [work and study] opportunities in … bigger cities but not as much love, respect … Since my arrival here [capital city], I haven’t actually met or found any … new local friends because people are busy, they haven’t got time. Whereas in Leeton people had time, [we] were meeting locals, they were inviting us to their events like for example, birthdays. We were inviting them [too].

The experience of positive social interactions by Hazaras with longer-term community members provided opportunities for Hazaras to develop a stronger sense of belonging and inclusion in Leeton. These experiences were key in facilitating social conditions conducive for the development of meaningful relationships between HM and rural community members. The existence of deeper relationships illuminates two-way social interactions between HM and local community members that feature in our Whole-of-Community approach. This approach can identify issues such as the gendered dimension of HM settlement that might otherwise be missed, highlighted by additional initiatives that allowed Hazara mothers to engage in social and educational activities.

Structure – action and advocacy

Phillimore (2021, 1956) identifies several factors that reflect ‘structural’ conditions impacting HM settlement–integration. These factors include national immigration and integration regimes and services, as well as the way asylum systems specifically undermine the process of settlement–integration. A major concern for Hazara participants were the challenges regarding family ‘reunification’. Rafiq, a Hazara meat worker whose family remained overseas, shared his distress through the interpreter:

[Rafiq doesn’t] have any clear answers … because of so much stress and uncertainty … he says he’s been on medication for his mental health … He’s like ‘I just wish someone could help me out’ … Because even his wife sometimes tells him that ‘I’m going mental, can you please come here and actually get me some mental health help, take me to a doctor, take me to a psychologist.’

Mayor Paul and the LSC realised the importance of acting at the local level and engaging in advocacy with the state and federal governments, and the broader Australian Local Government Association. Mayor Paul explained how he sought to initiate changes in policy and practices beyond Leeton:

I found out on local government that you were limited in what you could do politically; however, we can influence, we can put things out there. I’ve been to the National General Assembly of Local Government in Canberra. We have taken motions forward to try and see if we could get the government to understand that we, as community members, are the hands-on people of the heart and soul and the connection to people, certainly as they’re arriving from other countries.

Mayor Paul has spoken directly with state government officials to remind them that they tell migrants to settle in rural towns because there are (supposed to be) jobs for them there, but the government needs to support rural communities with services and infrastructure to attract and retain migrants. Top-down regional settlement directives can be at odds with settlement–integration realities that lead to unintended consequences (see Feist et al. 2014). Hence positive resettlement of migrants needs to be a two-way process between state and federal governments and rural local government authorities. That two-way process requires that state and federal governments appreciate the work of local government and volunteers/groups. Mayor Paul highlighted the lack of structural support:

It’s just that [HM] are coming here, they can’t get a job and they’re left floundering because their entitlements that we would expect are not there with some of the Centrelink payments. Some cases I know about, they don’t have any Medicare … we need to understand when people are coming out to a rural sector, whether they are refugees or migrants … we must have a safety net … our safety net is what we can do as a community … So that’s why it’s important that the government should appreciate that they’ve got volunteers doing what they’re doing for nothing … and they’re the ones that are trying to build a better society … 

The task of resettling HM appeared to largely fall on the local Leeton community. It is therefore crucial for local government and key stakeholders to advocate with state and federal governments. It is critical for settlement organisations to recognise the importance of working with local rural communities and better understand the detrimental impact that higher level immigration policies have on resettlement efforts.

Initiatives and support – reimagining settlement–integration community events

According to Phillimore (2021), social networks and specific integration programmes that underpin ‘initiatives and support’ are viewed largely as the purview of migrant service providers or through state-run programmes (p. 1957). In rural communities like Leeton, migrant service providers give assistance including employment and housing. Various ‘integration’ initiatives, however, largely fall to under-resourced local government bodies and volunteers. We identified different levels of events that promote social interaction taking place, beginning at a broader level with the least amount of social interaction and participation, to a deeper personal level with greater and more meaningful social interaction and intercultural relationship building.

The LSC and the LMSG recognise that a focus on support and services for HM could be seen as favouring one group over others and could lead to claims of preferential treatment, especially in a small town when other groups may also be in need. Multicultural Affairs Advisor Ken argued that the needs of all social or cultural groups must be addressed:

you cannot talk about community cohesion at the expense of one group …  [when] we speak to the Hazara[s], or the Fijians, or the Pacific Islanders, or East Africans [it] is the same thing. We’re speaking to the First Nations people who are equally struggling to settle into this community.

One approach taken by the LSC and LMSG was to find ways to bring together the broader Leeton local community with their growing multicultural population as ‘one community’. The LSC and LMSG saw community events as important opportunities to build social interaction amongst all cultural communities in Leeton. However, there were differences regarding the kind of interactions that took place. Events like ‘Harmony Day’ were viewed by some members of the wider community as a day for newer migrants to celebrate their cultures among themselves, in which many longer-term locals did not participate. Multicultural Affairs Advisor Ken explained that the LMSG felt that there needed to be an event that was Leeton centric, an ‘Aussie-type activity’, which all groups, including the wider local community and migrant communities, could identify with and participate in together. The LMSG developed a concept they called ‘Chill and Grill’. Ken explained:

Chill and Grill as a concept was developed around the idea to build cohesion in the community away from other traditional events [such as] your Harmony Days. [We would like] migrants [to] feel Australian [but] we didn’t have anything essentially Australian that was welcoming migrant groups … [we] picked an event that’s already Leeton centric that … identify with the hosts, but now bringing representatives from other cultures to participate … which is the reverse of what was happening with Harmony Day … So Chill and Grill essentially brings the Aussie type of social activity which is barbeque and drinks to this community, but remember it’s food, drink, interaction.

Invitations to share relationally through a variety of community events were reciprocated between long-term locals and the Hazara community. For example, Hazara man Gullam spoke about some of the community events that helped the Hazara community connect with the wider Leeton community:

During my time at Leeton, we build really sort of strong and good relationship with the people of Leeton … And some of other things that we were doing there for example, when we had like cultural events like for example … Nowruz [Hazara festival]. We were inviting them and having barbeques and they were sometimes inviting us for the Harmony Day. We were visiting them for example, including the Mayor, they were visiting us.

What was key for Leeton was that initiatives to support the settlement–integration of HM bring the whole community together, including other migrants, longer-term local community members, and the Aboriginal community.¹¹

Discussion

Our research has indicated that HB settlement–integration has been proactively supported in Leeton. However, the well-meaning efforts of rural communities to be welcoming and intentional in facilitating positive settlement–integration through opportunity structures, such as those indicated by Phillimore – locality, discourse, relations, structure and initiatives and support – may reflect forms of paternalism and over-dependency (Boese and Phillips 2017; McAreavey and Argent 2018; Woods 2018). This could occur if the help offered fails to support HM to provide solutions themselves which can reinforce power inequalities. Majority–minority interactions in this context can further produce a sense of ‘oneness’ that overlooks or downplays inherent inequalities and experiences of discrimination (McAreavey and Argent 2018). Volunteers helping HM may do so for their own sense of self-identity or worth as benefactors to ‘the needy’. We do not argue here that rural communities should hesitate in taking the lead in addressing and supporting HM settlement–integration, but rather that in doing so they remain reflexive of potential pitfalls in the process.

Another challenge is that the welcoming and support of HM can remain restricted to the effort of a few ‘do-gooders’ (Radford 2016) rather than the involvement of the ‘whole-of-community’. This raises serious questions as to the long-term viability of such support and whether a culture of welcome is sustainable (Herslund 2021; Kilpatrick et al. 2015; Woods 2018). Social connections that HM develop may remain within their own community or other newer migrant groups, or with those from meso or civic groups that seek to support them, rather than amongst the broader longer-term rural community, ultimately undermining a Whole-of-Community approach.

The recognition and promotion of Leeton’s migration history and multicultural identity has been a theme in Leeton’s story of HM settlement–integration. There is value in this approach but there can be potential pitfalls. Emphasising local rural multiculturalism, particularly through multicultural events and programmes, may promote a kind of boutique multiculturalism (Fisk 1997). Boutique multiculturalism is a form of engagement with cultural diversity that remains superficial rather than meaningful and sees cultural diversity as being curious, exotic, to be experienced at a distance, which can reinforce a majority–minority divide. Attempts by rural communities to draw selectively on a history of immigration to support a local rural multicultural identity can mask issues of racism, exclusion and inequality experienced by non-British migrants during rural settlement (Butler and Ben 2021; Forbes-Mewett, Hegarty, and Wickes 2021). Again, we do not argue here against rural communities utilising their history of migration or multicultural diversity to support a local multicultural imaginary or identity, or to promote specific ‘multicultural’ events like Leeton’s Chill and Grill. These may be essential for the future of the growing diversity of rural communities, which includes HM. Rather, in doing so, rural communities need to remain reflexive of potential dangers around embracing a surface multiculturalism or failing to address ongoing racism/discrimination (hidden or open) or failing to find ways to include all cultural groups.

Our research has highlighted the complex nature of HM settlement using Phillimore’s five domains of opportunity structures as a framework. We do not claim that Leeton is the perfect HM settlement community, rather, through our conceptual framing of the ‘Whole-of-Community’ approach we have sought to expand the appropriateness of Phillimore’s framework in the context of one rural town that has sought to be a community that ‘welcomes refugees, migrants, and new settlers’. A Whole-of-Community approach is characterised by engaging the wider rural community, not just a few people, to support new HM arrivals. It recognises HM need to be supported in a way that does not isolate them as a ‘special group’, but is inclusive, benefitting all sections of the rural community – migrants, non-migrants and the Aboriginal community. Community leadership has a pivotal role in a Whole-of-Community approach as it effectively brings various parts of the community together and harnesses local resources, structures and conditions in a complementary manner to foster positive HM settlement–integration.

The first opportunity structure, ‘locality’, focuses on the places where HM live, including the quality and availability of resources. It acknowledges that building a welcoming community from the bottom up is critical in the settlement–integration process. Local rural official attitudes and openness to HM facilitates either a positive settlement–integration process or creates obstacles and hindrances. In addition to the LSC setting up three welcome signs to express the community’s welcoming identity towards ‘refugees, migrants, and new settlers’, proactive support for new arrivals through strong leadership and community engagement was critical in the formulation and community support of structured responses. Examples included the implementation of policies and programs alongside grant funding initiatives to benefit HM and the wider community; the LMSG assisting and advocating for HM with employers and authorities; and the wider Leeton community’s support of the Hazara community’s social, cultural and religious practices.

The second opportunity structure, addressing ‘discourses’ of discontent, saw how rural opportunity structures of settlement–integration should be cognisant of the influence of political and media discourse on public opinion shaping the emotional orientation of receiving communities towards migrants. Discourses affect conditions that promote community welcome or antagonism. Rural communities such as Leeton, therefore, need to develop strategies that both contest and provide alternate discourses, which can critically draw on local histories or experiences of migration and cultural diversity in establishing a local, welcoming, multicultural identity. Hence, community leadership was integral to building a welcoming community to counter such negative broader political and national discourses. Leeton’s Mayor and LSC played a strong role in shaping a pro-HM and diverse migrant rural community identity, while providing opportunities for various members of the community to express their concerns or fears.

The third opportunity structure, ‘relations’, speaks to the importance of social inclusion for Hazara HM settling in Australia, and the role of local community members and organisations in facilitating this process. Settlement–integration requires moving beyond welcoming discourses to providing opportunities for meaningful relationships to develop between local community members and HM beyond occasional interactions. The Leeton case study demonstrates that supporting HM requires engaging the whole of the rural community, not just a few people. Effective and long-lasting support requires a range of formal and informal relational steps that help to foster engagement with the wider community. Formal steps may involve council strategic plans, including organising public events that value and bring together all members of the Leeton community. Informal steps may involve actively finding ways to build bridges of friendship that go beyond events, policies and programmes. LMSG initiatives such as informal conversational English classes and the Ladies Conversation Group elucidate the importance of personalised invitations and cross-cultural bridge-builders. These underscore the significance of social relationships and community engagement in facilitating the settlement–integration of Hazaras and encouraging their participation in the broader social life of the Leeton community.

The fourth opportunity, ‘structure’, relates to how the deeper commitment demonstrated by the Leeton community, beyond acts of personal support and friendship by local volunteers and citizens, can lead to a positive impact on the lives and well-being of HM. The lack of structural support points to the need for advocacy beyond the rural community with higher levels of government, state or federal, and the importance of working with local rural communities to better understanding the detrimental impact that higher level immigration policies can have on resettlement efforts in rural communities. Many rural communities are on the receiving end of these immigration ‘regimes’ and seek greater engagement and support from/with state and federal government bodies to provide more conducive conditions for successful settlement–integration. Communication between government bodies and rural local government authorities is essential to address the broader structural conditions relating to human rights concerns around HM residency and family reunion struggles and supporting HM to have an active voice in the development and implementation of rural migration policies.

The fifth opportunity structure calls for the re-imagination of ‘initiatives and support’ for the settlement–integration of HM – experienced in Leeton – to promote unity and inclusivity among the entire community. This should be done so in a way that does not signal HM as an exclusive ‘special group’ but rather includes all diverse sections of the community. The ‘Chill and Grill’ concept developed by the LMSG reflects the need for initiatives that involve all social/cultural groups. The success of such initiatives to foster intercultural relationships depends on the community’s willingness to participate and on reciprocation in invitations to community events by HM.

Conclusion

Within this article we have applied Phillimore’s ‘five domains of opportunity structures’ as a framework to explore the conditions that enable rural receiving communities to better contribute to positive HM settlement. A common thread that connects the five opportunity structures is the importance of community engagement and leadership in facilitating the settlement and integration of HM. We have shown that creating a welcoming community is critical to the settlement–integration process, and this is achievable through the active participation of the rural community in supporting and advocating for HM. This involves building meaningful relationships between local community members and HM beyond occasional interactions and events, through both formal and informal steps. Finally, it requires re-imagination of initiatives and support for the settlement–integration of HM in a way that promotes unity and inclusivity among the entire community, not just HM as an exclusive ‘special group’.

It is important that we learn from the settlement experiences of rural communities with a history of HM settlement as they can provide evidence-based information that can maximise the potential for settlement–integration success – for the HM themselves, local rural communities and, of course, government settlement policies. The rural community of Leeton has proudly placed signs to indicate that they are a ‘caring community’ that ‘welcomes refugees, migrants, and new settlers.’ If this is to be more than just a sign of welcome, then there needs to be demonstrated words, actions and strategies that are implemented. It is evident that positive HM settlement–-integration in rural communities can be facilitated by the Whole-of-Community approach that we have discussed in the case study of Leeton.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The term ‘humanitarian migrant/s is inclusive of a whole continuum of experiences and legal statuses of those who have moved through forms of forced migration – from ‘refugee’ to ‘asylum seeker’, from temporary protection to those who have gained permanent residency or citizenship. It also recognises that those who have arrived through humanitarian pathways do not necessarily still identify or see themselves as ‘forever refugees’ (Radford and Hetz 2021). For ease of reading, we use the acronym ‘HM’ for both singular and plural forms of the phrase.

2 Terms such as ‘remote’, ‘rural’ and ‘regional’ have specific definitions in different national contexts usually reflecting the distance from major metropolitan centres or population size. For our purposes they include all non-metropolitan areas and will be referred to simply as ‘rural’ in the paper.

3 https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-wants-half-of-new-refugees-to-be-settled-in-regional-australia-by-2022-20191121-p53ct1.html

4 A term Phillimore (2021) uses to link humanitarian-background migrant settlement with the process of integration.

5 Hazaras are the main ethnic group from Afghanistan who have suffered greatly under Taiban rule in Afghanistan (for more information on the background of Hazaras and some of their experiences in Australia, see for example, Radford and Hetz 2021).

6 All participants were given anonymity except for the Mayor and the Multicultural Advisor due to their very public positions and standing, and permissions were given to identify these two participants. For this reason, and recognising this identification has limitations, the town of Leeton was also named. Within these limitations the authors have sought as far as possible to maintain a critical perspective.

7 This paper draws from a public report, Learning from Leeton, published by Radford et al. (2022) on the experiences of refugee settlement–integration in Leeton. The Leeton research was an extension of an earlier project, Refugees Rejuvenating and Connecting Communities, published by Radford et al. (2021), which investigated the social, cultural and economic contributions of HM to local communties.

8 Centrelink is a federal government body that supports Australians by delivering services and payments on behalf of the government.

9 Services NSW is a New South Wales state government body that provides access to a wide range of government services – including business, employment, transport, education, health care and housing/property issues.

10 Coinciding with the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ‘Harmony Day’ is the Australian Government’s prescribed day to celebrate cultural diversity.

11 We have provided only brief examples of the importance of including First Nations populations in Leeton’s HM settlement, partly because this was not central to the interviews that took place, nor were we able to interview First Nations people themselves. Our comments are indicative and aspirational on the part of Leeton participants but suggest the need for important further research on this issue in Leeton and other rural communities.