The social and economic impacts of immigration detention facilities: a South Australian case study.
Every, Danielle ; Whetton, Steve ; Rainbird, Sophia 等
Introduction
Globally, the arrival of asylum seekers into the West has created
two opposing trends. The first is a continuing focus on measures to stop
asylum seeking, including a greater reliance on detention as a first
resort (Edwards 2011). However, behind the scenes of this campaign, host
countries must still house claimants whilst their applications are
processed. In response to this need, the second observable trend is the
reform of asylum processing systems, particularly of detention.
These trends are observable in Australia. Immigration detention has
been mandatory and indefinite for all asylum seekers arriving by boat
since 1992. There have been extensive criticisms of the Australian
detention system, including: the effects of remote facilities and length
of detention on the health and wellbeing of detainees, particularly
children; limited access to legal assistance and social support; the
financial costs of detention; and inhumane and inappropriate treatment
of detainees (Phillips & Spinks 2012). These criticisms have
prompted some reforms, including the development of Alternative Places
of Detention (APODs) for families and children. APODs are close to
established communities, are low security, allow children to go to
school and emphasise health and wellbeing.
However, the campaign against asylum seeking, which continues even
as these reforms are rolled out, has created a political and social
context where there is little balanced information available to the
general public. In such a climate, these new APODs, which bring asylum
seekers and residents into much closer contact than previously, are met
with hostility and anger. This has also been the case in other schemes
which locate asylum seekers in existing communities, such as the UK
Dispersal Scheme (Phillimore & Goodson, 2006; Dawson 2009; Mulvey
2010). Negative attitudes to asylum seekers are high, higher than those
against immigration generally, and are perpetuated through negative
media reportage focused on illegality and threat (Pedersen et al. 2006;
Goot & Watson 2011; McKay et al. 2011; Markus 2011; Haslam &
Holland 2012). Much of this opposition focuses on the perceived economic
and social impacts of large numbers of asylum seekers on host
communities. Viral emails and media reports have circulated that asylum
seekers lower wages, increase unemployment and reduce economic
productivity, create pressure on health, education and welfare services
and reduce social cohesion (for example, Jones 2012).
Research on attitudes to immigration more generally has identified
that beliefs about economic and social impacts underlie negative
attitudes towards immigrants. Esses, Brochu and Dickson (2012) found
that negative attitudes increase when immigrants are perceived as
competing with members of the host society for economic resources. Even
where individuals are not themselves personally affected by poor
economic circumstances, a belief that State, national and international
economies are fragile also increases negative attitudes towards
immigration (Citrin et al. 1997). In Europe, the impact of austerity
measures has meant that these issues are now even more pressing.
However, new research in the United Kingdom suggests that beliefs that
immigration reduces social cohesion are now a more significant factor in
negative attitudes towards immigration than concerns about negative
economic impacts (Card et al. 2012).
Yet despite the proliferation and consequences of concerns about
economic and social impacts, there is limited previous research on
actual impacts that can be used to challenge or address people's
beliefs and fears, particularly impacts relating to asylum seekers and
those at a local level. The existing research on impacts generally
focuses on the national level and on immigration as a whole. This
research on economic and social costs and their relationship to
attitudes is focused on immigration generally, rather than asylum
seekers specifically. This is an important caveat, as asylum seekers are
a special case, both in terms of their political visibility and their
use of resources. Nor are social and economic impacts the only influence
on attitudes, especially those towards asylum seeking which are
influenced by other structural and cultural contexts like nationalism
and terrorism (Blinder 2011). However, our research in a South
Australian community where asylum seekers have been housed in an APOD
found that social and economic concerns (such as the effects on
employment, local schools and real estate prices) were a prominent theme
expressed by residents and warranted further exploration. We have
summarised here the research on immigration, social and economic impacts
generally as an initial framework for thinking through the local impacts
of asylum seekers more specifically.
The consensus of this previous research on immigration is that
negative views on the impact of migrant settlement are based on
misperceptions. Overall, immigration creates a net gain for the nation
through immigrants' financial contribution, including that of
refugees and asylum seekers (Hugo 2011). Immigrants' use of
services is much lower than commonly claimed and there is a significant
positive difference between the costs of their service use and their
financial contribution (Vargas-Silva 2011). This national-level research
also concludes that when income inequality, deprivation and
impoverishment are controlled for, diversity does not decrease social
cohesion (Letki 2008; Gesthuizen et al. 2009; Demireva 2011; Laurence
2011).
Similarly, previous research has found that immigrants, including
humanitarian entrants, do not disproportionately burden the public
health care system, even where they do not have access to health
insurance or Medicare (Spike et al. 2011). Immigrants use fewer health
care services than the native population (Correa-Velez et al. 2007,
2008; Jayaweera 2011) and the comparative cost of their health care is
lower (Cots et al. 2007). However, the impacts of immigrants on health
care services are mediated by government policy, and this has
significantly affected asylum seekers and the health services which
provide for them. Where asylum seeker policies limit access to health
care or provide insufficient funds for health services, those doctors
and hospitals who do provide care experience an uncompensated increase
in their workload (Kardamanidis & Armstrong 2006). In these
instances, health impacts may be felt at a local level, and by some
health service providers and not others.
This research on health impacts suggests that, whilst immigration
has an overall positive impact, it can impose initial up-front costs at
the local level. Research in the United States and the United Kingdom
has also found that there may be up-front local costs for education and
housing as well (Iowa State University 2001; CURDS 2006; Griswold 2012).
It is the case that there is often a delay between benefiting from the
economic boost from immigration and the initial pressures on social and
physical infrastructure (Franks 2012). This may be particularly true in
relation to asylum seekers, whose contributions, whilst substantial, do
take longer to manifest. This longer time lag arises both because asylum
seekers may have had low levels of mental and physical wellbeing in
their home countries before migrating and as a result of long periods
spent in detention in the destination country (Hugo 2011).
There is also evidence that the impacts of immigration differ
depending on the socio-economic circumstances of the host community.
Those living in already impoverished areas are particularly likely to
feel that the arrival of asylum seekers in their town further reduces
their own already poor life opportunities and to feel that the
distribution of funds to new arrivals is unfair (Goodall 2010). Whilst
research demonstrates that there is no negative impact of immigration on
wages for lower skilled workers, rather a small positive effect
(Ottaviano & Peri 2012), low skilled workers may experience negative
rather than positive economic benefits when importing labour reduces
pressure to invest in training and skills development (CURDS 2006).
Interestingly, some research shows that those who actually experience
the greatest negative impacts on wages are previous immigrants
(Ottaviano & Peri 2012).
Impacts also differ depending on the type of detention scheme:
high-security immigration detention, low-security alternative places of
detention, or community detention. Each scheme differs in terms of its
infrastructure (a single building or a housing complex), its population
(large numbers of asylum seekers or a few placed in geographically
distant locations), and the interaction between detainees and residents
(asylum seekers living in the community or asylum seekers completely
detained). These may have different impacts in terms of aesthetics,
population density and use of local services, although there is no
research on this as yet.
This overview of previous research suggests that while at the
national level there are positive economic effects and no reduction in
social cohesion following immigration, there may be costs at a local
level depending on the economic circumstances of the receiving community
and the type of detention. However, we currently lack research specific
to the local impacts of asylum seekers. Critically, such research can
provide the evidence base for a more targeted response to local
communities experiencing, or about to experience, the arrival of asylum
seekers in various forms of detention. It can also support local and
national-level planning for new arrivals--planning that mitigates
negative impacts and enhances positive ones, thereby reducing
residents' anxieties about impacts.
As a contribution to this evidence base our paper outlines the main
findings of research on the impact of a new low security detention
facility on the local economy--employment, productivity, house prices
and demand--and on health services and social cohesion. This research
was part of a larger social and economic impact assessment of this
facility on the local community which also assessed impacts on
education, infrastructure and security (Every et al. 2012; SACES 2012).
As well as 'what' impacts, the research also explores
'why' these impacts, that is the new and existing factors that
led to particular outcomes. These new and existing factors include: the
characteristics of the facility (its location, purpose and
population--all of which are in turn influenced by government policies);
the characteristics of the host community (existing infrastructure,
socio-economic conditions--education, employment, income, housing,
existing levels of diversity and experiences with diversity); and
government or community interventions and actions (such as funding,
policies, programs, lobby groups). The analysis of these underlying
factors is particularly important when considering planning options for
housing new arrivals. The analysis in this paper demonstrates that much
of the feared and experienced negative impacts can be avoided through
more carefully considered planning that specifically targets the needs
of the wider community.
With this broader usefulness beyond the case study in mind, in each
of the sections we include some reflections on how our case study
findings might be useful to other communities that have, or will have, a
detention facility located nearby. In doing so, we are mindful that our
case study is just that, a single case. Woodside, where the APOD is
located, has a demographic profile that is quite different from, for
example, Christmas Island, where there are three APODs and an IDC. It is
also located in quite a different setting from a remote detention centre
such as Curtin. Further, as noted, an APOD is a different type of
detention from an IDC such as Villawood, or from community detention,
which have different aesthetic impacts and different levels of
interaction between detainees and the local community. Each of these
factors--demographics and existing social/economic issues, location and
type of detention--will shape the social and economic impacts on the
local area. Bearing this in mind, some of our insights are likely to be
useful in other communities, albeit suitably modified to their own
particular circumstances.
Method
Background to the Australian immigration detention system
In 1992, Australia introduced mandatory detention for all people
arriving without a valid visa (Phillips & Spinks 2011). This
detention ranges from complete incarceration in a closed facility
(Immigration Detention Centres (IDCs)), to detention in a secure
facility with some access to local services (Alternative Places of
Detention, Immigration Residential Housing), to community detention in
which people are housed within communities and can be part of those
communities without being escorted (DIAC 2009). There are eight IDCs in
Australia, two of which are in rural/remote areas (Curtin, Yongah Hill)
and one of which is offshore (Christmas Island). There are six
Alternative Places of Detention, including the South Australian
Inverbrackie APOD which is the site for this study, and six places for
residential housing or transit accommodation. Community detention occurs
in all the major cities (DIAC 2013). APODs and community detention
options are primarily for vulnerable families and unaccompanied minors
(DIAC 2009).
Whilst some of these facilities have been established for some time
(such as Villawood) and others have gone through phases of use, closure
and re-use (such as Curtin), the APODs have been built in the last three
years, starting in 2010. As well as increasing the opportunities for
community detention, the APODs were part of efforts to reform the
immigration detention system, particularly alleviating some of its worst
effects on children and families (Phillips & Spinks 2012).
The site for this study
In 2010, a low security immigration detention facility--the
Inverbrackie Alternative Place of Detention (APOD)--was opened in the
Adelaide Hills, South Australia. The facility uses 74 houses that
previously formed the residential area of the Woodside Army Barracks
owned by the Australian Defence Force. The facility is situated 1.5
kilometres from Woodside, a small semi-rural township of 2,270 residents
(Adelaide Hills Council 2008). It houses up to 400 asylum seekers,
specifically families with children. The APOD delivers most services on
site. All food, clothing and housing are supplied--detainees do not use
local shops or services on an individual basis. However, the APOD has
local contracts to supply goods and services such as food, building
maintenance, pharmaceuticals, and cleaning. Children in the APOD attend
nine local pre-, primary and high schools. Both children and adults are
taken in groups on local excursions. Birthing and accident and emergency
services are provided through the closest local hospital at Mt Barker.
Woodside is a middle-income, semi-rural town with a number of
antique stores, local boutique wineries, cheese-making and chocolatiers.
It has low unemployment (2.1 per cent) though with comparatively lower
educational attainments than other nearby towns (Adelaide Hills Council
2008). Our interviews with residents and the Council found that as a
small town it experiences a significant number of young people leaving
the area for work and study.
Woodside as a town has also had limited experience in ethnic
diversity. Data on the ethnic diversity in Woodside shows that less than
two per cent of the population comes from non-English speaking
backgrounds (Adelaide Hills Council 2008). Our interviews with the local
council and residents confirmed that the only experiences of ethnic
diversity in Woodside have come through the media, individual travel,
the arrival of a small number of Vietnamese skilled migrants who
re-settled in the nearby town, and seasonal agricultural workers from
the Middle East, Vietnam and Cambodia.
Data collection and analysis
The data collection and analysis used a mixed-methods approach. The
economic impacts were primarily assessed through quantitative data and
the social impacts through qualitative data (outlined below). However,
the quantitative and qualitative findings on particular impacts on the
economy and social cohesion overlap, and together provide a
comprehensive assessment of the impacts. The mixed-methods approach
allowed for an assessment not only of 'what' impacts, but also
of the 'how' and 'why' of these particular impacts.
Economic data collection and analysis
The economic impacts of the APOD were assessed using regional
input-output tables to calculate the gross impact of the spending
associated with the APOD. The calculations used data from a range of
sources including the regional input-output (IO) table for the
'Adelaide Hills' economy prepared for the Department of Trade
and Economic Development by EconSearch (2009), the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS 2011a, 2011b) and the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship (DIAC) and its contractors. Other potential impacts of the
APOD raised by community members which had an economic element, such as
the potential impacts on house prices, tourism and local infrastructure
were also assessed where relevant data existed (for example, Adelaide
Hills Council 2011).
An input-output table describes the linkages between sectors of the
economy based on their patterns of purchase and supply. For each of the
sectors in the economy (including accommodation, cafes and restaurants,
food and beverages, manufacturing) it details the inputs the sector
uses, and to what sectors it sells its output.
How the input-output approach works is best illustrated by example.
Suppose the facility management spends $100 on products from a local
bakery in Woodside. That bakery then uses the $100 to purchase inputs
from primary and intermediate suppliers. Primary suppliers are
employees, providers of capital, indirect taxation, and suppliers of
goods and services. The bakery also purchases inputs (such as flour,
meat and vegetables) from intermediate suppliers in the Adelaide Hills
region which, by and large, are other businesses. Payments to those
business enterprises then flow to their own primary incomes and
intermediate suppliers. This process carries on repeatedly, with
ultimately all of the payments flowing to primary incomes. The
input-output table allows us to trace through, and aggregate, this chain
of impacts.
Input-output analysis is a well-established technique for assessing
regional impacts, but it should be noted that the estimated impacts are
gross not net impacts. That is, the modelling does not account for
potential offsetting factors, such as increased local activity leading
to wage rises, which in turn leads to reduced local employment by other
employers. Further, regional input-output models only approximate the
actual pattern of linkages between industries in their region as
input-output data are only published nationally, with local tables
developed by modifying the national data to reflect regional patterns of
economic activity.
Social data collection and analysis
A social impact assessment analyses the intended and unintended
consequences of social change on individuals and communities. It
identifies ways to manage these consequences that will bring about a
more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment
(Vanclay 2002). There are a number of ways to undertake a social impact
assessment. Lane, Ross and Dale (1997) rate these on a continuum from
non-participatory, top-down approaches to participatory, grassroots
assessments. In the first, the assessor takes the stance of the expert,
generally using a pre-determined list of potential impacts. Such
approaches have been criticised for their failure to involve the
community, thereby excluding important community concerns and the
diversity of experiences within a community. In the second, what is
included in the assessment is established through a community scoping
study, and the assessment involves multiple perspectives gained through
multiple data collection methods (Lane et al. 1997).
Our study undertook the latter approach. We conducted an initial
scoping study using data from community forums and meetings, local media
and meetings with the local council from the announcement of the APOD
(October 2010) to three months after its opening (March 2011). For the
data for this scoping study we attended three community forums,
collected all media articles on Inverbrackie from the local and national
papers (including The Advertiser and The Australian) and met three times
with the local council.
The facility had been operating for six months when we began
resident and stakeholder interviews over a further period of three
months (the second half of 2011). We conducted 124 qualitative
interviews with residents and key stakeholders in each of the areas of
predicted impact--health, education, real estate, local business,
services and infrastructure (roads, fire, the local council, the police)
and social cohesion (churches, social groups).
We used two recruitment approaches--the first open, the second
targeted. We used both because we needed to gain the widest possible
spectrum of views on the issues, and we needed to assess the issues from
different viewpoints--so, for example, to assess impacts on health we
needed to speak to people who used the local health services; but also
those who provided the services and those who coordinated the health
services for the asylum seekers in the APOD. For the open recruitment
(because we wanted to speak with any residents in the area), we placed
fliers (as shown in Appendix A) in local businesses, the local council
and local circulars (such as the church newsletter). For the second,
targeted strategy, we contacted via phone, email and through meeting
people at community forums, people who worked in each of the key areas
of concern listed above. For example, in relation to health, we
contacted and spoke with staff at the local hospital, local GPs and
their office staff, disability carers, other local healthcare providers,
the SA Ombudsman's office and health providers within the APOD
itself. We also placed a box in the local library with a brief
questionnaire for people to submit anonymously (as shown in Appendix B).
Using both these targeted and general recruitment and data
collection methods produced a comprehensive picture of the impact of the
APOD on each key area from the perspective of both service providers and
people in the community. The sample of 124 is approximately five per
cent of the local population. There were 62 women (50 per cent) and 45
men (36 per cent), with 17 (14 per cent) undisclosed for gender (on
anonymous surveys collected in the feedback box located in the local
library). The age of interviewees ranged from 25 to 70.
The interviews were open-ended and informal, with an average time
of about forty-five minutes. The questions were individualised for each
situation, but we focused on three broad areas: views on the APOD;
impacts on health, education, the local economy, local services,
security and community relationships; and communication (between the
community and DIAC, between the community members themselves). The
interviews and the survey in the library asked core questions such as:
'what are your main concerns about the APOD?'; 'what
impacts has it had on you? (with examples)', 'how to do you
get most of your information about the facility?'; and 'what
would you like to see happen with the facility?'.
We also undertook approximately 30 hours of ethnographic
observations. These were done walking through the main streets, eating
at the local eateries, and sitting on the various parks and benches
throughout the town. This increased our understanding of how the APOD
affected the use of the town's roads, local services and
aesthetics.
To supplement the information gained through the interviews and
ethnography, other relevant data included: demographic statistics on
Woodside from the ABS (Adelaide Hills Council 2008) local, state and
national print, television and audio media; transcripts, minutes, notes
and observations from meetings (the town meetings on 21 October 2010 and
24 November 2010; the Combined Circle of Friends Community Forum on 24
January 2011; the Community Forums held by the Community Liaison
Officers on 27 January 2011, 24 February 2011 and 29 March 2011); the
Community Reference and Community Consultative Group meetings;
submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's
Immigration Detention Network held in 2011; web pages and social
networking sites set up by Woodside interest groups; information from
interviews with DIAC staff; reports and statistics from SA Health,
Adelaide Hills Council and the Department of Defence on demographics,
health services and the economic contribution of the army barracks to
the town.
The impacts of the APOD on the local economy and social cohesion
The local economy: employment, local economic productivity and
value, business opportunities, house prices
Beliefs that asylum seekers negatively impact on host economies are
common, as outlined in the introduction. The concerns expressed by
residents of Woodside were typical in this regard. Our interviews, the
local meetings and media analysis showed that residents expected the
APOD would use local facilities and infrastructure but not employ locals
or put its money back into the local economy. Many residents also
believed the facility would reduce house prices and property demand.
Concurrently, there was also a view held by many that the facility
would bring significant economic opportunities. This view came from both
those who were optimistic about the APOD's economic benefits and
saw it as a positive for the town, and those who were very unhappy that
the APOD was in the area and demanded that the town must be recompensed
through significant economic benefit. The benchmark for this economic
benefit was set quite high, and was expected to be visibly evident.
As our research demonstrated, whilst there were economic benefits,
and the predicted economic drain did not occur, there remained
scepticism about the APODs contribution. As our research shows, much of
this contribution was in the form of indirect effects, rather than
direct and highly observable effects like actual employment in the
facility. We discuss this further below.
Employment and the local economy
The economic input-output analysis identified a $38 million
increase in local gross value added, and 463 jobs across the region.
Based on historical employment patterns, and the actual location of
employees at the APOD, it was expected that 297 of these jobs would be
filled by Adelaide Hills' residents, including 14 by residents of
Woodside. The input-output analysis estimate of gross value add and
employment takes into account not only the actual number of new
positions opened in the APOD itself (direct impact), but also the
flow-on effects of the new business and thus the new funds available in
the area (indirect impact). The expenditure of the APOD, and that of its
new employees, in turn increases suppliers' income, and their
expenditure in other services and so on. The breakdown of these
estimates of total impact and employment by sector are set out in Tables
1 and 2 below.
For the local employees, these new opportunities meant a new
career, as well as greater financial stability and security. Local
residents employed by the facility reported that the new roles had
enabled them to 'better support my family', "buy a house
and have a family' and 'make a career change to use skills in
a dynamic environment'.
New employment opportunities were also created through new business
contracts. It was estimated, using the input-output calculations, that
of the local expenditure from the APOD ($36 million AU) $2 to 2.5
million has flowed into local businesses through contracts for health
services (physiotherapy, radiology, midwifery, pharmaceuticals), waste
removal, building and repairs, fencing, labouring, fire wood delivery
and cleaning contracts. For these local businesses, this was reported in
our interviews as a welcome boost in a slower economy.
These outcomes for employment were the result of the combined
efforts of the facility management and local residents. As part of an
agreement between the local council, the Commonwealth and State
governments, the facility policy included a specific focus on creating
local employment and using local products wherever possible. Following
this, job advertisements were focused in the local area, as were tenders
for contracts. Together, the local Commerce Association and the facility
management ran information sessions for local businesses. These
showcased local goods and services, and were also used to inform local
businesses about the goods and services required for the facility's
current and future needs.
However, employment and business opportunities were also limited by
a number of pre-existing factors in the local community: the existing
skill sets of the local pool of potential employees, the availability of
particular goods and services, supply size and capacity, competitive
pricing, and hostility from some local residents.
The jobs created at the APOD were in specific skills areas:
specialised English as Second Language teachers, security, client
support and case workers, administration/management and cleaning. Given
the limited number of existing skilled workers in Woodside to fill these
positions, an above average proportion of the employees at the APOD were
recruited outside of the Adelaide Hills. Further, most of these
positions were filled through currently employed residents of the
Adelaide Hills changing jobs, rather than coming from a pool of
unemployed workers. This situation was a result of the very small pool
of unemployed workers in the Adelaide Hills (2.8 per cent of the local
population) (Adelaide Hills Council 2008). As noted ill the methods
section on the input-output model, employment generated in the region by
the APOD may recruit people from existing positions rather than people
who are unemployed.
The business opportunities were also in specific areas of goods and
services, which changed across the lifecycle of the facility. Broadly,
an immigration facility has two stages: start up and on-going. The first
phase is mainly about establishing infrastructure, so it requires goods
and services to be supplied quickly and often in large quantities. Our
interviews showed that during this first stage the facility was able to
use, for example, a local locksmith, but for large goods like
demountable buildings, there was no local company that could supply
these. However, the on-going stage required services that are much
easier to source locally. The capacity is smaller and the timeframes
less pressured. There were more regular business opportunities,
particularly for those in building and maintenance, during this phase.
Local business opportunities were also constrained by local
opposition. Some residents threatened to ban local businesses who
liaised with the facility. Others complained to the facility management
about parking, buses and congestion in waiting rooms in local services.
Although our ethnographic observations and interviews demonstrated there
was minimal impact from the APOD on these issues, this hostility
resulted in one local health service provider moving their business with
the APOD onsite. Although this overt hostility seems to have diminished,
businesses we spoke with still expressed caution about being known to
work with the APOD and were thus sometimes reluctant to overtly seek
business with them.
House prices and demand
Across the 18 month time period of data collection for this study,
there was no evidence of any negative effects on house prices or demand.
The economic analysis undertook a comparison of property price data for
Woodside and four other Adelaide Hills towns of similar size. Property
values showed no difference in price trends.
Our interviews and ethnographic observations with residents and
real estate agents supported these findings. For example, one vendor who
had listed their house the day before the announcement sold at the
expected price eight weeks later. There were no reports of people not
buying property in the area because of the facility. Initially,
following the announcement of the APOD, some people who had their house
on the market withdrew it, or, if they had been planning to sell,
decided to wait. However, after these initial reactions from some
vendors, there were no further incidents of people withdrawing their
property or not listing their property once it became clear that prices
and demand were not affected.
Rather, local estate agents found a small increase in demand for
rental properties, both residential and commercial, which was expected
to increase in the future with continuing employment at the facility and
to extend to a demand from new employees for buying in the area.
Lessons for other communities
We suggest there are two possible points of interest for other
communities in relation to these findings.
First, local-level interventions to enhance employment and business
opportunities are important in fostering positive economic outcomes. In
Woodside, a policy of local employment and contracts, and the meetings
set up by the Commerce Association, were both useful. However, there are
other opportunities for enhancing economic outcomes that could also be
useful. In particular, skills training programs specifically for local
populations, given that facilities such as APODs require particular
skill sets in case work, health care and management. In semi-rural or
rural areas experiencing a large out-migration of young people to
metropolitan areas, these skills programs could focus on this group.
Skills training should focus not only on the lower-paid positions like
security and cleaning, but on up-skilling the existing population into
higher paid career pathways such as management and case work.
Secondly, as well as establishing pathways for economic benefit, it
is also important to manage expectations about these benefits. In
Woodside, although there were some positive outcomes for local employees
and businesses, these were much lower than some residents'
expectations. This was particularly the case for those people who were
opposed to the centre, but who, on learning it was going ahead, demanded
that the local economy be compensated. The comparison between these
criteria and the actual economic benefits resulted in continuing
feelings of disappointment, resentment and dissatisfaction. In the next
section, we identify some of the communication initiatives that were
effective in Woodside in countering these kind of misperceptions.
Health services and facilities
Host countries are concerned about the impact of immigrants on
health care, particularly that of asylum seekers. Common concerns
include immigrants receiving free health care and over-burdening the
public health system, thereby increasing the cost of public health and
reducing services for citizens (Pickering 2001).
As noted in the introduction, whilst immigrants do not use a
disproportionate level of health services, there may be some impact at
the local level, particularly for those services assisting asylum
seekers. However, this was not the case in Woodside. We found local
health services did not experience any unmanageable pressure. Where
hospital services were required for births and for accident and
emergency, the APOD accessed the Mount Barker Hospital, which is the
closest local hospital to Woodside. During the study period there were
four babies born in the Mount Barker Hospital from women at
Inverbrackie, which comprised only one per cent of all the births at the
hospital. There were 18 visits by people at Inverbrackie to the Mt
Barker Hospital Accident and Emergency services in 2011. Most of these
were in the first six months of the centre opening and have decreased
since that time (JSCAIDN 2011). This represents on 0.2 per cent of the
9,183 total hospital admissions at the Mount Barker Hospital (SA Health
2012).
The provision of health services off site was not always
straightforward. For example, a local provider initially received
patients from Inverbrackie at his local practice during their lunch
hour. However, as a result of ongoing complaints from residents that the
patients took up all the waiting room and that the bus used the parking
space at the front of the surgery, the services were moved onto the APOD
site. From our observations and interviews we found that parking and
waiting room space were not significantly affected--there were multiple
car parking spaces available, the waiting room is small but the timing
of the appointments and the number of people was negotiated with the
surgery staff to minimise crowding - but the local perceptions and
complaints were a significant impact on the surgery, particularly for
front desk staff.
However, the mostly minimal impact on health services did not occur
by chance. Our research identified three factors which underpinned the
outcomes for health providers used by the APOD: onsite health care, size
of the need and funding for extra staffing and equipment. The model of
health service delivery for the APOD is for most services to be provided
onsite. There are onsite services for: a General Practitioner, five
Registered Nurses, midwife, dentist and optometrist once a week, two
counsellors, three mental health nurses and two psychologists (DIAC
2011a). Other health services were primarily delivered through the local
Mount Barker Hospital, through the Royal Adelaide Hospital and
Women's and Children's Hospitals in the Adelaide metro area
(JSCAIDN 2011). A local pharmacist and physiotherapist also provided
goods and services (DIAC 2011b). Although some offsite services are
used, the size of the need, and thus the impact, was small. Where extra
staff and equipment were needed, in the case of Woodside these were
funded by the Commonwealth Government. For example, it financed a
midwife position and new equipment for the local birthing clinic
(JSCAIDN 2011). This need was identified through meetings between
facility management and the hospital and other health providers (JSCAIDN
2011).
Lessons for other communities
This research at Woodside suggests that to avoid pressures on local
health care an onsite health care delivery model is preferable. Where
offsite providers are used, coordination with local services to identify
needs and to supply funding to offset these is vital. Attention to small
details such as the size of waiting rooms and the availability of
unobtrusive parking is also useful in avoiding conflict.
However, where there is provision for asylum seekers' needs
either onsite, in the case of detention facilities, or in a centralised
location in the local area, this is likely to fuel perceptions of
inequality and unfairness. We compared the health care available to
local residents and that available in the APOD, using, for example, data
on the number of general practitioners from Primary Health Care Research
and Information Service (2010) and the Country Health South Australia
(2010). We found minimal differences between the two, with locals
receiving more diverse and longer hours of service than asylum seekers,
but asylum seekers receiving more specialised mental health services.
However, despite the similar access to healthcare, some local residents
in our interviews remained concerned about inequality.
There are two possible ways to approach concerns about fairness,
both of which were effective in Woodside. The first is education -
constant and ongoing, delivered through multiple channels and,
crucially, using easy-to-understand comparisons of health care for
asylum seekers and for the existing population that directly challenge
the misperceptions being voiced. The second is ensuring that any
provision for asylum seekers is matched by provisions for the local
population. For example, the local hospital used government funds to
purchase a new ultrasound machine able to be used by all hospital
clients, not only asylum seekers. This offers the possibility of the
arrival of asylum seekers becoming a win/win situation, rather than
'us versus them'. These interventions, which brought benefits
to the local population, were popular and effective, reducing hostility
and increasing positive attitudes towards the facility itself, if not
towards asylum seekers.
Social cohesion
As noted in the introduction, as well as holding concerns about
negative economic impacts from immigration, people living in receiving
countries also fear the impacts of immigration on social cohesion. These
fears were also common in Woodside. Residents in our interviews, and as
reported in the media, were concerned that ethnic diversity would lead
to violence and conflict. Many believed that the asylum seekers would
stage violent protests and riots, escape the facility and commit crimes
in the local area, and spy on the local army barracks.
However, our research found that although Woodside residents feared
the social disruption asylum seekers could bring, in fact the detainees
were rarely seen in the town except in specific places--the hospital,
the physiotherapists and the schools--and these under controlled
circumstances with strong security presence. When the detainees are
released, they are moved to metropolitan locations rather than Woodside.
The actual demographic makeup of the town's residents--98 per cent
white Australians and Europeans--was not affected by the opening of the
centre. Our interviews with residents found that, as this became clear
over time, the concerns about the local impact of asylum seekers on the
town dissipated.
However, as well as concerns about the social disruption from the
asylum seekers themselves, residents also expressed concerns about
another impact on social cohesion--that of the friction between those
opposing the centre and those supporting asylum seekers. This tension
began at the two town meetings immediately following the announcement.
The meetings were fiery and combative--there was a lot of yelling, loud
applause and shouted interruptions. Most of the interruptions were
against those who spoke in support of refugees and asylum seekers, whose
contributions were drowned out by shouts of 'they're
illegal' or 'they're not refugees'. After these
meetings, refugee supporters reported in our interviews that they felt
alienated from their town. One person said 'I just want to move
away, I just don't feel I belong here anymore' and another
'I was embarrassed by how people reacted and the way they were
showing Woodside.' However, there were also instances, particularly
in letters to the editor and in online comments, where supporters
labelled those opposing the centre as racist, hard-hearted and ignorant.
These residents in turn then felt that they had been unfairly branded as
'ignorant rednecks'. As found in our interviews, for these
people, this resulted in much them feeling unaccepted as well--they
'learned to keep their opinions to themselves'.
These meetings were evidence of immediate divisions into lines of
thought. These lines became firmly established and people were
identifying each other as 'pro or anti', revealing their
political persuasion in a way that they may not have done before. It was
felt by some residents that this resulted in a polarisation of positions
and views. Neither side was listening to the other, nor were there were
spaces in which to foster a more open, respectful dialogue, with letters
to the editor and the town meetings precluding long-term and nuanced
engagement.
Despite this, most people we interviewed said that in the long term
the APOD had not affected their personal relationships significantly.
Many said that they rarely spoke about the issue with others. For some,
this was important where they knew, or suspected, that others may have a
different opinion. Mostly, agreeing to disagree was an important way in
which people maintained friendly, neighbourly, professional
relationships despite potential differences in political opinion. Others
felt it was important to challenge negative opinions, but they sought to
do this respectfully.
In general, there was little overt hostility towards employees at
the facility, though there were several early incidents of direct
confrontation, of people yelling things out their car windows as they
drive past the APOD, and giving people at the facility 'the
finger'. Some employees avoided wearing identifiable clothing and
tags, though others did not. This choice was an individual one,
depending on whether they felt there was the possibility of ongoing
antagonism; where they did they preferred to avoid that where possible.
As with the shopkeepers above, whilst there were not any discernible
conflicts, many were aware of the potential and acted pre-emptively to
avoid this.
Social discord between residents is far more likely in a place like
Woodside which has a small demographic that supports both highly
negative and highly positive attitudes towards asylum seekers. This
discord, particularly in the early days, can result in open opposition
and hostility. This can extend to the facility staff. However, in most
cases people are practised in dealing with differences in opinion over
political issues, most commonly by avoiding the subject altogether! As
the feared outcomes from the facility were not realised, these social
and conversational boundaries became less necessary as emotions were
diffused.
Conclusion
The negative attitudes fostered by political rhetoric against
asylum seekers create significant problems when asylum seekers are
housed within communities. Community members are, on the whole, primed
by these political messages to expect bogus claimants with criminal
records running riot in local towns. They also expect to be economically
and socially disadvantaged by their arrival, believing the circulating
rumours that asylum seekers receiving disproportionate government
funding that reduces resources for others.
An evidence base of impacts is important for informing the debate
about asylum seekers and thus reducing rumours and myths about them. It
is also useful for informing planning and development that minimises
potential negative impacts.
In the research presented here, we sought to document the economic
and social impacts of asylum seekers on a South Australian receiving
community. As demonstrated in this paper, most community concerns about
economic and social impacts were not borne out. There were positive
increases in employment and expenditure, and new equipment in the local
hospital. Tensions between residents subsided, as did initially strong
reactions against the asylum seekers themselves.
However, much of this was due to the government and community
interventions put in place either at the opening of the facility or
since. We noted the importance of local employment and sourcing local
goods and services, as well as government funding for upgrading health
services for residents. Time influenced residents' attitudes as
well, softening and diffusing them.
The findings presented here are a useful case study for thoughtful
consideration by communities who host asylum seekers. However, the
social and economic impacts of immigration detention facilities may
differ depending on three factors: the existing social and economic
conditions, the type of facility, and the interventions undertaken to
minimise negative and enhance positive impacts. Woodside is, as noted in
the background to this paper, a relatively wealthy semi-rural area with
low unemployment. The potential negative impacts, either real or
perceived, were likely to be minimal, and there were significant
opportunities to enhance the economic structure of the existing
community. However, in places with much higher unemployment and
long-term social and economic disadvantage, impacts on residents,
whether through increased pressure on existing health and education
services, through housing distribution, and employment opportunities,
may well be greater (Goodall 2010). Similarly, impacts depend on the
type of facility. The Inverbrackie APOD houses families and children,
whereas higher security immigration detention centres house mostly young
males. The APOD allows some access to the town, whereas an IDC allows
none, whilst people detained in community schemes are fully embedded
into the community. Each of these has different implications for housing
needs, health and education services, and for security. However, despite
the differences, we found that a focus on creating win/win situations in
which both residents and asylum seekers benefitted (for example, the
purchasing of new hospital equipment and boosting local employment) was
effective. This win/win principle can be adapted to underpin policies
and programs in most environments.
In terms of our contribution to existing research, the findings
presented here are an initial contribution to a broader focus on
understanding community attitudes towards asylum seekers. Whilst there
has been some previous research on the social and economic impacts of
immigration generally, there has been little on asylum seekers
specifically. Given that concerns about impacts seem to be key concerns
of communities, it is worthwhile gathering more evidence on these
impacts in order to address this issue better--either through providing
disconfirming information about negative impacts, or planning to
minimise negative impacts where these do occur. Policy-wise, this may
mean that community concerns are taken seriously as an important factor
in planning for immigration detention facilities. Ironically, as shown
by the changes in Woodside residents' attitudes, it may be that
well-managed facilities, which bring benefits to the community as well
as to the asylum seekers housed in them, become an important space for
shifting attitudes at the grassroots.
In an atmosphere in which asylum seekers are consistently vilified,
it is unsurprising that communities fear their arrival. It is vital to
engage with these concerns about social and economic impacts. Research
such as that presented here can be used to effectively target the fears
that matter most to the community--either through disseminating
information that reduces fears and myths, or through planning and
interventions that minimise negative impacts and enhance positive
benefits. In this way, the arrival of asylum seekers can potentially
become one that benefits all community members.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding for the economic and
social impact assessments received from the Department of Immigration
and Citizenship, Canberra.
Appendix A: The advertising flier was a poster with a picture of
the sign for the town of Woodside and the following text:
Woodside Immigration Detention Facility
COMMUNITY IMPACT
Researchers from the University of South Australia are evaluating
the impact of the new facility on you and your town.
Can you tell us about the impact on you, your family and community?
Can you chat with us in person, on the phone or online sometime in
the next four weeks?
Contact us to get involved: [lead researcher's mobile number
and email address]
Appendix B: The survey
Inverbrackie Alternative Place of Detention
Woodside Community Impact Study
Please don't include any personally identifying information in
your answers, these questionnaires are anonymous and confidential.
1. Can you tell us your three main concerns about the facility?
2. Can you tell us what the main impact/s of the facility has been
on you personally, your family, business or community?
3. Can you give any specific examples of these impacts?
4. Where do you access/how do you receive information about the
facility? (e.g. flyers, community/group meetings, media)
5. What would you like to see happen as a result of the facility?
(for yourself/family/business/community)
6. Please make any other comments you would like to on the impact
of the facility
References
Alesina, A. & La Ferrara, E. (2000) 'Participation in
heterogeneous communities', The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115
(3), 847-904. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2011a) Average
Weekly Earnings, Australia, Cat. No. 6302.0.
--(2011b) Unpublished data on place of usual residence for persons
employed in the SLAs of Adelaide Hills (DC)--North; Adelaide Hills (DC)
Balance; Mount Barker (DC)--Central; Mount Barker (DC) Balance;
Adelaide Hills (DC)--Central; and Adelaide Hills (DC)--Ranges.
Adelaide Hills Council (2008) Adelaide Hills Council Community Profile
2006 and 2001 Enumerated Census Information for Woodside, id Consulting
http://profile.id.com.au/templates/profile/Clients/136Adel/PDF/210.pdf
--(2011) State of the district report, Adelaide Hills Council
http://www.ahc. sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/State_of_the_District_Report_2011 Final_%28without_tabs%29.pdf
Blinder, S. (2011) 'UK public opinion of migration:
determinants of attitudes'.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk
Card, D., Dustmann, C. & Preston, I. (2012) 'Immigration,
wages and compositional amenities', Journal of the European
Economic Association, 10 (1), 78-119.
Citrin, J., Green, D., Muste, C. & Wong, C. (1997) 'Public
opinion towards immigration reform: the role of economic
motivations', The Journal of Politics, 59 (3), 858-881.
Correa-Velez, I., Sundararajan, V., Brown, K. & Gifford, S.
(2007) 'Hospital utilisation among people born in refugee-source
countries: an analysis of hospital admissions, Victoria,
1998-2004', Medical Journal of Australia, 186 (11), 577-580.
Correa-Velez, I., Johnston, V., Kirk, J. & Ferdinand, A. (2008)
'Community-based asylum seekers' use of primary health care
services in Melbourne', Medical Journal of Australia, 188 (6),
344-348.
Cots, F., Castells, X., Garcia, O., Riu, M., Felipe, A. & Vail,
O. (2007) 'Impact of immigration on the cost of emergency visits in
Barcelona Spain', BMC Health Services Research, 7
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/7/9
Costa, D.L. & M.E. Kahn (2003) 'Civic engagement and
community heterogeneity: an economist's perspective',
Perspectives on Politics, 1, 103-111.
Country Health South Australia (2010) Adelaide Hills 10 year local
health service plan 2010-2019.
http://www.countryhealthsa.sa.gov.au/LinkClick.as
px?fileticket=vQfuTm1LPVQ%3d&tabid=612
CURDS (Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies) (2006)
Assessing the Local and Regional Impacts of International Migration,
Department for Communities and Local Government, London.
Dawson, A. (2009) 'Re-assessing asylum seeker dispersal in the
UK: a local case study', Paper presented to The Australian
Sociological Association Conference 2009, Australian National
University, Canberra, 1- 4 December.
http://www.tasa.org.au/conferences/conferencepapers09/papers/
Dawson,%20Andrew.pdf
Demireva, N. (2011) immigration, diversity and social cohesion, The
Migration Observatory,
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/immigrati
on-diversity-and-social-cohesion
DIAC (Department of Immigration and Citizenship) (2009) Fact Sheet
83a--Community Detention.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/83acomm unity-detention.htm
DIAC (Department of Immigration and Citizenship) (2011a) Answer to
Question 10 Questions on Notice to the Joint Select Committee on
Australia's Immigration Detention Network. http://www.aph.gov.au/
Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=immigration_
detention_ctte/immigration_detention/submissions.htm
DIAC (Department of Immigration and Citizenship) (2011b)
Inverbrackie Alternative Place of Detention--Fact Sheet. Department of
Immigration and Citizenship, Canberra http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/
view/11608051/inverbrackie-alternative-place-of-detention-factsheet
--2013 Australia's Immigration Detention Facilities.
http://www.immi.gov.au/
managing-australias-borders/detention/facilities/map-operational-facilities. pdf
EconSearch (2009) Input-Output Tables for South Australia and its
Regions, 2006/07: Technical Report. South Australia.
Edwards, A. (2011) 'Measures of first resort: alternatives to
immigration detention in comparative perspective', The Equal Rights
Review, 7, 117-142.
Esses, V.M., Brochu, P.M. & Dickson, K.R. (2012) 'Economic
costs, economic benefits, and attitudes toward immigrants and
immigration', Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 12 (1),
133-137.
Every, D., Rainbird, S., Procter, N., Sebben, B. & Thompson, K.
(2012) Social impacts of the Inverbrackie Alternative Place of Detention
on the local community, Department of Immigration and Citizenship
http://www.immi. gov.au/media/publications/research/pdf/social-impacts-of-inverbrackie-alter
native-place-of-detention-on-woodside-and-surrounds.pdf
Franks, D. (2012) 'Social impact assessment of resource
projects', International Mining for Development Centre.
http://im4dc.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/01/UWA_1698_Paper-02_Social-impact-assessment-of-resourc
e-projects1.pdf
Gesthuizen, M., Van Der Meer, T. & Scheepers, P. (2009)
'Ethnic diversity and social capital in Europe: tests of
Putnam's thesis in European countries', Scandinavian Political
Studies, 32 (2), 121-142.
Goodall, C. (2010) The coming of the stranger: asylum seekers,
trust and hospitality in a British city, UNHCR Research Paper, Policy
Development and Evaluation Service, UNHCR, Geneva.
Goot, M. and Watson, I. (2011) 'Population, immigration and
asylum seekers: patterns in Australian public opinion', Department
of Parliamentary Services, Parliamentary Library.
http://www.ianwatson.com.au/pubs/ parliamentary_library_population.pdf
Griswold, D.T. (2012) 'Immigration and the welfare
state', The Cato Journal, 32 (1), 159-174.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/
cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-11.pdf
Haslam, N. & Holland, E. (2012) 'Attitudes towards asylum
seekers: the Australian experience'. In D. Bretherton & N.
Balvin (eds), Peace Psychology in Australia, Peace Psychology Book
Series, Springer, New York.
Hooghe, M. (2007) 'Social capital and diversity generalized
trust, social cohesion and regimes of diversity', Canadian Journal
of Political Science, 40 (3), 709-732.
Hugo, G. (2011) Economic, Social and Civic Contributions of First
and Second Generation Humanitarian Entrants, Department of Immigration
and Citizenship, Canberra Australia.
Iowa State University (2001) The impact of immigration on small- to
mid-sized Iowa communities: a citizen's guide for change, Iowa
State University, Keokuk County, US.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/ PM1879.pdf
Jayaweera, H. (2011) Health of migrants in the UK: What do we
know?, The Migration Observatory, University of Oxford
http://migrobs.vm.bytemark.
co.uk/sites/files/migobs/Health%20of%20Migrants%20in%20the%20UK. pdf
Jones, G. (2012) 'Welcome, asylum seekers - Chris Bowen and
Julia Gillard's ship of fortune', The Daily Telegraph, 17
February http://www.
dailytelegraph.com.au/archive/national-old/welcome-asylum-seekers-chris-bo wen-and-julia-gillards-ship-of-fortune/story-e6freuzr-1226273201568
JSCAIDN (Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration
Detention Network) (2011) Transcript of public hearing, Adelaide, 15
November http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_
Committees?url=immigration_detention_ctte/immigration_detention/
hearings/151111.htm
Kardamanidis, K. & Armstrong, B. (2006) 'The price of
health care for Medicare-ineligible asylum seekers in the
community', Medical Journal of Australia, 184 (3), 140-141.
Lane, M., Ross, H. & Dale, A. (1997) 'Social impact
research: integrating the technical, political and planning
paradigms', Human Organisation, 56 (3), 302-310.
Laurence, J. (2011) 'The effect of ethnic diversity and
community disadvantage on social cohesion: a multi-level analysis of
social capital and interethnic relations in UK communities',
European Sociological Review, 27 (1), 7089.
Letki, N. (2008) 'Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social
capital and race in British neighbourhoods', Political Studies, 56
(1), 99-126.
Markus, A. (2011) Mapping Social Cohesion: The Scanlon
Foundation's Surveys National Report 2011, ACJC, Faculty of Arts,
Monash University, Caulfield East. http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/
mapping-population/--documents/mapping-social-cohesion-summary-report-2011.pdf
McKay, F., Thomas, S. & Kneebone, S. (2011) 'It would be
okay if they came through the proper channels: community perceptions and
attitudes towards asylum seekers in Australia', Journal of Refugee
Studies, 25 (1), 113-133.
Mulvey, G. (2010) 'When policy creates politics: the
problematizing of immigration and the consequences for refugee
integration in the UK', Journal of Refugee Studies, 23 (4),
437-462.
Ottaviano, G.LP. & Peri, G. (2012) 'Rethinking the effect
of immigration on wages', Journal of the European Economic
Association, 10 (1), 152-197.
Pedersen, A. (2006) 'The role of false beliefs in the
community's and the federal government's attitudes toward
Australian asylum seekers', Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41
(1), 105-124.
Phillimore, J. & Goodson, L. (2006) 'Problem or
opportunity? Asylum seekers, refugees, employment and social exclusion
in deprived urban areas', Urban Studies, 43 (10), 1715-1736.
Phillips, J. & Spinks, H. (2012) Immigration Detention in
Australia. Department of Parliamentary Services, Canberra.
Pickering, S.J. (2001) 'Common sense and original deviancy:
discourses and asylum seekers in Australia', Journal of Refugee
Studies, 14 (2), 169-186.
Primary Health Care Research and Information Service (2010) Key
Division of General Practice Characteristics
http://www.phcris.org.au/products/asd/
keycharacteristic/KeyDGPstatistics.xls
SACES (South Australian Centre for Economic Studies) (2012)
Economic Impact of the Inverbrackie Alternative Place of Detention,
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Canberra
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/
publications/research/_pdf/economic-impact-of-inverbrackie-alternative-plac e-of-detention.pdf
SA Health (2012) Separations from public hospitals by quarter
http://www. sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/ about+us/our+performance/health+statistics/hospitals/hospitals
Spike, E.A., Smith, M.M. & Harris, M.E (2011) 'Access to
primary health care services by community-based asylum seekers',
Australian Medical Journal, 195 (4), 188-191.
Vanclay, F. (2002) 'Conceptualising social impacts',
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 183-211,
Vargas-Silva, C. (2011) The fiscal impact of immigration in the UK,
The Migration Observatory, University of Oxford http://www.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings?tid=12
Table 1: Total impact of Inverbrackie APOD in the Adelaide Hills
Broad Industry Gross Jobs Created
value added (no.)
($ million)
Agriculture 0.4 5
Mining 0.0 0
Manufacturing 1.1 10
Electricity, gas, water & 0.8 2
waste services
Construction 0.2 2
Wholesale trade; retail trade; 4.2 68
accommodation & food services
Transport, postal and warehousing 0.7 6
Other services 30.4 369
TOTAL 37.9 463
Source: Authors' analysis of economic input-output table data
for the Adelaide Hills area
Table 2: Location of gross number of jobs created in the
Adelaide Hills as a result of the Inverbrackie APOD by
place of work (SLA)
Broad Industry Adelaide Hills Adelaide Hills
(DC)--North (DC) Bal
Agriculture 0.9 1.6
Mining 0.0 0.0
Manufacturing 0.8 2.9
Electricity, gas, water and 0.3 0.4
waste services
Construction 0.3 0.3
Wholesale trade, retail 3.2 9.0
trade, accommodation
and food services
Transport, postal and 0.4 1.5
warehousing
Other services 11.9 227.8
TOTAL 17.8 243.5
Broad Industry Mount Barker Mount Barker
(DC)--Central (DC) Bal
Agriculture 0.5 1.3
Mining 0.0 0.0
Manufacturing 4.1 1.2
Electricity, gas, water and 1.1 0.1
waste services
Construction 0.7 0.3
Wholesale trade, retail 33.9 3.0
trade, accommodation
and food services
Transport, postal and 1.9 0.7
warehousing
Other services 70.5 8.4
TOTAL 112.7 14.9
Broad Industry Adelaide Hills Adelaide Hills
(DC)--Central (DC)--Ranges
Agriculture 0.1 0.7
Mining 0.0 0.0
Manufacturing 0.6 0.8
Electricity, gas, water and 0.2 0.2
waste services
Construction 0.4 0.2
Wholesale trade, retail 14.9 4.2
trade, accommodation
and food services
Transport, postal and 1.1 0.6
warehousing
Other services 33.8 16.4
TOTAL 51.2 23.3
Broad Industry Total
Agriculture 5.1
Mining 0.1
Manufacturing 10.4
Electricity, gas, water and 2.3
waste services
Construction 2.3
Wholesale trade, retail 68.1
trade, accommodation
and food services
Transport, postal and 6.1
warehousing
Other services 368.9
TOTAL 463.2
Source: Authors' analysis of economic input-output table data
for the Adelaide Hills area
