micicinitiative.iom.int · web viewaustralian emergency management website, viewed 1.08.2013, <...

EXPLORING INHERENT CAPABILITIES IN COMMUNITIES WITH MIGRANT AND

REFUGEE BACKGROUNDS FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE

PROJECT REPORT

AUGUST 2013

MYRIAD CONSULTANTS

REPORT PREPARED FOR: Julien NicolasManager Resilient Communities ProgramAustralian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI)Attorney-General's Department 601 Mt Macedon Road, Mt Macedon VIC 3441t. +61 3 54 21 5295 e. [email protected]

REPORT PREPARED BY: Maria Dimopoulos Georgia Prattis MyriaD Consultants Pty LtdPO Box 439Altona 3018Ph: +61 3 9315 0902 e. [email protected]

Exploring inherent capabilities in communities with migrant and refugee backgrounds for disaster resilience - 2

mailto:[email protected]


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 4

INDIGENOUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

1. INTRODUCTION 14

ABOUT THE PROJECT 15

2. POLICY CONTEXT 18

3. LITERATURE REVIEW – KEY THEMES 21

4. CONSULTATION FINDINGS – PACIFIKA COMMUNITIES 23

PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITIES 23

FOCUS GROUP – UNITED PACIFIKA COUNCIL OF VICTORIA 25

KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 30

RELEVANT DISASTER MANAGEMENT RELATED ISSUES INVOLVING PACIFIC ISLANDER

COMMUNITIES32

5. CONSULTATION FINDINGS – COMMUNITIES OF BHUTAN 34

BHUTANESE COMMUNITIES 34

FOCUS GROUP – BHUTANESE COMMUNITY VICTORIA 35

KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 39

RELEVANT ACTIVITIES INVOLVING BHUTANESE COMMUNITIES 41

6. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 42

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 59

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 52

APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MODEL FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 55

APPENDIX C: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CALD PROGRAMS (AGD) 57

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A: LIST OF BHUTANESE ORGANISATIONS 61

ATTACHMENT B: LIST OF PEAK PACIFIKA ORGANISATIONS 65


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Common abbreviations (acronyms) used throughout this document include:

ABS Australian Bureau of StatisticsAEMI Australian Emergency Management InstituteAGD Attorney-General’s DepartmentAHRC Australian Human Rights CommissionAMC Australian Multicultural CouncilAMES Adult Migrant Education ServicesAMEP Adult Migrant English ProgramBAASA Bhutanese Australian Association of South Australia BOA Bhutanese Organization in AustraliaCALD Culturally and Linguistically Diverse CMY Centre for Multicultural YouthCOAG Council of Australian GovernmentsDSCP Diversity and Social Cohesion ProgramECCV Ethnic Communities Council of VictoriaESL English as a Second LanguageFaHCSIA Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous AffairsFECCA Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of AustraliaHSS Humanitarian Settlement ServicesJSCM Joint Standing Committee on MigrationLGA Local Government AreaLOTE Languages other than EnglishLSPCs Local Settlement Planning CommitteesMCA Migration Council AustraliaMRC Migrant Resource CentreNAATI National Accreditation Authority for Translators and InterpretersNESB Non English speaking backgroundNGO Non-government organisationNSDR National Strategy for Disaster Resilience PIRG Pacific Island Reference Group Inc. RCOA Refugee Council of AustraliaRDA Racial Discrimination ActSCOA Settlement Council of AustraliaSCPEM Standing Council on Police and Emergency ManagementSCIS Select Council on Immigration and SettlementSMI Scanlon-Monash Index of Social Cohesion TIS Telephone and Interpreting ServicesTVA Tongan Victorian Association Inc. UPCOV United Pacifika Council of VictoriaUNC United Nations ConventionUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction VMC Victorian Multicultural Commission


INDIGENOUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

[Image is part of the Attorney-General’s Department Reconciliation Action Plan]

Australia’s cultural diversity has its foundations in the rich cultural heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the First Australians. Recognition of Indigenous Australian cultures and history is an important driver for social cohesion in Australia.

The authors of this report acknowledge the original custodians of the land and the significant wisdom that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people possess in relation to disaster resilience.

It is therefore fitting to preface this report with an outline of work in emergency management specific to Indigenous communities. Keeping Our Mob Safe: a National Emergency Management Strategy for Remote Indigenous Communities

The development of the National Emergency Management Strategy for Remote Indigenous Communities was initiated by the Australian Emergency Management Committee (AEMC) 1 in 2004. The completed Strategy was endorsed by the Augmented Australasian Police Ministers’ Council (now called the Standing Council for Police and Emergency Management or SCPEM). The Strategy addresses recommendations made in the Council of Australian Governments’ directed review - Natural Disasters in Australia: Reforming mitigation, relief and recovery arrangements (2002) - and aims to improve the disaster resilience of remote Indigenous communities.

The Strategy was developed by the Remote Indigenous Communities Advisory Committee (RICAC), an AEMC Advisory Group, with funding provided through the Australian Government’s Working Together to Manage Emergencies Program2.

The objectives of the Strategy are to:

Develop knowledge and skills in Indigenous people and organisations to enhance emergency management in remote communities.

Improve the level and appropriateness of emergency management-related services in the area of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery provided by relevant agencies in remote Indigenous communities.

Build the capacity of remote Indigenous communities to improve community safety through sustainable emergency management.

Increase government commitment and accountability to address issues impacting on effective emergency management in remote Indigenous communities.

1 AEMC is now called the Australia-New Zealand Emergency Management Committee (ANZEMC)2 This funding initiative was incorporated into the National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience.


http://www.em.gov.au/Volunteers/Workingtogethertomanageemergencies/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.em.gov.au/Volunteers/Workingtogethertomanageemergencies/Pages/default.aspx

Promote effective partnerships between emergency management agencies, Indigenous organisations, government and other agencies to improve community safety outcomes for remote Indigenous communities.

RICAC ceased as a separate Advisory Committee and the work encompassed by the Strategy was adopted as a strategic priority under the direction of the Australia-New Zealand Emergency Management Committee (ANZEMC) Community Engagement Sub-committee.

The National Emergency Management Strategy for Remote Indigenous Communities demonstrates good practice by the emergency management sector, working directly with communities to enhance resilience and minimise the impact of disasters. It offers many potential learnings that can also be applied in working with culturally and linguistically diverse communities.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research team would like to thank the Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI) within the Attorney-General's Department for funding the project. Particular thanks go to Julien Nicolas, Manager Resilient Communities Program, Australian Emergency Management Institute, for not only commissioning this research, but for her contribution of expertise in relation to the many achievements and initiatives undertaken by AEMI in relation to CALD Communities and Disaster Management and Resilience. Her dedication and professionalism has been instrumental to the smooth running of the project and to the quality of the result.

This report draws on a wide range of data from a variety of both primary and secondary sources, including data held by the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Emergency Management Institute.

We wish to acknowledge the expertise and support of a number of people from various Multicultural/Settlement organisations who have contributed to this Project:

Sky de Jersey - Executive Officer – Settlement Council of Australia (SCoA) Carla Wilshire – CEO - Migration Council Australia (MCA) Cedric Manen – Chairperson, SCOA and CEO Migrant Resource Centre Southern Tasmania Dr B (Hass) Delal OAM, Executive Director, Australian Multicultural Foundation Pino Migliorino - Chair of the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia

(FECCA) Kerrin Benson CEO, Multicultural Development Association

Thank you also to the various community leaders/representatives who so generously agreed to be interviewed in relation to the project.

Pacific Island Communities

Kalisi T Bese - Pacific Island Reference Group Inc. (Qld) and Program Manager Pasifika YLS - Young Offenders Support Services (YOSS)

Ikani Taliai - Tongan Victorian Association Inc. (TVA) Audrey Dropsy – United Pacific Voice Tia Roko – Chairperson NSW Council for Pacific Communities Philippe Saibiri – NSW Melanesian Communities Of Western Pacific

Communities of Bhutan

Parsuram Sharma-Luital JP, immediate past President of BOA, and founder of the Organization.

Bhanu Adhikari Suren Ghaley - Chairperson of BAASA Teju Chauchan – Bhutanese Community of Albury

We thank them for assisting us in recruiting participants for the key informant interviews and the focus groups, for allowing us to hold discussions and interviews at their premises and helping us bring out the important insights from our findings.


We thank United Pacifika Council of Victoria UPCOV for supporting and hosting the focus group discussion relating to disaster resilience with Pacific Islander communities.

Our grateful thanks go to all the focus group participants who took time to share their thoughts, feelings and experiences with us in the two focus groups, and to the service providers and community members who shared their candid thoughts.

We are grateful to each one of you for your commitment to ensuring that the findings of this research project contribute to ongoing research and development in the important field of CALD communities and disaster resilience.

The opinions, comments and/or analysis expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth and/or State and Territory departments and cannot be taken in any way as expressions of government policy.

Maria DimopoulosGeorgia PrattisMyriaD Consultants Pty Ltd.August 2013


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“We need to develop and embed new ways of doing things that enhance existing arrangements across and within governments, as well as among businesses, the not-for-profit sector, and the community more broadly, to improve disaster resilience.”

—National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, p 1

INTRODUCTION

The Exploring inherent capabilities in communities with migrant and refugee backgrounds for disaster resilience project was initiated by the Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI) in an effort to undertake exploratory research into inherent capabilities and resilience in migrant and refugee communities in Australia that can be applied in an emergency management context. It is expected that the research findings will contribute to the establishment of an evidence base for disaster resilience capability that will support and inform emergency management community engagement activities.

BACKGROUND

The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (NSDR) was adopted by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on 13 February 2011. The NSDR presents the common characteristics of disaster resilient communities, individuals and organisations as:

functioning well while under stress successful adaptation self-reliance, and social capacity.

Many migrants and refugees have survived tremendously difficult life experiences and face many obstacles and challenges in settling in a new country. As a result, they have developed significant resilience characteristics which offer an opportunity for recognising and developing this capability in relation to disaster resilience. In addition, many migrant and refugee communities have strong, vibrant social networks which provide valuable connections and linkages for the emergency management sector, particularly at times when an emergency occurs.

Responsibility for implementing Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience rests with the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management who in July 2013 endorsed one of three key priorities under the strategy: ‘improving the resilience of vulnerable sections of society, including Indigenous Australians, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, children and youth, the elderly and people with a disability’.

This project aims to contribute to this through identifying existing capabilities in communities with refugee and migrant backgrounds and their relevance within a disaster context.


METHODOLOGY

In keeping with culturally responsive research methodologies, this research builds on work that AEMI has already undertaken (refer Appendix C) with CALD communities and this heightened the possibilities for quick entry into the target communities when combined with the project research team’s own background work involving these communities.

The first stage of the project involved an extensive search of existing international and Australian based literature relevant to the project. The findings are included as an attachment to this report.

Two community groups were identified as ‘case study’ communities for the research – Pacific Islander communities and the Bhutanese community. These groups were chosen for a number of reasons:

Pacific Islander communities are one of the fastest growing groups of migrants settling in Australia

The communities of Bhutan are one of the most recent arrival refugee background communities settling in Australia

As ‘case study’ examples these communities were not chosen to make comparative findings between migrants and refugees but rather to examine how life experiences as migrants and refugees related to disaster resilience.

Phone based interviews were conducted with representatives from each community across various locations in Australia and two focus group discussions were held; one focus group involved members of the United Pacifika Council of Victoria and the other members of the Bhutanese Community of Victoria.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The ‘Exploring inherent capabilities in communities with migrant and refugee backgrounds for disaster resilience’ project presented a valuable opportunity to fill a current research gap around disaster resilience capability development as it relates to migrant and refugee background communities.

Whilst a considerable research base exists internationally on this subject, there appears to be very little within the Australian context. The review of existing literature reinforced the common characteristics of disaster resilience, as defined in the NSDR, as the key themes for discussion within the community consultation phase of the project. It also enabled the research team to identify key areas for exploration under each theme.

By pursuing a strengths-based approach, the project recognised from the outset that migrant communities are active social agents with significant capacity to shape their survival under changing environmental conditions – that they are characterised by social resilience.

The project aimed to examine how life experiences as migrants and refugees related to disaster resilience. It has identified that the resettlement process does indeed impact on resilience and on


the potential for CALD communities to engage with government in a manner that harnesses the cultural capital they possess.

Both community groups involved in the project evidenced the highly adaptive capacity of migrants and the invaluable social capital that already exists within their community networks. It could be reasonably extrapolated that this social capital exists within all CALD communities across Australia. A key finding of the project however, was that the potential to draw on this capital is impacted by experiences in the resettlement process.

In comparing the Pacific Islander and Bhutanese communities’ experience from the perspective of their length of time in Australia, findings would suggest that the levels of trust, and therefore capacity to engage, diminished as the settlement experience progressed. For example, the Bhutanese community could well be described as being in the ‘honeymoon’ phase of resettlement and optimistic about their future given the extensive time they have spent in limbo in refugee camps. This optimism was evident in their high levels of trust in government and willingness and eagerness to engage and learn.

Pacific Islander communities on the other hand were further down the track in the resettlement process and possibly experiencing alienation and cultural stress. This was evident in the detail of their feedback which highlighted the wider social inequities this community faced and which diluted their existing levels of resilience. Social inequities included, but were not limited to, challenges around employment, youth issues and language barriers. As a result, confidence and willingness to engage with government was not as forthcoming and pathways for contributing to disaster resilience efforts premised on the requirement that community appointed leaders would take the leadership role in working with their communities.

Pacific Islander Communities

Capabilities that strengthen disaster resilience Factors that dilute disaster resilience

Very strong and active community networks

Knowledge of disasters and disaster management skills (especially related to climate change)

Connection with and access to support through faith groups

Inequitable access to support because of Trans-Tasman travel agreement

Marginalisation by the multicultural sector

Language barriers Efforts to engage them are usually

deficit based eg. youth issues

Bhutanese Communities


High levels of trust in government Adaptive capacity and ability to

organise Cultural beliefs Very strong and active community

networks and information mediums

Language barriers Limited knowledge of disasters relevant

to Australian context Limited knowledge of emergency

management sector and action to take in the event of a disaster


RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: Adopting an informed approach to harnessing cultural social capital

A national, coordinated and cooperative effort to enhance Australia’s capacity to withstand and recover from emergencies and disasters requires attention to the rapidly growing CALD population at the planning level. Information around demographic shifts and communication needs is now more accessible than ever through improved quantitative data collection systems adopted by both the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC)3 and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

That the emergency management sector access DIAC and ABS data on a regular basis to inform their application of the Disaster Resilience Community Engagement Framework.

Through this project there has emerged an evidence base to suggest the need for approaches that not only commit to building community resilience capabilities but also tap into the existing capabilities that communities bring through the migration process. The current common characteristics of disaster resilient communities as set out in the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience are not sufficiently inclusive of ‘cultural social capital’. These can be further developed through collaborative efforts with the multicultural and settlement sectors.

That dialogue to jointly explore this issue is pursued with national peak bodies such as the Settlement Council of Australia, Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, and the Australian Multicultural Foundation.

That further research on inherent capabilities in CALD communities is undertaken on a broader scale to achieve a comprehensive research base for a disaster resilient Australia.

Recommendation 2: Enhancing the emergency management sector’s capabilities for culturally responsive service delivery

The project has highlighted the importance of understanding the wider social inequities that contribute to diluting existing levels of resilience that exist within CALD communities. Feedback also suggested that these vulnerabilities may not be easily identifiable as many CALD communities will rally internally to provide shelter and basic needs during times of emergency.

In developing future community education and engagement approaches it will become increasingly critical to address these issues and work collaboratively with communities to minimise inequities and their impact within disaster related contexts.

That emergency management sector understanding of the less visible vulnerabilities impacting CALD communities in disaster contexts is enhanced and informs practice to ensure equitable service response.

3 Department of Immigration and Citizenship has since been renamed Department of Immigration and Border Protection following the federal election in September 2013.


Recommendation 3: Improving accessibility of key messages under the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience

Whilst the key messages set out in the national strategy are designed to support consistent messaging about disaster resilience across Australia, they also make assumptions around being consistently understood. Cultural and linguistic differences may distort the meaning of messages.

That relevant jurisdictions and agencies adopt the Community Engagement Model (outlined in the NSDR Community Engagement Framework) in working to impart key messages to CALD communities.

Not only will this strengthen the potential for intended messages to reach CALD communities but it will also provide an important pathway for identifying and harnessing cultural social capital that can contribute to the capacity for those communities to withstand and recover from emergencies and disasters.

Recommendation 4: Adopting inclusive practice in local disaster management efforts

Local disaster management / emergency management groups now operate through most local government agencies across Australia. Whilst no data collection mechanism exists to determine how representative these groups are of local CALD populations, the literature search and feedback provided through the project suggests little evidence of consistent engagement.

Local disaster management groups provide an ideal opportunity to improve the engagement capabilities of the emergency management sector and particularly their capacity for identifying existing community capital that can contribute to disaster resilience at the local level. A commitment to representative participation at local level planning enhances the potential for cultural responsiveness and the community’s ability to embrace the collective responsibility for disaster resilience espoused by the National Disaster Resilience Strategy.

That linkages between local disaster management groups and the multicultural sector are actively encouraged and developed.

That further dialogue is undertaken with CALD community and faith leaders at the local disaster management group level to identify local level capabilities with potential to contribute to disaster resilience practice. This could include improved pathways for information dissemination, volunteer roles in prevention, preparedness and response activities etc.

LIMITATIONS

It is important to recognise that this research was only very preliminary given the project limitations and the lack of any previous Australian based research directly related to the same topic. Feedback from the small scale consultations that were able to be undertaken within the scope of the project suggested the need for more comprehensive and representative consultations in order to more thoroughly explore the inherent capabilities of CALD communities within disaster management contexts.


1. INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW

The Exploring inherent capabilities in communities with migrant and refugee backgrounds for disaster resilience project (the Project) has been initiated by the Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI).

In May 2013, Maria Dimopoulos and Georgia Prattis of MyriaD Consultants Pty Ltd were commissioned by the AEMI to undertake exploratory research into inherent capabilities and resilience in migrant and refugee communities in Australia that can be applied in an emergency management context. It is expected that the research findings will contribute to the establishment of an evidence base for disaster resilience capability that will support and inform emergency management community engagement activities.

BACKGROUND Every year, Australian communities face devastating losses caused by disasters. Bushfires, floods, storms, other hazards and their associated consequences have significant impacts on communities, the economy, infrastructure and the environment (NSDR p. III). In 2009 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to adopt a whole-of-nation resilience-based approach to disaster management, which recognises that a national, coordinated and cooperative effort is needed to enhance Australia’s capacity to withstand and recover from emergencies and disasters.

The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (NSDR) was adopted by COAG on 13 February 2011. The NSDR presents the common characteristics of disaster resilient communities, individuals and organisations as:

functioning well while under stress successful adaptation self-reliance, and social capacity.

Many migrants and refugees have survived tremendously difficult life experiences and face many obstacles and challenges in settling in a new country. As a result, they have developed significant resilience characteristics which offer an opportunity for recognising and developing this capability in relation to disaster resilience. In addition, many migrant and refugee communities have strong, vibrant social networks which provide valuable connections and linkages for the emergency management sector, particularly at times when an emergency occurs.

Responsibility for implementing Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience rests with the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management who in July 2013 endorsed one of three key priorities under the strategy: ‘improving the resilience of vulnerable sections of society, including Indigenous Australians, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, children and youth, the elderly and people with a disability’.

The project aims to contribute to this through identifying existing capabilities in refugee and migrant communities and their relevance within a disaster context.


ABOUT THE PROJECT This project aims to contribute to the implementation of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience by identifying existing capabilities in refugee and migrant communities, exploring the research with two communities (migrant and refugee backgrounds) and documenting the relevance of the capabilities to disaster resilience in Australia.

This report presents findings from exploratory research into inherent capabilities and resilience in migrant and refugee communities in Australia that can be applied in an emergency management context.

Broadly, the project sought to:

Contribute to the establishment of an evidence base for disaster resilience capability inherent in refugee and migrant communities.

Support and inform emergency management community engagement activities. Support and enable existing community resilience for expansion and application in an

emergency management context.

The project presents a valuable opportunity to fill a current research gap in capability development in relation to disaster resilience. The recommendations focus on a resilience-based approach which is a shared responsibility between governments, communities, businesses and individuals.

Identifying inherent capabilities that already exist in migrant and refugee communities and building upon these, will inform and further enable the emergency management sector to progress community engagement activities that are resilience-based.

TERMINOLOGY

This project utilises the following terminology in respect to the two community groups.

Pacific Communities/ Pasifika

As Pacific communities are commonly defined by the collective term ‘Pacific’ or ‘Pacific peoples’, outsiders often perceive Pacific peoples as a homogenous group. However, the socio-cultural fabric of Australia’s Pacific populations is diverse, complex and heterogeneous. Differences exist between and within cultural groups with regard to cultural norms, customs, languages, values and lifestyles. There are also distinctive differences between those Pacific people born in their island of origin and those born in Australia.

It is vital to note that Australia’s population of Pasifika peoples is a multi-ethnic, heterogeneous group comprising different languages and cultures. This diversity is recognised by the authors of this report hence the use of “peoples” rather than “people”. The terminology includes those peoples who have been born in Australia or overseas. It is a collective term used to refer to men, women, and children who identify themselves with the islands and/or cultures of Samoa, Cook Islands, Tonga, Niue, Tokelau, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and other Pasifika or mixed heritages. The term includes a variety of combinations of ethnicities, recent migrants or first, second, third, fourth, and subsequent generations of Australian-born Pasifika peoples.


Communities of Bhutan4

From 2008 to 2013, Australia has agreed to resettle 5000 Bhutanese refugees from Nepal underits Humanitarian Program as part of a coordinated international strategy to resolve the longstanding situation in the refugee camps in Nepal.

The refugees are primarily Bhutanese Lhotshampas – some having lived in a refugee camp for a substantial numbers of years. The Lhotshampas are descendants of the Nepalese who in the nineteenth century were the last migrants to arrive in Bhutan, settling in the south and south-east of Bhutan. These people are primarily Hindus. Since 1958 it has been illegal for Nepalis to migrate to Bhutan.

The Bhutanese community in Australia is very small in number. The 2001 census identified 63 Australian residents who were born in Bhutan (38 males and 25 females). This grew to 2,023 people by the 2006 census and approximately 2,455 people according to 2011 ABS Census although many Nepali born Bhutanese people, were not counted as Bhutanese in the Census.

METHODOLOGY

In keeping with culturally responsive research methodologies, this research builds on work that AEMI have already undertaken (refer Appendix C) with CALD communities and this heightened the possibilities for quick entry into the target communities when combined with the project research team’s own background work involving these communities.

The project presents a valuable opportunity to fill a current research gap in capability development in relation to disaster resilience. The recommendations focus on a resilience-based approach which is a shared responsibility between governments, communities, businesses and individuals. Identifying inherent capabilities that already exist in migrant and refugee communities and building upon these, will inform and further enable the emergency management sector to progress community engagement activities that are resilience-based.

Two community groups were identified as ‘case study’ communities for the research – Pacific Islander communities and the Bhutanese community. These groups were chosen for a number of reasons:

Pacific Islander communities are one of the fastest growing groups of migrants settling in Australia

The communities of Bhutan are one of the most recent arrival refugee background communities settling in Australia

As ‘case study’ examples these communities were not chosen to make comparative findings between migrants and refugees but rather to examine whether factors related to resettlement were relevant in relation to resilience.

4 DIAC Community Profiles – Bhutanese Community Profile http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/delivering-assistance/government-programs/settlement-planning/_pdf/community-profile-bhutan.pdf


http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/delivering-assistance/government-programs/settlement-planning/_pdf/community-profile-bhutan.pdf

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/delivering-assistance/government-programs/settlement-planning/_pdf/community-profile-bhutan.pdf

PROJECT PHASES

The Project involved three key phases.

Phase 1: Annotated Bibliography

The annotated bibliography documents existing knowledge and practice in relation to inherent and experiential capabilities and resilience to disaster by diverse communities. It also seeks to document existing research around intersectional attributes and how they impact or influence capabilities and resilience. It was developed to guide key questions and themes to be explored in community consultations.

It is available as a companion document to this report.

Phase 2: Consultations and Engagement

Engage with two community groups as case studies to collectively assess and document existing strengths and capabilities relevant to the context – specifically:

Pacific Islander communities (one of the largest migrant intake groups in Australia), and Communities of Bhutan (one of Australia’s largest and most recent refugee intake groups).

Semi-structured individual interviews were also conducted with a range of stakeholders in an effort to ensure input from key bodies with in-depth knowledge of CALD communities and input from community representatives across Australia where large concentrations of target community groups are located.

The following key research questions were used to gather data:

What is your understanding of ‘resilience’?

What do you think the ‘strength’ or ‘protective’ factors might be that might make members of your community resilient at times of disaster?

Does ‘culture’ or faith play a role and if so how?

Are there any projects that you know of that communities are currently undertaking in relation to preparedness or prevention strategies relating to disaster management?

How can government or other key policy institutions make better use of the knowledge wisdom within communities?

Phase 3: Report and Recommendations

The final report includes: Research findings, including an annotated bibliography; Findings from the community engagement activities, including approved images for

publication, and; Recommendations based on the findings for strengthening community resilience to

disaster.


2. POLICY CONTEXT

This section provides an overview of the policy context within which this project was undertaken. In particular it highlights the relevance of the project within the Council of Australian Governments’ National Strategy for Disaster Resilience and the Community Engagement Framework which is a key component in the implementation of National Strategy for Disaster Resilience.

AUSTRALIA’S MULTICULTURAL POLICY ‘PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA’ Australia’s multicultural policy acknowledges that government services and programs must be responsive to the needs of our culturally diverse communities.

HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION (2005-2015)The Hyogo Framework for Action is a ten-year plan to make the world safer from natural hazards. It was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in the Resolution A/RES/60/195 following the 2005 World Disaster Reduction Conference. There are five priority areas for action:

Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation

Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all

levels Reduce the underlying risk factors Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE In 2009 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) endorsed the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. This strategy is aimed at building the resilience of Australian communities to disasters and outlines an approach to disaster management which recognises that a national, coordinated and cooperative effort is needed to enhance Australia’s capacity to withstand and recover from emergencies and disasters.

COAG recognises that disaster resilience is a shared responsibility for individuals, households, businesses and communities, as well as for governmentsThe strategy is the first step in a long-term, evolving process to deliver sustained behavioural change by governments and communities.

As part of the promotion of the NSDR, six key messages5 have been developed that embody the fundamental principles of a Disaster Resilient Australia.

5 Australian Emergency Management website, viewed 1.08.2013, <http://www.em.gov.au/DisasterResilientAustralia/Pages/default.aspx>


http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/resolutions-reports

The messages are:

Disasters will happenNatural disasters are inevitable, unpredictable and significantly impact communities and the economy

Disaster resilience is your businessGovernments, businesses, not-for-profit, communities and individuals all have a role to play and to be prepared

Connected communities are resilient communitiesConnected communities are ready to look after each other in times of crisis when immediate assistance may not be available

Know your riskEvery Australian should know how to prepare for any natural disaster

Get ready - then actReduce the effects of future disasters by knowing what to do

Learn from experienceWe reduce the effects of future disasters by learning from past experiences.

KEY PRIORITIES

The conduct of the research project is timely for a number of reasons. For example, it is important to note that the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management recently endorsed the following future priorities under the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience:

disaster mitigation increased engagement with the private and not-for-profit sector; and improving the resilience of vulnerable sections of society, including indigenous

Australians, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, children and youth, the elderly and people with disabilities.

NSDR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

The Community Engagement Framework was approved by Ministers at the Standing Council of Police and Emergency Management meeting in Darwin, 4-5 July 2013. It provides a practical approach to community engagement in emergency management, placing community at the centre of the process.

The Framework is a key component in the implementation of the Council of Australian Governments’ National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. It directly supports the Strategy’s direction for a national emergency management approach based on achieving community and organisational resilience.

The purpose of this Framework is to provide guidance for those working in emergency management to effectively engage with the community. It supports the Strategy by outlining a shared understanding of community engagement values, principles and practice in Australia. It is intended that the Framework will be used by state, territory and local government agencies with a


role in emergency management, as well as non-government emergency management practitioners.

The Framework has been developed by the Community Engagement Sub-committee of the Australia-New Zealand Emergency Management Committee and has been informed by a national workshop of senior emergency management and community engagement professionals held at the Australian Emergency Management Institute, Mount Macedon, in September 2012, as part of a formal consultation process. It incorporates a community engagement model for emergency management, which was developed at the national workshop and draws on the internationally recognised Public Participation Spectrum of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2).

The Framework builds on research and analysis in the Guidelines for the Development of Community Education, Awareness and Engagement Programs to reflect an ‘evolving conversation’ in education, engagement and building disaster resilience every year Australian communities face devastating losses caused by disasters.


3. LITERATURE REVIEW – KEY THEMES

Research into existing national and international literature relevant to inherent capability in refugee and migrant communities was conducted in Phase One of this project. An annotated bibliography documenting the key findings and recurring themes is available as a companion document to this report.

KEY THEMES

The existing research identifies ways of strengthening community resilience, including options for strengthening ongoing efforts and planning. Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the bibliography also identify existing research on inherent capabilities and resilience to disasters that have been highlighted through an examination of diverse community responses in disaster contexts.

The need for further Australian-based research to identify the unique and inherent capabilities of migrant and refugee communities around disaster resilience is evident. Further, the identification of inherent capabilities in migrant and refugee communities for disaster resilience needs to be determined within existing government measures, particularly Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience which highlights a collective responsibility for resilience and identifies common characteristics of disaster resilient communities to include:

Functioning well while under stress Successful adaptation Self-reliance Social capital

The following areas for exploration via community consultations were identified through the literature review and are grouped to reflect the characteristics of disaster resilient communities as defined in Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience.

FUNCTIONING WELL WHILE UNDER STRESS

Key areas for exploration:

Ability to absorb / resist a disaster Level of community knowledge about threats Concepts of individual and community wellness Potential for accessing built environment in disaster contexts- housing, public buildings,

services, shelters, utilities, hospitals, schools, emergency services.

SUCCESSFUL ADAPTATION


Pre arrival experiences and cultural knowledge that contribute to adaptation Ability to maintain basic function during a disaster Ability to mitigate threats


Access to information / knowledge Level of human capital in community - education attainment, health, population density,

household characteristics, housing quality, and dependence ratio. Ability to assess, manage and monitor risks as they impact on individual, family and

community. Ability to learn new skills and build on past experiences Capacity to identify problems, establish priorities and act.

SELF-RELIANCE


Ability to respond Economic capital - capacity to absorb disaster impacts and speed up the recovery process Access to employment, income and financial support. Flexibility to accept uncertainty and respond (proactively) to change.

SOCIAL CAPITAL


Level of community engagement / empowerment to address risks Existence of social networks for response and recovery Existence of trust in government or public health Community involvement and the appropriation of local knowledge in any resilience-

building projects Partnerships Relationships with key community stakeholders – elders, faith leaders Access to social structure, trust, norms, and social networks that facilitate collective action

and allows citizens to resolve collective problems more easily. Availability of community voluntary associations, religious organisations etc.


4. CONSULTATION FINDINGS – PACIFIKA COMMUNITIES This section of the report details the consultation outcomes of a series of activities undertaken with members of Pacific Islander Communities across various states in Australia.

Consultation activities included: Focus group discussion with members of the Victorian based United Pacifika Council of

Victoria (UPCOV) Semi structured interviews with key community leaders/representatives Semi structured interviews with representatives from relevant organisations/agencies.

PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITIES

CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY

The term ‘Pasifika’ is commonly used in literature and we use it with awareness of both its limitations and the criticism it has generated amongst the research community. Readers need to be aware of the considerable diversity amongst peoples from different island nations, and to be cautious about generalisations, as we have endeavoured to be.

Pacific Islander peoples is the collective term for migrants to Australia from the island groups of: Micronesia (the Marianas, Guam, Wake Island, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Nauru,

and the Federated States of Micronesia and Polynesia)

Melanesia (Vanuatu, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the region of West Papua, New Caledonia, and the Solomon Islands)

Polynesia (New Zealand, Niue, the Hawaiian Islands, Rotuma, the Midway Islands, Samoa, American Samoa, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, the Cook Islands, French Polynesia, and Easter Island).


Despite often being grouped together in this way, populations from these different regions are heterogeneous with diverse cultures, languages and religions.

Pacific Islander communities have been described as ‘statistically invisible’ in Australia, because many have migrated from or through New Zealand, and are identified in Australian Census data as New Zealanders.

Ancestry data, rather than country of birth, are a more accurate reflection of population size for Pacific Islander communities.

DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW

The table below lists the number of Pacific Islander communities living in Australia (2011 ABS Census).

Number of Pacific Islander communities living in Australia – 2011 census

Country of origin Percentage of population Total numbers

Papua New Guinea .1% (26,787)New Caledonia .1% (1219)Vanuatu .1% (1108)Fiji .3% (56,978)Solomon Islands .1% (1757)Guam .1% (86)Palau .1% (22)Marshall Islands .1% (35)Kiribati .1% (501)Nauru .1% (515)New Zealand 2.2% (483,396)Samoa .1% (19,093)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanuatu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea

American Samoa .1% (256)Tonga .1% (9208)Tuvalu .1% (123)Cook Islands .1% (6090)Wallis and Futuna .1% (17)Tokelau .1% (523)Niue .1% (702)French Polynesia .1% (398)

However the current true figure is likely to be significantly higher based on community informant advice that this data is under-representative. Rapid population growth in the Maori and Samoan populations, and research which indicates underreporting of Maori ancestry in the Australian Census would support this advice.

FOCUS GROUP – UNITED PACIFIKA COUNCIL OF VICTORIA The United Pacifika Council of Victoria (UPCOV) was recently established as a peak body with representation of members from the countries of New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, Niue and Fiji.

Key objectives of UPCOV include:

To promote collaboration between the Victorian Pasifika communities, to nurture their shared cultural identities and to encourage respect for each community's specific cultural identity.

To provide information, advice and assistance to non-profit member organisations to help them achieve sound governance processes, effective communication lines and accountability within their organisations.

To be a member driven organisation that assists newly arrived groups from Pasifika communities to settle into life in Australia by providing services, support, information and advice to facilitate their inclusion into, and full participation in the broader Australian community.

To help "build bridges" between the Pasifika communities and the broader Australian community, while maintaining and strengthening each community's cultural traditions and heritage.

To advocate for member organisations to identify and ensure their needs and issues are heard by all levels of government, non-government and the private sector with a view to raising awareness and generating public debate about the issues faced by Pasifika communities.

Where appropriate, to support the connection Pasifika communities have with the Pacific region.

The Working Group is assisted by an Advisory Group comprising the Samoan Advisory Council of Victoria, the Tongan Victorian Association Inc., the Cook Island Community Services of Victoria Inc. and Marae Melbourne Inc.

CONSULTATION FINDINGS


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Polynesia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokelau

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis_and_Futuna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonga

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa

A focus group involving ten Pacific Islander communities representatives was held on Monday 8 July 2013 at the Clayton Community Church in Melbourne. Attendees represented Tongan, Samoan, Cook Islander and Maori communities.

The section below sets out responses in relation to the project’s key questions.

Understanding of Resilience

Representatives of Pacific Islander communities highlighted that ‘as a community we are very resilient because of where we come from’. Participants agreed that strong community bonds and networks were a critical feature of their resilience in adapting to settlement in Australia. They also spoke about the challenges that impact resilience and efforts being undertaken to address these.

UPCOV plays a critical role in ensuring information reaches their respective communities. Access to information is considered a key issue impacting resilience in Pacific Islander communities. The Council includes representatives from all Pacific Islander communities living in Melbourne and is run in a manner that respects cultural differences between each ethnic group.

Focus group participants highlighted that they saw the strengthening of community resilience as a two way process. They explained that as a peak body they were confident in building on their respective community groups’ resilience but needed the support and access to information and resources that could be provided by government and other key agencies relevant to the issues the community faced.

“Resilience is a two way process. If we are helped in would allow us to help back. We have had to look after ourselves and we can continue to do so but its finding the pathways that exist so we can make sure our communities know about these.”

Terms such as ‘survival’ were repeatedly used in relation to concepts of resilience. Participants suggested that their communities possessed strong survival skills which were just as relevant in relation to their lives in Australia as they were in their countries of origin, albeit for different reasons. They explained that the greatest challenge was access to resources and in particular employment which was the most significant factor in hampering access to these resources.

Linking access to work opportunities as a factor impacting resilience is not unique to the experiences of Pacific Islander communities in Australia. Indeed, research6 undertaken following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans found that Hispanic communities were most reluctant to evacuate for economic reasons. Even those that had employment were hesitant due to concerns about losing their jobs.

Language barriers were also identified as an issue in relation to community resilience. Participants explained that there was an ongoing concern that Pacific Islander communities were not perceived as a group where English language skills were limited. This was certainly not the case and was impacting the community in a number of ways. Limited English language skills prevented access to services because of a lack of translated materials or access to interpreters.

6 Hard Decisions in the Big Easy: Social Capital and Evacuation of the New OrleansArea Hispanic Community During Hurricane Katrina, Byron Real in Perspectives on Social Vulnerability, Edited by Koko Warner ‘Studies of the University: Research, Counsel, Education’ Publication Series of UNU-EHS No. 6/2007


“It is a huge issue for our people to be able to communicate. There are not enough resources or services for Pacific Islanders.”

Strengths / protective factors that make community members resilient at times of disaster The role of culture or faith. These topics have been combined as a result of community

feedback. Faith was explained as the central feature of community resilience.

“The church coordinates what is necessary – church is the key!”

There is no doubt as to the role of faith and the church as a protective factor that makes Pacific Islander communities resilient. All Pacific Islander communities are strongly connected to their churches and actively participate in faith based activities. The church and church community are seen as extended family and everyone in the community will come together to support and contribute through this medium.

“We congregate by faith. We look after each other and all come together as an extended family.”

The church also acts as an important dissemination point for information and it is common for Pacific Islander communities to seek assistance, guidance and support from the church at times of need.

A common feature of Pacific Islander communities is that they do work as a collective and community and church leaders will have a significant influence on community reaction and response in response to issues that emerge.

“We work as a collective back home and through the migration process this has continued to occur. We fall back on our community networks.”

In addition to the church, Pacific Islander communities are also very well connected through community specific radio programs and social media where they have established community pages.

“Our community also relies on our Facebook community page to keep up to date with what is going on. Families will go here and post information so everyone in

the community knows what is going on.”

Social media is also used to distribute information to assist families at times of need. Community leaders will post information about services that can support families and how to access these. Where community members post messages asking for help there is always a strong community response with offers ranging from the provision of food through to shelter etc.

“As a community we turn to other families in our community. There are families that open their homes to other families especially to those with children. We also drop off food and clothes and anything else we can access to help families in need.

We pull resources together to do what we can.”

Existing community projects in relation to preparedness or prevention strategies relating to disaster management


Community leadership

It became very obvious in the focus group that Pacific Islander communities perceived they had a central role to play in supporting their communities around disaster management issues. In fact feedback suggested that there was an expectation and willingness that groups such as UPCOV take a leadership role in such situations and emergency management agencies work to guide, support and resource this role.

The focus on community led responses may very well be influenced by the level of distrust of government and other service providers that has resulted from experiences in the migration and settlement process. Pacific Islander communities have also not been adequately embraced by the multicultural sector which has further served to isolate them around service and support structures.

In relation to disaster management issues, focus group participant feedback suggested a greater level of confidence than might be observed in other culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This is attributed to the fact that Pacific Islander communities have had a far higher level of exposure to natural disasters in particular in their countries of origin. Whilst the ‘threats’ to resilience being experienced in the settlement context differ, the community as a whole have applied the same skills to address threats to the community.

“On our islands we know how to respond to risks but here because of the level of services to Pacific Islanders we are advocating for our own community. We will

deliver for our community if services come to us.”

One participant explained how they had adapted community support strategies from their homeland.

“On the Cook Islands a protocol has been introduced where each island has their own leader. These leaders all then report to a head leader and pull their strengths

together to deal with issues that are affecting the community on any of the islands.”

Cook Islander communities had adapted this approach in Australia where leaders have been identified across each area where Cook Island communities are located. A family in need will contact their local leader who will then liaise upwards possibly all the way to UPCOV (depending on the issue) and the community will work together to determine a coordinated response.

Maori Wardens

The Maori community in Logan, Queensland established the first Australian community warden program known as the ‘Maori Wardens’. This initiative closely replicates the Maori Wardens program established in New Zealand. The program is a voluntary service and wardens attend community events providing security, traffic control, crowd control and first aid. Their presence increases community confidence in relation to safety.

The Maori Wardens program is a government initiative aiming to build the capacity and capability of the Maori community with a particular focus on youth, safe communities and community reassurance. It has resulted in improved engagement with young people and increased levels of community volunteerism.


The initiative has also now been establish in Victoria and is called “Victoria Maori Wardens Incorporated”. The group can be contact via their Facebook page. Representatives of the Victorian branch attended the focus group and highlighted that the program could make significant contributions in relation to disaster management.

“The Maori Wardens have strong skills in dealing with floods and earthquakes.”

During the Queensland floods the group was actively involved in the post flood clean up and volunteered their time and skills across affected locations. A number of Maori Wardens also self-funded their travel to New Zealand in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes and travelled to locations where their help was needed. They purchased and distributed bottled water to locals and undertook search and rescue activities.

“We found one elderly person whose carer had died and he was unable to move. We found him sitting alone amongst the rubble and helped him out and took him to the

local hospital.”

Police and Youth Leaders Engagement Team (PYLET)

UPCOV are also heavily involved in the PYLET initiative which involves a proactive team of Victoria Police and local volunteer community youth leaders working together to engage with youth congregating in high risk community locations and public spaces. The program is based in good practice community policing models that have been established internationally and has high levels of participation by Pacific Islander communities.

Opportunities for government or other key policy institutions make better use of the knowledge wisdom within communities

Focus Group participants, all of whom held leadership roles within their respective communities, expressed a strong willingness to work with government and other external stakeholders to share their community wisdom and explore more closely what opportunities could be possible to strengthen all Pacific Islander communities’ resilience in relation to disaster management.

It is important to highlight at the outset that this strong level of interest and willingness to engage was very much premised on a collaborative approach with the community retaining leadership roles around working with their communities. There remain high levels of distrust in relation to working with external agencies and it was clearly evident that the emergency management sector would need to work with leadership structures to reach communities.

“We’ll work with what we have in the community but we don’t have access to resources.”

Participants were eager to see more emergency management agencies take the same approach as Victoria Police who regularly attended UPCOV meetings to discuss issues of concern to the community and who had collaborated with UPCOV to establish the PYLET program. They saw this initiative as a very positive one as it enabled community members to take leadership roles around working with their youth.

“The emergency management agencies need to sit around the table like the police. We can look after ourselves but we need the resources and the links to

help us do this.”


The importance of dialogue and relationship building was clearly evident as a key feature of any future engagement with this group of communities. They urged for an opportunity to ‘sit around the table’ with relevant agencies to develop plan for enhancing community resilience at times of disasters. Participants were particularly concerned that with the exception of police, they had no knowledge or connection with emergency management agencies.

“Who are the key people in these organisations? What are the resources and equipment we can access? Most of our communities are located in one area. Give

us the resources and we will look after them.”

As community leaders, participants were keen to take on volunteer ‘first responder’ roles within their respective communities and highlighted that it was critical they had access to information Pacific Islander communities needed to be aware of. As a peak body, UPCOV is a critical point for information dissemination and has the capacity to ensure information reaches communities quickly and effectively.

“Most information we get is not culturally relevant. It needs to go out in our own language and in English. We can spread information as quickly as possible and it

is effective.”

Issues in relation to language barriers were again highlighted. Participants expressed frustration at the lack of materials available in their languages and at the fact that they had never been approached or invited to assist agencies to translate materials that could then be disseminated to their communities.

“The community have the language resources but no government area is looking at community support to get the translations done.”

Finally, participants explained that it was important for any agency wanting to work with them around resilience to understand that the biggest threat to this resilience was unemployment and homelessness – and especially the impact of this on children in the community. In terms of disaster events, participants were keen for the emergency management sector to understand that Pacific Islander communities had much to offer and it was important that existing skills were acknowledged.

As representatives of UPCOV, participants recommended that each agency involved in disaster management approaches UPCOV and undertakes a consultative approach in developing resources that the community could use to strengthen resilience.

“We want key personnel in each agency to develop an emergency management kit for Pacific Islanders. We want them to come and sit around the table with key

people to discuss what can be done to support us in times of crisis. If they develop a crisis kit which we endorse we can take these kits out and do presentations at

our churches and schools.”

KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS


In addition to the focus group above, individual interviews were undertaken involving key stakeholders (community leaders) in a number of states with large Pacific Islander community populations. Individual interviews included:

Kalisi T Bese - Pacific Island Reference Group Inc. and Program Manager Pasifika YLS - Young Offenders Support Services (Queensland)

Ikani Taliai - Tongan Victorian Association Inc. (Victoria) Audrey Dropsy – United Pacific Voice (Victoria) Tia Roko – Chairperson NSW Council for Pacific Communities (NSW) Philippe Saibiri – NSW Melanesian Communities Of Western Pacific (NSW)


INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Understanding of resilience

Resilience was consistently defined as:

Community collectivism – working together to respond to any threats or issues that impacted their respective communities. Disaster related threats that were mentioned as having been experienced by Pacific Islander communities included climate change, cyclones, earthquakes, tsunami and floods.

Being ‘strong’ (the word ‘strong’ was very commonly used by interviewees to describe their communities)

Ensuring all community members had access to shelter, food and water and felt safe after a disaster.

A clear message that emerged through interviews was that the wellbeing of individuals was very much reliant on the wellbeing of the whole community. A number of examples were given to suggest that even if one family was ‘unsafe’ or did not have access to basic needs then the resilience of the community as a whole was threatened.

Strengths / protective factors that make community members resilient at times of disaster

“Strength comes from working together to support each other”

Again interviewees were consistent in identifying their collectivist cultures as their greatest strength. Interestingly, discussion suggested that Pacific Islander communities felt largely unthreatened by natural disasters but were more concerned about the impact of the migration experience on their communities (unemployment, homelessness, and youth issues). This may be due to pre-arrival experiences in surviving disasters and the knowledge that they would band together to deal with any disaster related impacts on their communities.

A number of interviewees also explained that the protective nature of their communities had been heightened as a result of resettling in a ‘foreign land’. The maintenance of language, customs, culture and traditions into future generations was seen as a key influence in ensuring their communities stayed very closely connected which in turn ensured the community as a whole could rally around any member of that community who was at risk.

The role of culture or faith

Whilst faith affiliations differed amongst different Pacific Islander groups, faith played a significant role on the lives of communities and was also the central point of community connectedness. A number of interviewees explained that in the event of a disaster community members were likely to approach their faith leaders as the first point of contact. Faith also played a role in helping communities to recover from major incidents.



With the exception of the Queensland interviewee, no interview participant was aware of any Pacific Islander specific community projects related to preparedness or prevention around disaster management. In Queensland, a representative from the Pacific Island Reference Group had attended a Local Disaster Management Group in his local Council area but believed little was being done by these groups to engage in culturally appropriate ways.

One interviewee referred to a community based initiative that had been established in the Solomon Islands that worked with the community to prepare for climate change issues, earthquakes, cyclones and tsunamis etc.


Feedback from interviewees echoed that of the focus group – engaging Pacific Islanders from the perspective of acknowledging their breadth of experience in dealing with disasters.

“They need to listen to what we know. We have lived with and have our own ways of dealing with natural disasters for thousands of years from the mountains,

highlands, coastal and atolls. At times western NGO’s have gone in to our country and have set up their own way of handling the situation without talking to the local people. Most of the times this has been expensive and hasn’t worked.”

Interviewees suggested a greater confidence around their communities’ ability to deal with a natural disaster than they did in relation to potential support that might be provided by the emergency management sector. Indeed it was clear that if their communities were not engaged from a strengths-based approach that was unlikely that any mainstream agency messages would be heard.

“Natural disasters are nothing new to us. For thousands of years we have seen and dealt with environmental issues. The only difference these days is that the

media makes it more dramatic!”

RELEVANT DISASTER MANAGEMENT RELATED ISSUES INVOLVING PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITIES

QUEENSLAND FLOODS, 2011

In July 2011 tensions were brought to a head as a result of the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi when Queenslanders who had arrived under the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, were ineligible for disaster relief. Many of these individuals originated from Pacific Island nations.

A number of examples citing discrimination by the Australian government were published by media in Australia and New Zealand.

Examples:

One couple and their Australian born children were trapped in their home for a week at Goodna between Ipswich and Brisbane as flood waters rose. Although their house was not flooded, they have not been able to return to work until this week and neither has accumulated annual leave at their new jobs. When they applied to Centrelink for an Australian Government Disaster Relief


Payment, they were turned down because they were "not Australian". Their next door neighbours were granted the payment.

Another individual living in Brisbane whose apartment building had flood damage to lower floors kept him out of his third-floor apartment for three weeks. He had to stay with a friend while paying $200 rent a week for his inaccessible apartment. Despite this, Centrelink told him he was ineligible for disaster relief because he is a New Zealand citizen.

Many other New Zealanders working in Australia lost their homes and their jobs because of the natural disaster.

Community based organisations such as the Te Korowai Aroha Queensland-based Maori organisation were struggling at the time to provide their community members with basics such as furniture, bedding and clothing.

In January 2013 the Queensland government offered a one off ex-gratia payment to assist New Zealand 'non-protected' special category visa holders (sub-class 444) who had been adversely affected by the Queensland floods.


5. CONSULTATION FINDINGS – COMMUNITIES OF BHUTANThis section of the report details the consultation outcomes of a series of consultative activities undertaken with members of the communities of Bhutan across various states in Australia.

Consultation activities included: Focus group discussion with members of the Victorian based Bhutanese community Semi structured interviews with key community leaders/representatives Semi structured interviews with representatives from relevant organisations/agencies

COMMUNITIES OF BHUTAN7

COUNTRY BACKGROUND

Bhutan, or Drukyul as it is known in Bhutanese, is a small land-locked country of 38,394 square kilometres nestled in the Eastern Himalayas. It borders Tibet (China) to the north and India in the east, west, and south. A constitutional monarchy since 2008 (previously an absolute monarchy), it is governed from Thimphu, Bhutan’s capital. The King is the head of state and the Prime Minister is head of the government.

Total population: In 2009 Bhutan had a population of 683,407 with a significant proportion aged from birth to 65 years. However this figure is an approximation only due to the lack of recent and reliable census data, and due to many ethnic Nepalese being forcefully evicted and seeking asylum in neighbouring India and Nepal and/or having to be resettled in a third country such as Australia (as repatriation has not been possible).

Languages: There are three main languages in Bhutan – Dzongkha, Sharchopkha and Nepali with many other local dialects.

Culture: Based on Tibetan Buddhist, Hindu-Nepalese and local indigenous cultures form different regions.

Bhutanese Community in Australia: According to the 2011 ABS Census, approximately 2,455 Bhutanese currently live in Australia. (Although many Nepali-born Bhutanese people were not counted as Bhutanese in the Census.)

Under third country resettlement process, Bhutanese started coming to Australia in May 2008 after spending 20 years in refugee camps in Nepal. The majority are Lhotshampa (Nepali speaking Bhutanese) and share common language and culture with the mainstream Nepali.

7 Bhutan Country Profile https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html

By the end of the resettlement program it is estimated that around 5,000 Bhutanese will be in Australia.

The largest group to be resettled by Australia is living in South Australia, around Adelaide. There are smaller groups in Tasmania, Cairns, Darwin, Melbourne, Sydney and North Brisbane (Bribie Island).

Perhaps due to the rugged mountainous terrain and climate extremes, the Bhutanese characteristic is of a hardy, independent people accustomed to hard work. Despite the strong martial spirit the Bhutanese are peaceful and fun loving.

Hospitality and a good sense of humour are also traditional characteristics along with a valuing of the cohesiveness of family and society. Bhutan is most widely known as the country where one of its measures of economic health is the happiness quotient.

FOCUS GROUP – BHUTANESE COMMUNITY VICTORIA

The Bhutanese community focus group involved twenty-one participants/members of the Bhutanese Organisation in Australia. Five participants were women and three were young people (under twenty-five years of age). The majority of participants were men ranging in age from thirty through to their fifties.

The Bhutanese Organisation in Australia aims to preserve the Bhutanese culture and tradition and to support youth and elderly in the community.

CONSULTATION FINDINGSThis consultation was undertaken through an interpreter.


Focus group participants were encouraged to share their views around concepts of resilience in relation to disaster management. The most common response included that resilience is characterised by a commitment to save lives no matter what the situation.

“In a sudden emergency you have to give your heart and soul.”

“It is to identify the issues and then help to rescue people.”

Participants recognised that there were different types of disasters and indicated that they did not have much knowledge of what disasters might occur within Australia. They were also unsure about which agency would need to be approached by their community in the event of a disaster.

In summary, they identified resilience as reflective of four key features:

responding without being over reactive - staying calm having an awareness of the nature of the emergency demonstrating a commitment to humanity and saving communities


having an understanding that different types of emergencies require different responses and knowing which approach to apply



Whilst participants believed that the Bhutanese community possessed important skills and capabilities that contributed to community resilience, they also suggested that these skills had been diminished within the Australian context.

Important skills and capabilities identified included physical strength, knowledge of their environment (pre-arrival) and cultural practice which commits all Bhutanese to care for and ‘carry’ the vulnerable.

Participants then spent considerable time discussing factors that impeded community resilience in Australia. Later discussions with the community leader who arranged the focus group explained that from a cultural perspective the Bhutanese perceive all aspects of their experiences as inter-related. Therefore disaster resilience cannot be reflected upon in isolation of their wider settlement experience.

Most feedback suggested an increased sense of vulnerability, not in relation to disaster related issues but as a direct result of experiences of isolation at the local level.

“In Australia we don’t even know who the neighbour is.” (when this statement was made there were nods and smiles of shared

acknowledgement amongst the group)

“What I heard in Australia is if next door there is someone quarrelling, we are not allowed to go there. This is hard for our community when we are used to doing something, but here you are interfering. You are not allowed to get involved in

your neighbours business.”

“Recently, my neighbour died four days before, and I didn’t know that she has died. Only when we enquire do we find these things out but we are worried about

how our Australian neighbours will respond and whether it will be seen as interfering.”

These types of experiences seemed to be common amongst participants and highlight potential risks for this community given they would be very reluctant to seek help or liaise with those in closest physical proximity during a disaster event. This vulnerability would be further exacerbated by very low levels of English language proficiency limiting access to information that would be broadcast during such times.

Bhutanese women were identified as having a greater level of resilience to men and therefore perceived as able to make a greater contribution during an emergency.

“The female has more resilience than men and they have more power to do things. Mother Earth has the resilience. Women are similar to Mother Earth.”


Bhutanese Consultation May 2013 Photo: Parsuram Sharma-Luital

The role of culture or faith Culture and faith were significant influences in the Bhutanese community.

“We don’t lose our hope”

The role of community elders was raised as one that was as important as faith leaders for the Bhutanese community. Elders were seen as critical in unifying the community in an emergency and were likely to be the first point of reference. The Bhutanese people would rely on the leadership of their elders in ensuring that necessary measures were taken and community members ‘rescued’.

In relation to faith, the Bhutanese perceive religion as the ‘root of saving humanity’ so it plays a significant role in community perceptions of safety and salvation. Faith is also central to the healing process following any disaster – participants highlighted that they would resort to their faith to help them get through any emergency or disaster. Faith beliefs were based on the premise “let everyone be happy, let the sorrow of everyone be gone” which is reflective of the Hindu or Buddhist faiths which most Bhutanese follow.

“When there is an emergency, there is no division, it should be shared humanity.”

The complexities of navigating a very different cultural context in Australia were clearly evident and diminished the community’s confidence in approaching people external to their community group. The following example illustrates this:

“In our culture if someone has not come out of their home by a set time, then we would knock to make sure everything is okay. Here we can’t do that as it would be seen as interfering.”


Whilst the community were unable to identify any existing community projects in relation to preparedness or prevention strategies relating to disaster management, they had a number of suggestions for possible future such projects.

The young people participating in the consultation proposed that they could take on a role as the ‘bridge’ between the Bhutanese community and the wider Australian community to address communication barriers and act as a conduit for intercultural dialogue and understanding. They also explained that they could take on a role in ensuring emergency information was communicated to the Bhutanese community. Whilst language continued to prove a significant barrier for Bhutanese adults, young people engaged in the education system were quickly picking up the English language and becoming proficient speakers.


Bhutanese Consultation May 2013Photo: Parsuram Sharma-Luital

The Bhutanese community were very keen for further engagement with the emergency management sector and were concerned about their current levels of knowledge around what to do in an emergency situation.

“Many in the community don’t know if my house is on fire, what we have to do.”

Interestingly, despite the economic hardships the Bhutanese community were facing as a new arrival community under the humanitarian program, they had undertaken impressive fundraising activities to support local charities and Contribution to the various charities and communities affected by the Victorian bushfires.


In contrast to the Pacific Islander communities, the Bhutanese community was very willing and expectant of the emergency management sector to instruct them around what they should do in an emergency or disaster situation, particularly in preparedness stages.

“We need to ask the government what we should be doing. We will depend on the government on what to do and how to act.”

When asked to explain what skill sets they believed their community already possessed in dealing with disasters, responses included:

not to panic trying to stay safe being prepared to respond not just for themselves self but for others (the importance of

the collective was repeatedly highlighted) not all emergencies are the same and different responses are required according to the

emergency

Participants also highlighted the strengths of community networks as a contributing factor to resilience. The Bhutanese Community Organisation had very strong networks across the Bhutanese community and would be ideally placed as a dissemination point for information. They were also very keen to develop the external links that would enable community capacity building around the most effective ways to access help in an emergency or disaster situation.

Examples of previous experiences in emergencies or disaster situations included surviving in refugee camps and floods.

”We as a community have gone through a range of disasters in the refugee camp. Once at midnight in the camp the river flooded and we all survived in the middle of

the night.”

Above all, participants explained that their key strength in surviving under threatening circumstances was their commitment to working as a collective.

“If something has happened in our community, we always think what if it happens to me. Each of us thinks it is our responsibility. No matter what when it is an

emergency the main thing is helping each other during a time of need and that is why we have survived today.”


KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS In addition to the focus group, individual interviews were undertaken involving key stakeholders (community leaders) in a number of states with Bhutanese community populations. Individual interviews included:

Parsuram Sharma-Luital JP, immediate past President of BOA, and founder of the Organization.

Bhanu Adhikari Suren Ghaley - Chairperson of Bhutanese Australian Association of South Australia (BAASA) Teju Chauchan – Bhutanese Community of Albury

INTERVIEW FINDINGS


Responses around understanding of resilience amongst interviewees included:

The ability of people to cope with hardships and recover after difficult circumstances Problem solving skills Collective strength and effort to support those affected the ability to regain the energy and enthusiasm in life to restart a new life in new land

after having spent more than 20 years in refugee camp.

“An ability to regain, bounce back, to come back to normal”


Interviewees repeatedly referred to having already confronted significant and life threatening situations for extended periods of time in their pre-arrival experiences, and believed they had developed very strong resilience through so much death and tragedy in their community.

As a community they had experienced extreme poverty and multiple displacements through refugee camps and this had strengthened their sense of empathy and compassion towards others in disaster situations.

“We have an ability to sustain or survive difficult situation with limited resources. We have survival skills.”

The Bhutanese community is also characterised by very strong family connections and it is not uncommon for up to three generations of extended family to live together.

“It is important for a Bhutanese to be with family and community in the aftermath of disaster and recovery phase. Connectedness and networks are relied on for our

well-being.”

Interviewees repeatedly explained that Bhutanese communities always come together to help victims in a disaster or tragedy. They support them through this difficult period by sharing stories / life experiences and encouraging them to be strong enough to restart their lives.


“The most important strength I believe is love for each other in community and the hard life we have spent together as refugee with limited resources for two

decades.”

“Patience, not losing hope, supporting and helping each other is our strength. We are a close knit community and treat each other as family members. There is

burden sharing which makes life easier.”

The role of culture or faith

“We are not supposed to look away when others in the community are suffering.”

Religion has a significant part to play in Bhutanese community which are predominantly Hindus but also includes Buddhists and Christians. A willingness to ‘give back to the community’ in the form of volunteering very much characterises the Bhutanese who believe in ‘Karma’. Interviewees explained the strong belief in after life and that ‘whatever good work (karma) you do will result in better living in the next life’.

The community values social cohesion and being a close knit community. By supporting each other in adversity this has helped them survive life threatening situations such as conflicts. However the Bhutanese culture also operates on a social caste system that shapes social relationships and behaviour. Interviewees acknowledged that this system could serve to increase vulnerability of some groups or individuals in the Bhutanese community at times.

“Culture or faith plays an important role in making the person resilient. Most of the Bhutanese people in Australia are Hindus. We have our own ways to worship

and pray and help the need one in need.”


One interviewee indicated that information on disaster management had been disseminated in information sessions he attended through TAFE and settlement service providers but none of the interviewees were aware of any community specific initiatives in this area.

The Bhutanese community in South Australia had often come together to raise funds for disaster events in Australia and overseas. They had raised funds for the victims of the refugee camps fires in Nepal and the Victorian bush fire. They have established their own pool of funds to support communities in need.


Suggestions around opportunities for government or other key policy institutions to make better use of the knowledge within Bhutanese communities included:

Involving Bhutanese community leaders disaster preparedness planning and decision making

Information dissemination in the Bhutanese community language (audio and video were preferred as many community members are not literate in their first language either)


Developing and strengthening partnership between community and government agencies through projects that help the community learn about and prepare for disasters Australia is vulnerable to

The emergency management sector holding periodic meetings with community representative to ensure the community has access to information and is better equipped.

“Our elders have the knowledge of our traditional and cultural values and language. Younger generations might not be able to keep the same language as

we are in multicultural nation with only 5000 Bhutanese refugee resettled in Australia. It would be good if more of the refugees are resettled and to give us

some funding to help us preserve our tradition and culture.”

RELEVANT ACTIVITIES INVOLVING BHUTANESE COMMUNITIES

VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES

The Bhutanese community held a fundraiser to contribute to the recovery following the aftermath of Victorian bushfires in 2009. Commending their contribution, federal member for Calwell, Ms Maria Vamvakinou MP commended them in a speech stating:

”Generous of heart, following the Black Saturday Victorian bushfires in February 2009, the small Bhutanese community across southern Australia raised money to assist those in need and generously offered to assist families to re-establish their gardens”.

QUEENSLAND FLOODS

The Bhutanese Community in Australia Inc. (BCA) in Melbourne collected AU$2006 to contribute to the flood victims in Queensland. BCA is one of the first refugee communities to support the victims of natural disasters in Australia.


6. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The ‘Exploring inherent capabilities in communities with migrant and refugee backgrounds for disaster resilience’ project presented a valuable opportunity to fill a current research gap around disaster resilience capability development as it relates to migrant and refugee background communities.

By pursuing a strengths-based approach, the project recognised from the outset that migrant communities are active social agents with significant capacity to shape their survival under changing environmental conditions – that they are characterised by social resilience.

Concepts of social resilience have been defined as “the ability of communities to absorb external changes and stresses while maintaining the sustainability of their livelihoods” (Adger, Kelly, Winkels, Huy, & Locke, 2002: 358). Resilient communities are active agents that influence their environment, anticipate and resist future stresses and recreate themselves according to their motivations and capabilities. Combining absorption, resistance and recreation in social resilience transcends the reactive nature of adaptation towards anticipatory learning (Tschakert & Dietrich, 2010).

Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience is informed by social resilience concepts and recognises that Australia’s capacity to withstand and recover from emergencies and disasters is very much reliant on collective responsibility - coordinated and cooperative efforts between all stakeholders, including the community. The strategy defines the common characteristic of resilience as ‘functioning well under stress, successful adaptation, self-reliance and social capital’, all characteristics reflective in defining social resilience.

The first stage of the project involved a review of existing literature around inherent capabilities and disaster resilience research focused on diverse communities. Whilst a considerable research base on this subject exists internationally, there appears to be very little within the Australian context. The review of existing literature reinforced the common characteristics of disaster resilience, as defined in the NSDR, as the key themes for discussion within the community consultation phase of the project. It also enabled the research team to identify key areas for exploration under each theme.

This section of the report sets out findings under those key themes and areas of exploration.

Functioning well while under stress

The research team sought to identify how the target communities functioned under stress by opening with the question ‘What is your understanding of ‘resilience?’. Responses were used to then further explore the ability to absorb a disaster, levels of community knowledge about


potential disaster related threats, concepts of community wellbeing and potential for accessing help.


The project found that Pacific Islander communities generally perceive they possess a strong ability to absorb disasters and that their resilience to these stems from the levels of exposure they have endured in their countries of origin as a result of climate change. The collectivist nature of these communities and the well-established internal community networks are seen as critical features of their resilience and indeed continue to support them in adapting to the settlement issues they confront in Australia.

Pacific Islander communities consistently defined the following features as those that demonstrated their ability to function well under stress / to be resilient:

Community collectivism (working together to respond to any threats or issues that impacted their respective communities).

Being ‘strong’ Ensuring all community members had access to shelter, food and water and felt safe after

a disaster.

Whilst this target group were confident of their knowledge levels and the ability to absorb disasters, they also highlighted vulnerabilities that diminished their ability to function well under stress. These vulnerabilities related to community wellbeing and accessing help.

In terms of community wellbeing is was evident that the wellbeing of the community as a whole was reliant on the wellbeing of individuals within that community. Responses suggested that even if one family was ‘unsafe’ or did not have access to basic needs, then the resilience of the community as a whole was threatened.

In relation to accessing help, it emerged that access to information and resources remains problematic for these communities. They expressed concern around the availability of translated information and the low levels of engagement with external stakeholders which could potentially work with the community to improve their access to available external supports.

BHUTANESE

Similar to the Pacific Islander communities, the Bhutanese community perceived they possessed a sound capacity to absorb disasters. However, in contrast to Pacific Islander communities this ability was not characterised by previous exposure to natural disasters but rather by cultural features and the extensive periods of time spent in refugee camps.

The Bhutanese defined their ability to function well under stress / to be resilient as reflective in the following key features which described their community:

an ability to stay calm and responding without being over reactive their commitment to save lives no matter what the situation their ability to cope with hardships and recover after difficult circumstances their problem solving skills their collective efforts to support vulnerable members in their community


Again, the wellbeing of the community as a whole was dependant on the wellbeing of individuals in the community. For this community cohort, the impact of issues affecting any one community member had the potential to significantly impact the community as a whole given the very small numbers of Bhutanese in Australia.

Factors that diminished the community’s capacity to function well under stress related to low levels of awareness around the types of disasters that might occur within Australia. As a new arrival community they possessed little knowledge of different types of emergencies and the different responses that might be required. They were also unsure about which agencies would need to be approached by their community in the event of a disaster.

Successful adaptation

To help determine potential for successful adaptation, consultation participants were asked ‘What do you think the ‘strength’ or ‘protective’ factors might be that might make members of your community resilient at times of disaster?’. The ensuing discussions explored pre-arrival experiences and cultural knowledge that contributed to adaptation, ability to mitigate threats, ability to access to information and community capital, and ability to manage risks to the community.


Protective factors influencing successful adaptation for Pacific Islander communities were heavily reliant on their connection to their churches and active participation in faith based activities. Faith communities were considered the first point of contact to help mitigate threats and to support communities to manage community risks. The church and church community served as an extended family and an important dissemination point for information, assistance, guidance and support at times of need.

This reliance on faith communities and faith leaders in particular is critical to acknowledge in any future work with Pacific Islander communities around disaster resilience as church leaders will have a significant influence on community reaction and response to issues that emerge.

The ability to mitigate threats was also supported by well-established community specific radio programs and social media mediums that were widely accessed by Pacific Islander communities and already served as an important avenue for accessing information and assistance for those in need.

The communities’ capacity for successful adaptation was also seen to be enhanced by their pre-arrival experiences and cultural knowledge of natural disasters and their confidence that internally they would band together to deal with any disaster related impacts on their communities.

BHUTANESE

In undertaking an analysis of feedback contributed by members of the Bhutanese community who participated in consultations, it is important to recognise that as a collectivist culture, the Bhutanese perceive all aspects of their experiences as inter-related. Therefore questions around disaster resilience could not be reflected upon in isolation of their wider settlement experience.


The Bhutanese community have demonstrated an impressive capacity for successful adaptation given the number of community organisations and initiatives they have already established in areas where they have settled across Australia since beginning to arrive in 2008. In relation to disaster contexts, the community explained that their pre-arrival experiences and cultural attitudes and values underpinned their capacity for adaptation. They defined these to include physical strength, survival in harsh physical environments and cultural practice which commits all Bhutanese to care for and ‘carry’ the vulnerable.

The community believed that having confronted significant and life threatening situations for extended periods of time prior to arrival in Australia, they had developed a very strong resistance to ‘tragic’ situations. They had also managed and survived community risks emerging from extreme poverty and multiple displacements and this had strengthened their sense of empathy and compassion towards others in disaster situations.

Whilst the community were confident around successful adaptation based on capabilities they brought with them to Australia, feedback suggested that this confidence diminished within the Australian context because of the challenges they confronted in engaging beyond the borders of the Bhutanese community – particularly at the local / neighbourhood level where experiences to date have resulted in a sense of reluctance to seek help from neighbours.

Successful adaptation, as it relates to mitigating threats and managing risks to the community was also inhibited by low levels of English language proficiency and consequently access to information.

Self-Reliance

Given the central roles that culture and faith play in the target communities in this research it was important to identify how these factors contributed to self-reliance within disaster resilience contexts. Participants were asked ‘Does culture or faith play a role in how at times of disaster and if so how?’. This question was able to draw out insights around each community’s ability to respond in a disaster situation, their capacity to absorb disaster impacts and the uncertainty that arises at such times.

PACIFIC ISLANDER

Perceptions around self-reliance overlapped with successful adaptation for Pacific Islander communities as both reflected faith as the central element. Church affiliation was the central point of community connectedness and communities explained that their beliefs gave them the strength to recover from major incidents.

BHUTANESE

Faith was also an important factor that increased confidence for self-reliance within the Bhutanese community and played a significant role in community perception of safety and salvation. The community relied on faith as central to their capacity to absorb disaster impacts and in their ‘healing process’.


Community elders however were seen as more influential in guiding community responses to disaster situations and in their ability to absorb disaster impacts and uncertainty. Feedback indicated that the community would rely on the leadership of their elders to guide them around what they would need to do in the event of a disaster.

An interesting feature of the Bhutanese community’s response in a disaster situation is evidenced by the fact that, within the Australian context, the community has actively engaged in fundraising activities to support disaster victims. They have done so despite the economic challenges they face as humanitarian migrants. This suggests a sound capacity for self-reliance in uncertain circumstances.

Social Capital

Consultation participants were asked two trigger questions to draw out information around existing social capital within their respective communities. These included ‘Are there any projects that you know of that communities are currently undertaking in relation to preparedness or prevention strategies relating to disaster management?’ and ‘How can government or other key policy institutions make better use of the knowledge wisdom within communities?’. These enabled the researchers to explore level of community engagement / empowerment to address risks, existence of social networks for response and recovery, levels of trust in government, community involvement in any resilience-building projects and potential collaboration opportunities.

PACIFIC ISLANDER

There is without doubt invaluable social capital within Pacific Islander communities that can be harnessed to enhance resilience within disaster contexts. Community leaders are proactive and willing to consider any opportunity that contributes to supporting their communities. In fact, consultations suggested an expectation of collaborative approaches towards resilience-building initiatives on the premise that the community leaders themselves undertake the grassroots work required to minimise community vulnerability in the event of a disaster.

The extent to which social capital was already contributing to improving Pacific Islander community resilience was evident in the range of initiatives the community was already collaborating on. These included:

a Maori Wardens program founded through a government initiative aiming to build the capacity and capability of the Maori community with a particular focus on youth, safe communities and community reassurance.

The Police and Youth Leaders Engagement Team (PYLET), an initiative which involves a proactive team of Victoria Police and local volunteer community youth leaders working together to engage with youth congregating in high risk community locations and public spaces.

This community were particularly keen to share their community wisdom and explore more closely what collaborative approaches could be possible to strengthen all Pacific Islander communities’ resilience in relation to disaster management.


BHUTANESE

Within the Bhutanese community, the potential for harnessing social capital was vested in the young people within the community who were relied on as a conduit for intercultural dialogue and understanding because they had greater English language proficiency than older members of the community.

The community generally had little to no previous engagement experience with the emergency management sector and were concerned about their current levels of knowledge around what to do in an emergency situation. Whilst they had rapidly organised as communities in all areas where they had settled and were building social capital by developing social networks with the broader community, they remained largely expectant of the emergency management sector to instruct them around what they should do in an emergency or disaster situation.

The Bhutanese community were also keen to engage in resilience building initiatives and to be involved in disaster preparedness planning and decision making.

Analysis

In analysing the learnings from this project it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the research and to recognise that it was indeed a very preliminary effort to identify inherent capabilities or cultural capital with potential to contribute to the collective responsibility required to meet the expectations of Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience.

The decision to explore inherent capabilities using Pacific Islander and Bhutanese communities as ‘case study’ examples did not intend to make comparative findings between migrants and refugees but rather to examine how life experiences as migrants and refugees related to disaster resilience. This study has identified that the resettlement process does indeed impact on resilience and on the potential for CALD communities to engage with government in a manner that harnesses the cultural capital they possess.

Both community groups involved in the project evidenced the highly adaptive capacity of migrants and the invaluable social capital that already exists within their community networks. It could reasonably be extrapolated that this social capital exists within all CALD communities across Australia. A key finding of the project however, was that the potential to draw on this capital is impacted by experiences in the resettlement process.

In comparing the Pacific Islander and Bhutanese communities from the perspective of the length of time in Australia, findings would suggest that the levels of trust, and therefore capacity to engage, diminished as the settlement experience progressed. For example, the Bhutanese community could well be described as being in the ‘honeymoon’ phase of resettlement and optimistic about their future given the extensive time they have spent in limbo in refugee camps. This optimism was evident in their high levels of trust in government and willingness and eagerness to engage and learn.

Pacific Islander communities on the other hand were further down the track in the resettlement process and possibly experiencing alienation and cultural stress. This was evident in the detail of their feedback which highlighted the wider social inequities this community faced and which diluted their existing levels of resilience. Social inequities included, but were not limited to,


challenges around employment, youth issues and language barriers. As a result, confidence and willingness to engage with government was not as forthcoming and pathways for contributing to disaster resilience efforts premised on the requirement that community appointed leaders would take the leadership role in working with their communities.

Pacific Islander Communities


Very strong and active community networks

Knowledge of disasters and disaster management skills (especially related to climate change)

Connection with and access to support through faith groups

Inequitable access to support because of Trans-Tasman travel agreement

Marginalisation by the multicultural sector

Language barriers Efforts to engage them are usually

deficit based eg. youth issues

Bhutanese Communities


High levels of trust in government Adaptive capacity and ability to

organise Cultural beliefs Very strong and active community

networks and information mediums

Language barriers Limited knowledge of disasters relevant

to Australian context Limited knowledge of emergency

management sector and action to take in the event of a disaster


7. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: Adopting an informed approach to harnessing cultural social capital

A national, coordinated and cooperative effort to enhance Australia’s capacity to withstand and recover from emergencies and disasters requires attention to the rapidly growing CALD population at the planning level. Understanding of demographic shifts and communication needs is now more accessible than ever by improving linkages with the increasing range of data collection systems that both DIAC and the ABS are adopting.

That the emergency management sector access DIAC and ABS data on a regular basis to inform their application of the Disaster Resilience Community Engagement Framework.

Through this project there has emerged an evidence base to suggest the need for approaches that not only commit to building community resilience capabilities but also tapping into the existing capabilities that communities bring through the migration process. The current common characteristics of disaster resilient communities as set out in the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience are not sufficiently inclusive of ‘cultural social capital’. These can be further developed through collaborative efforts with the multicultural and settlement sectors.

That dialogue to jointly explore this issue is pursued with national peak bodies such as the Settlement Council of Australia, Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, and the Australian Multicultural Foundation.

That further research on inherent capabilities in CALD communities is undertaken on a broader scale to achieve a comprehensive research base for a disaster resilient Australia.

Recommendation 2: Enhancing the emergency management sector’s capabilities for culturally responsive service delivery

The project has highlighted the importance of understanding the wider social inequities that contribute to diluting existing levels of resilience that exist within CALD communities. Feedback also suggested that these vulnerabilities may not be easily identifiable as many CALD communities will rally internally to provide shelter and basic needs during times of emergency.

In developing future community education and engagement approaches it will become increasingly critical to address these issues and work collaboratively with communities to minimise inequities and their impact within disaster related contexts.

That emergency management sector understanding of the less visible vulnerabilities impacting CALD communities in disaster contexts is enhanced and informs practice to ensure equitable service response.

Recommendation 3: Improving accessibility of key messages under the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience

Whilst the key messages set out in the national strategy are designed to support consistent messaging about disaster resilience across Australia, they also make assumptions around being consistently understood. Cultural and linguistic differences may distort the meaning of messages.


That relevant jurisdictions and agencies adopt the Disaster Resilience Community Engagement Model in working to impart key messages to CALD communities.

Not only will this strengthen the potential for intended messages to reach CALD communities but it will also provide an important pathway for identifying and harnessing cultural social capital that can contribute to the capacity for those communities to withstand and recover from emergencies and disasters.

Recommendation 4: Adopting inclusive practice in local disaster management efforts

Local disaster management/emergency management groups now operate through most local government agencies across Australia. Whilst no data collection mechanism exists to determine how representative these groups are of local CALD populations, the literature search and feedback provided through the project suggests little evidence of consistent engagement.

Local disaster management groups provide an ideal opportunity to improve the engagement capabilities of the emergency management sector and particularly their capacity for identifying existing community capital that can contribute to disaster resilience at the local level. A commitment to representative participation at local level planning enhances the potential for cultural responsiveness and the community’s ability to embrace the collective responsibility for disaster resilience espoused by the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience.

That linkages between local disaster management groups and the multicultural sector are actively developed.

That further dialogue is undertaken with CALD community and faith leaders at the local disaster management group level to identify local level capabilities with potential to contribute to disaster resilience practice. This could include improved pathways for information dissemination, volunteer roles in prevention, preparedness and response activities etc.


Appendices


Appendix A

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMSThe following terms have been used throughout this document include:

TERM DEFINITION

ACCESS AND EQUITY The Multicultural Access and Equity Policy (the Policy) is part of the Australian Government’s vision of a socially inclusive society in which all Australians feel valued and have the opportunity to participate fully in the life of our society. It demonstrates the Australian Government’s ongoing commitment to the core principle that government programs and services should be accessible by all eligible Australians, responsive to their needs, and deliver equitable outcomes for them, regardless of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

Access means that Australian Government services and programs should be available for all culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

Equity means that these services and programs should deliver outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse Australians on par with those that other Australians can expect to receive.

CALD CALD is the current term used to describe the many cultures and languages that are part of Australian life. The terms ‘Culturally and Linguistically Diverse’ (CALD) and ‘Non-English Speaking Background’ (NESB) are both commonly used in the research, practice, and policy discourse to refer to all of Australia’s non-Indigenous ethnic groups other than the English-speaking Anglo-Saxon majority. Indigenous Australians are generally excluded from CALD and NESB because their experiences and needs as first nation people are seen as significantly different from other groups.

CALD was introduced to replace NESB in 1996, when the Ministerial Council of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (MCMIA) decided that the term and acronym NESB was to be dropped from official communications.

COMMUNITY There are many different kinds of communities, including communities of place, interest, belief and circumstance. Communities are dynamic—they change over time and interact in different ways. (See: Community Engagement Framework – Handbook 6 – Australian Emergency Management Handbook Series – Building a disaster resilient Australia)

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Community engagement, is defined by Community Engagement Framework as the process of stakeholders working together to build resilience through collaborative action, shared capacity building and the development of strong relationships built on mutual trust and respect (See: Community Engagement Framework – Handbook 6 – Australian Emergency Management Handbook Series – Building a disaster resilient Australia) This nationally agreed Framework provides guidance for effective community engagement across the emergency management sector, while acknowledging there is no one-size-fits-all approach—each community is different as is the context for engaging the community.

CULTURE Literature indicates that a universally agreed definition of culture remains elusive. However, there is broad consensus among anthropologists that culture is characterised by two key features. Firstly, culture is learned. That is, culture is a social rather than biological construct. Secondly, culture is a complex or integrated


whole, in which various elements (for example language, behaviours etc.) achieve coherence only when taken together.

Building upon these fundamental characteristics, working or “baseline” definitions of culture abound, including the following basic definition:

“Culture comprises “the ideals, values, and beliefs members of a society share to interpret experience and generate behaviour” (Haviland 1999: 36).

In addition to this basic definition, the notion that culture is not static, but rather that it is constantly changing.

CULTURAL IDENTITY This term is commonly used to refer to the characteristics that make individuals, people and population groups different from each other. These will include such factors as age, gender, race, ethnicity, ability, and religion, as well as education, professional background, marital and income status. The term also includes characteristics or factors such as personality, work style, sexual orientation, having a disability, and general work experience.

Cultural identity refers to people’s identification with particular culture(s) and cultural communities covering aspects such as shared beliefs, values, attitudes, behaviours and practices.

ETHNIC An adjective used to describe a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common ancestry; recognition by others as a distinct group; or by common cultural, linguistic, religious or territorial traits. People can share the same nationality but have different ethnic groups, while people who share an ethnic identity can be of different nationalities

ETHNIC COMMUNITY ORGANISATION

An organisation which represents and advocates for the needs and interests of a specific cultural, religious, national, racial or ethnic group.

HUMAN RIGHTS Human rights are the basic entitlements that belong to all of us just because we are human beings. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, forms the basis of these entitlements.

INTERFAITH DIALOGUE Interfaith dialogue is formal discussion aimed towards developing greater mutual understanding between different religious traditions. It rejects the belief that all religions are the same, and is not an attempt to unify different religious traditions, but while respecting the diversity of beliefs it allows different religions to come to a better appreciation of the uniqueness of each other.

Interfaith dialogue is not a forum for debate or evangelisation, fundamental disagreements about beliefs are accepted, and no attempt is made to try and prove the superiority of one belief system over another. However, from such discussions some common grounds may be found between religions

MIGRANT Defined by the ABS as a person who was born overseas and has obtained permanent Australian resident status prior to or after their arrival (ABS 2007a). The term migrant does not include refugees, displaced persons or others forced or compelled to leave their homes. Migrants make choices about when to leave and where to go, even though those choices are sometimes extremely constrained. ‘Migration’ is the movement of people from one place to another

MIGRATION The crossing of the boundary of a political or administrative unit for a certain minimum period of time. It includes the movement of refugees, displaced persons, uprooted people as well as economic migrants. Internal migration refers to a move from one area (a province, district or municipality) to another within one country. International migration is a territorial relocation of people between nation-states

MIGRATION PROGRAM Migration Program refers to the number of visas for permanent residence in the Skill, Family and Special Eligibility streams (this does not include New Zealand citizens and visas issued under the Humanitarian Program).

MULTICULTURALISM The term ‘Multiculturalism’ has been used as both a concept and policy reference and has been widely contested in public debate with a range of interpretations.


Generally however both the term and policy refers to a recognition and celebration of cultural diversity when describing people, population groups, ideas, work and activities. For example, DIAC states:‘(M)ulticulturalism is a coordinated long range response to migration patterns that have resulted in diverse people and cultures occupying the same locality, who share the aim of making a home for themselves and their families in a community within a safe, stable and cohesive nation. Over time the term …has come to refer to: the demographic fact of cultural diversity; a set of policies, programs and services; as well as a concept that articulates normative ideals about society’

NESB A person of non-English speaking background is a person who has migrated to Australia and whose first language is not English, or someone who is the child of such a person.Two groups of such people may be identified:

1. Non-English Speaking Background Group 1, if they were born overseas and their first language is not English.

2. Non-English Speaking Background Group 2, if they arrived in Australia before they were five years old and the first language of one parent was not English, or were born in Australia of at least one Non-English Speaking Background group 1 parent.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Under the ICERD, racial discrimination is where a person or a group is treated differently because of their race, colour, descent, national origin or ethnic origin and this treatment impairs, or is intended to impair, their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

REFUGEERESETTLEMENT Not only does resettlement play a vital role in protecting individual refugees at risk,

including in response to emergency refugee situations, but it also plays an important role in sharing responsibilities with host governments and strategically supporting the search for solutions for protracted refugee situations

SETTLEMENT Settlement is the period of adjustment as migrants become established, integrated and independent in their new community. Individuals achieve successful settlement outcomes when they are enabled to fully participate and contribute to Australian society, and experience genuine social, civic, economic and cultural inclusion.

Settlement is achieved through a coordinated and culturally sensitive approach which recognises the health, well-being, needs and aspirations of the individual, and supports a sense of belonging within an individual, family, community and societal context

SOCIAL CAPITAL Social capital refers to social networks and relationships, and norms and resources that community members contribute to and draw upon (Edwards, 2003). Social capital is often seen as an antecedent to, or condition for, social cohesion, such that community members may draw upon social capital in order to become more cohesive (Cheong, 2006; Spoonley et al., 2005).

SOCIAL COHESION Social cohesion is a concept with multiple definitions and uses in the development community. Its general aim is to ensure that all citizens, without discrimination and on an equal footing, have access to fundamental social and economic rights.

SOCIAL INCLUSION A socially inclusive society is defined as one where all people feel valued, their differences are respected, and their basic needs are met so they can live in dignity. Social exclusion is the process of being shut out from the social, economic, political and cultural systems which contribute to the integration of a person into the community


Appendix B

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Community Engagement Model for Emergency Management

Principles of effective community engagement

There are three fundamental principles for effective community engagement in the emergency management context. Each of these principles is supported by some key actions.

1. Understand the community: its capacity, strengths and priorities2. Recognise complexity3. Partner with the community to support existing networks and resources

Community engagement context

All engagement activities occur in a wider context and it is essential to identify and understand this context, including:

existing strengths, capacity and capabilities within the community

key risks that the community face

the community profile including the diverse needs, values, perspectives, priorities and expectations of the community


the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of organisations

the phases of emergency management and long-term nature of community engagement including before, during and after events

the scale of the engagement to be undertaken, for example, at a household or wider level

time, resources and skills needed for the engagement activity.

Community engagement purpose

All engagement activities should have a clearly defined purpose. This means having a clear understanding of:

what the engagement aims to achieve

who the key decision makers and key stakeholders are

what issues or questions are negotiable with the community

what is within scope and what is out of scope

both stakeholder and agency interpretation of the issue/concern/question being addressed, and whether either need more information

the preparedness of people to engage

the resources required to undertake the engagement and whether they are available.

Engagement Elements

The model outlines five elements of engagement, listed below in alphabetical order. Any given engagement activity may incorporate one, several, or all elements, depending on the required outcomes of the activity.

CollaborationSharing information, questions or positions to obtain ideas, feedback, knowledge or an understanding of objectives and expectations

ConsultationPartnering with communities to support action, including developing alternatives and identifying a preferred solution

EmpowermentIndividuals and communities have capacity to understand risk and accept responsibility and implement initiatives

InformationSharing information between communities and agencies to come to a mutual understanding. Everyone is informed and able to take responsibility for decisions and actions.

ParticipationBuilding connected networks and relationships, ownership and trust through active involvement.


Appendix C

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS WITH CALD COMMUNITIES

2011-current

Resilient communities program

This program aims to to develop strategies that build whole-of-community resilience to disaster. It focuses on the social factors that impact community resilience in relation to disasters. Factors include: language/literacy, cultural differences, age, gender, isolation and dependence.

2010-2011

Building disaster resilience in multicultural Australia

The Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI) received funding to deliver one of the National Emergency Management Projects for 2010/2011. This project supports the National Disaster Resilience Strategy through research, information sharing and the development of resources that enhance CALD community involvement and participation nationally in disaster resilience.

Six Community Safety Action Guides have been developed for culturally and linguistically diverse communities as pictorial alternatives to the existing English text Emergency Action Guides. The guides aim to help communities understand the risks associated with natural hazards that may occur in Australia and how best to be prepared to minimise any adverse effects. The guides cover: Storm, Flood, Earthquake, Cyclone, Lightning and Heatwave.

A research consultation, titled Project Red, has been undertaken with young people from refugee and migrant backgrounds around volunteering in the emergency management sector. The Centre for Multicultural Youth (CMY) was commissioned to undertake this consultation. A comprehensive picture of the young people’s current awareness of and interest in the roles, and the opportunities for and barriers to their active involvement has been developed. A report outlining the findings provides recommendations, including two detailed project proposals to address some of the issues identified.

2006-2010

Inclusive emergency management with CALD communities

The Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI) implemented a four-year program (2006-2010) aimed at enhancing CALD community resilience to the effects of disasters, as part of the Australian Government’s National Action Plan to Build on Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security. A national reference group with representation from peak emergency management agencies and CALD community organisations provided overall guidance to the program. Experienced cultural diversity practitioners were contracted to assist AEMI.


The program was comprised of a national workshop, Jurisdictional community partnership projects, national school education resources, CALD volunteer strategies, and an evaluation component.

National forum

A final forum, Emergency management in a multicultural society, was held at AEMI in Mt Macedon in May 2010. It was co-hosted by the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Multicultural Foundation in support of continued strengthening of disaster resilience in Australia.

Recognising that the four central concepts in emergency management – prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR) each have a social component, the forum offered the parallels of participation, partnerships, respect and resilience as its core premise.

National workshop

A national workshop was held at the commencement of the program to explore current and emerging issues and trends in emergency management with CALD communities.

Jurisdictional community partnership projects

Jurisdictional community partnership (JCP) projects commenced in 2007 based on the success of the 2006 projects. Local projects have been established by working groups made up from representatives of the emergency management and CALD community sectors. Each year a workshop is held to showcase the achievements and share lessons learned.

The publication ‘Participation, partnerships, respect and resilience – national examples of emergency management in a multicultural society' was launched at the 2010 forum held at the Australian Emergency Management Institute, Mt Macedon. It documents the achievements of the JCP projects in building ongoing CALD community engagement in emergency management nationally and contributing to social inclusion and to the strengthening of disaster resilience in Australia.

National school education

National school education resources have been developed in recognition of Australia’s multicultural diversity. These include teacher guides, lesson plans and digital stories.

‘People, get ready’ is designed to help young Australians understand their place in the community and know what to do if a disaster or emergency arises. They will develop an understanding of how, when and where a disaster could occur and what the consequences might be.

Lesson plan titles include:

Me and my community, Take the communication mission, Experiences of emergencies and Families preparing together.

In ‘Living with disaster - digital stories’, young people tell of their experiences and the effects of disaster on themselves, their families and their communities. Classroom activities have


http://www.em.gov.au/sites/schools/Teach/Resources/Livingwithdisasterdigitalstories/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.em.gov.au/sites/schools/Teach/PeopleGetReady/Pages/default.aspx

been designed to look at what preparation and awareness of disaster risk means for a variety of cultural and linguistic community groups within the wider community.

CALD volunteer strategies

Strategies have been investigated to engage culturally diverse community members in emergency management volunteer roles. A workshop was developed with support from the Australian Emergency Management Volunteers Forum to increase the recruitment and retention of CALD community members and has been delivered at AEMI, Mt Macedon, and in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth.

A pilot project is currently being initiated in Tasmania whereby community members from migrant backgrounds are being linked to a State Emergency Services unit and supported through volunteer training. A case study outlining this initiative will be developed.

EvaluationAn evaluation of the program was undertaken by the Centre for Program Evaluation at the University of Melbourne in 2009. It includes a literature synthesis of major research in the area of CALD communities and emergency management.

2005-2006

Arising out of the Security Summit on 27 September 2005, a one-year program was funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. It involved a review of the Guidelines, development of learning materials for integration into existing Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI) programs and the design, development and delivery of a pilot action learning project.

Six State and Territory-based action learning projects, aimed at increasing the engagement between the emergency management and CALD community sectors, were undertaken between August and December 2006. The projects were supported by specialists in the provision of cultural awareness.


Attachments


Attachment A

List of Peak Pacifika Organisations

NEW SOUTH WALES

ORGANISATION BRIEF DESCRIPTION CONTACT DETAILS

NSW Council for Pacific Communities (NSWCPC)

The NSW Council for Pacific Communities (NSWCPC) was established in 2003 as a peak body for collaborative work across the Pacific Communities across NSW. The NSWCPC was formed as a major strategy of the NSW Government’s Youth Partnership with Pacific Communities (YPPC) based on concerns expressed by key leaders from Pacific Communities about issues affecting Pacific young people, families and communities. The NSW Community Relations Commission (CRC) has actively supported the Council’s establishment and development.

NSWCPC aims are to enhance trust, understanding, and community capacity build and develop collaborative relationships by enabling communication and partnership across the community, private and government sectors.

Tia RokoChairperson http://www.nswcpc.org.au/ e [email protected]

m 0420 978 078

QUEENSLAND


Pacific Communities Council of Far North Queensland

Objectives1. Act as the Co-ordinating body and

represent the collective interest for and concerns of the Pacific Communities in Far North Queensland.

2. To establish a Far North Queensland Pacific Centre.

3. To liaise, lobby and work in collaboration with Government and non-government Agencies on settlement, health and welfare, education, employment, home storage, business, social, cultural, emotional and spiritual issues affecting our own Pacific Communities.

4. Establish links in dissemination of government information and facilitate communication with the Pacific Island countries, including New Zealand in the best interests of the Pacific Communities

Mr Arthur Poa 0408 301 622

www.pccfnq.org.au


http://www.pccfnq.org.au/

of Far North Queensland.5. To promote Pacific Island Nations and New

Zealand in Australia and encourage interchange of ideas ideologies, understanding of different cultures while achieving a better understanding of the diversity of cultures in Far North Queensland.

Pacific Islands Reference Group Inc.

The Pacific Island Reference Group Inc. (PIRG) is a network of members from various Pacific Island communities in South East Queensland. The PIRG was established in 2008 as a result of the Vaka Pasifika: Communities and Leaders Forum which identified the need for a Reference Group to highlight and address socioeconomic issues experienced by members within the Pacific Islanders communities. The overall aim of PIRG is to represent the voice and views of Queensland-based Pacific Island Nation organisations, communities and individuals, working collectively together with all levels of government and other agencies; encouraging the importance of forming strategies, implementing dynamic programs, support and assistance with all levels of government and other agencies; for the wellbeing of the people of the Pacific.

Ms Kalisi BesePhone:0439 626 895Email:[email protected]

Pacific Community Council (PCC) Cairns

Act as the Co-ordinating body and represent the collective interest for and concerns of the Pacific Communities in Far North Queensland.

To liaise, lobby and work in collaboration with Government and non-government Agencies on settlement, health and welfare, education, employment, home storage, business, social, cultural, emotional and spiritual issues affecting our own Pacific Communities.

Establish links in dissemination of government information and facilitate communication with the Pacific Island countries, including New Zealand in the best interests of the Pacific Communities of Far North Queensland.To promote Pacific Island Nations and New Zealand in Australia and encourage interchange of ideas ideologies, understanding of different cultures while achieving a better understanding of the diversity of cultures in Far North Queensland.

Rev Hedley FihakiTongan CommunityE-mail: [email protected]: 0401 698 934

Qld Pacific Island Workers Network (QPIWN)

To represent the voice and views of Queensland-based Pacific Island Nation organizations, and in close consultation with them, at all levels of government and other agencies on matters that affect their community and individual well-being.

Ms Kalisi BesePhone:0439 626 895Email:[email protected]




The PIRG will enhance the capacity of these community organisations to lobby and solicit resources for institutional strengthening of its member organizations

Pacific Island Reference Group Inc.

To represent the voice and views of Queensland-based Pacific Island Nation organizations, and in close consultation with them, at all levels of government and other agencies on matters that affect their community and individual well-being.

The PIRG will enhance the capacity of these community organisations to lobby and solicit resources for institutional strengthening of its member organizations

Ms Kalisi BesePhone:0439 626 895Email: [email protected]

Website:www.facebook.com/groups/pirgseq/

Pasifika Women’s QLD Forum

Funded by Brisbane City Council, the forum gave Pasifika women (the majority being Samoan, Tongan, Fijian, Cook Islanders and New Zealand Maori), the opportunity to share their experiences and identify issues and needs in their communities

A Pasifika Women’s Working Group has been formed to advocate for women’s’ issues which include unemployment and access to higher education. The working group held its first meeting on Tuesday at the Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland at West End where an agenda for ongoing action was set to support Pacific Island communities.

Lote Scanlan-Savelio Salome Swan

VICTORIA


United Pacifika Council of Victoria UPCOV

Key objectives of the Council include: To promote collaboration between the

Victorian Pasifika communities, to nurture their shared cultural identities and to encourage respect for each community's specific cultural identity.

To provide information, advice and assistance to non-profit member organisations to help them achieve sound governance processes, effective communication lines and accountability within their organisations.

To be a member driven organisation that assists newly arrived groups from Pasifika communities to settle into life in Australia by providing services, support, information and advice to facilitate their inclusion into, and full participation in the broader Australian community.

To help "build bridges" between the

Ikani Taliai

[email protected]

ph: 0414 595 674



http://www.facebook.com/groups/pirgseq/

http://www.facebook.com/groups/pirgseq/


Pasifika communities and the broader Australian community, while maintaining and strengthening each community's cultural traditions and heritage.

To advocate for member organisations to identify and ensure their needs and issues are heard by all levels of government, non-government and the private sector with a view to raising awareness and generating public debate about the issues faced by Pasifika communities.

Where appropriate, to support the connection Pasifika communities have with the Pacific region.

The following groups are represented: The Samoan Advisory Council of Victoria Tongan Victorian Association Inc. Cook Island Community Services of

Victoria Inc. Marae Melbourne Inc.

Voice of the Pacific The Voice of the Pacific is a community organisation that we set up and incorporated in June this year.

The main goal of our organisation is to influence and/or to work with the Australian Government to address the issues relating to New Zealand passport holders that arrive in Australia after Feb 2001 and the exclusion of Fiji from the Pacific Seasonal Workers Scheme.

Audrey DropseyPh: 0479 178332 [email protected]



Attachment B

List of Bhutanese Organisations

NATIONAL


Bhutanese Organization in Australia (BOA)

The primary aim and objective of the Bhutanese Organisation of Australia is to inclusively represent the common interest of the people of Bhutanese origin to various government and non-government organizations in Australia. BOA does this to promote and facilitate the settlement of Bhutanese in Australia, and thereby, continuously integrating the people of Bhutanese origin in the mainstream of Australia, and contribute to Australia in its social and economic developments.Other objectives of BOA are to: Facilitate and organize the celebration of social and

cultural events, including all the festivals, rituals and promotion of literature in harmony by full participation of all.

Facilitate and promote a sense of belonging and unity in their new homeland, Australia.

Facilitate and maintain their distinct Bhutanese identity by promoting unity and a sense of belonging to their community.

Bring awareness and educate the Bhutanese community, particularly young generations on the developments in Bhutan to continuously generate and keep alive the history of their origin and heritage.

Work closely with the relevant agencies for recognition of educational qualification and skills of Bhutanese people and providing workplace opportunities for relevant employment.

Provide support to individual members and their immediate family members when the organization believes the support is practical and appropriate in case of natural calamities and disasters.

Liaise with the government and non-government agencies at various levels for appropriate policies affecting the welfare of Bhutanese in Australia.

Advocate on youth issues, need and their engagement with relevant agencies in Australia.

https://www.facebook.com/bhutaneseorganizationofaustralia

NEW SOUTH WALES


Association of Bhutanese in Australia (ABA) Sydney

MissionTo share community information among the Bhutanese community members in Sydney and Bhutanese people

Dr Om Dhungel Presidenthttps://


https://www.facebook.com/pages/Association-of-Bhutanese-in-Australia-ABA-sydney/395953513797139




living elsewhere in the world www.facebook.com/pages/Association-of-Bhutanese-in-Australia-ABA-sydney/395953513797139

QUEENSLAND


Bhutan Community Cairns

Not available Narayan (Mr)E-mail: [email protected]: 0402 231 067Pralhad DahalPresident Cairns Bhutanese Community)

Cairns Bhutanese Community Inc.

Not available Ms Nar Maya Chuwan 0432 291 349

Bhutanese Australian Association of Queensland

Not available Mr Dilli Ram [email protected] Miriam Battersby(07) 3410 10710411 800 [email protected]

SOUTH AUSTRALIA


Bhutanese Association of South Australia

Established in 2009, BAASA has been providing both practical assistance and cultural support to the local and broader Bhutanese community.

Suren Ghaley Bhutanese Association of South Australia,http://www.bhutanesesa.org.au/

Bhutanese Ethnic School

Founded in April 17, 2012, the Bhutanese Ethnic School has been running Nepali classes on every Saturday. There are over 70 students below 18 years of age registered in the school as of now. The school is registered at Ethnic School Board of South Australia.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bhutanese-Ethnic-School/222454747884970?ref=stream

Bhutanese Youth Group

Not available https://www.facebook.com/bhutanese.youthgroup

Yuba Sansar Yuba Sansar weekly Bhutanese-Nepali Youth Radio Show, initiated by a group of Australian Bhutanese youths primarily features youth news, young talent, influential young achievers, inspirational stories of famous person, stories of the senior members of Bhutanese community and tips on health, technology, life, education and careers.

http://www.yubasansar.com/




https://www.facebook.com/bhutanese.youthgroup






http://www.bhutanesesa.org.au/





Popular among Bhutanese in Australia and abroad, this award winning show includes special episodes to promote Bhutanese cultural and enhance cross cultural harmony

TASMANIA


Bhutanese Kirat/Buddhist Association of Tasmania Inc. Inc. (BCAST)

The BKBAT Inc. shall provide Association members with a platform for addressing all issues that will support their integration and access to opportunities in Australia in order to enhance their quality of life through co-operation and shared responsibilities.It will work with all the Australian communities, including government and non-government agencies to facilitate the people of Bhutanese origin in TasmaniaIt will facilitate and promote the culture and traditions of the Associations members in harmony with respect to all other cultures and traditions in Australia.

http://bkbat.blogspot.com.au/Mobile: 0466 909272Email: [email protected]

Bhutanese Community of Tasmania North

Our vision --Bridging the Gap – Creating Unity, Cultural Diversity & Strong Networks in the Australian Community

Narad [email protected]://bcotni.blogspot.com.au/

Bhutanese Nepali Community of Southern Tasmania Inc.

Bhutanese Nepali Community of Southern Tasmania is a page created to pass information all over the world about resettled Bhutanese Nepali people mainly in this region. It also features some information about Bhutan and story of Bhutanese people all around the world.

Email: [email protected]

Bhutanese Christian Community

Not available Email:[email protected]

Bhutanese Voice of Launceston

Bhutanese Radio program WEEKLY (Wednesday) from city-park radio 103.7mhz in Launceston, Tasmania (Australia) from 7pm to 8pm

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bhutanese-Voice-of-Launceston/463984506988185

VICTORIA


Bhutanese Community in Australia (Vic)

To facilitate and organize the celebration of social and cultural events, including all the festivals, rituals and promotion of literature in harmony by full participation of all.

Bring awareness and educate the Bhutanese community on the human rights situation and other developments in Bhutan to continuously generate and keep alive the history of their origin and heritage

Dhan Siwakoti

(03) 9302 1609

[email protected]




http://bcotni.blogspot.com.au/






http://bkbat.blogspot.com.au/



micicinitiative.iom.int · web viewaustralian emergency management website, viewed 1.08.2013, <...

Documents