Multiculturalism in Norwood

For our August 2026 issue of our newsletter, Samela Harris sent us a long lost copy of a newspaper article written by her father, the legendary Max Harris. Although written in the early 80’s it reads very topically today – especially with the ‘monoculture/multiculturism’ debate recently conducted. And it makes numerous mentions of his beloved Norwood. We included a portion in the newsletter but the full article appears below…

Norwood Parade, Adelaide, The World, The Universe by MAX HARRIS

It worries me that the term “multiculturalism” still confuses people with its vagueness and portentousness. In any case, it’s a horrendous word that should have faded into disuse.

My definition of multiculturalism is as follows. It is an amity, civilized interaction between people of different backgrounds, languages and cultures that owes nothing to the common factor of the nation-State in which they find themselves, but to the common quality of their humanity.

It is this idea of the nation-State that is the sticking point for the brainwashed, the bigoted and the politically manipulated, not only in Australia, but everywhere. The pathology of tunnel vision can be inherent, genetic or spread as a socio-political virus.

There still seem to be too many people unaware that their village is global, and that if it isn’t ‘the sooner’ it becomes so the better. The nation-State obsession has had it.

Let me define multiculturalism another way, as the Norwood Parade.

The Norwood Parade is a long expanse of small and thoroughly chaotic shopping enterprises, servicing a suburban area of Adelaide that has a mixed population of middle and working-class peoples, from a complete mish-mash of backgrounds. This mish-mash has long since been taken for granted. It doesn’t even evoke much curiosity.

The Parade is just that: the broad footpaths are parading areas, used for strolling. Local citizens, young and old, take their constitutionals in large numbers almost exactly after the famous “strada” fashion of Valletta or Athens. There are no inhibitions about striking up conversations with strangers. That’s largely the point of it.

The greengroceries are Greek or Italian-owned. The staffs are usually cheerful middle-aged Oz ladies. The customers are swarthy, blonde, accented, toffy, tatty, elegant. They push their vegetable trolleys around with a hubble-bubble of exchanged comments on the products, the price, and the weather. Buying the week’s supplies has been a rewarding and well-spent social half-hour of simple interactions.

A few shops down the Parade is Laidlaw the Butcher, an establishment that couldn’t be more Anglo-Australian. It’s all good cheer, a flurry of chat and chummery. “How’s your son, Mrs Ludowici?” “He’s gone off to Lwow for a month to see his grandparents.” “Nice town, Lwow?” “No, ghastly.” “How’s the legal game today, Mr Singh?” “Ah, lawyers are two a rupee in this district, Mr Laidlaw. My daughter earns more than I do working for the Electricity Trust.”

In short, there are no “ethnics” in the butcher’s shop. There are no “Australians”. Only people.

So what’s better about what is, against what used to be, before multiculturalism? It’s been the broadening of the narrow.

Quite frequently, I take lunch at the Norwood Hotel. The hotel is owned by two Italian brothers who like to be known as the Booze Brothers, an Australianism that would surely delight Mr Hawke, Mr Elliott, and even Bruce Ruxton. The Booze Brothers, however, specialise not in pasta, but bagel cuisine, which they have pinched unwittingly from New York Jewish traditions.

They talk with me to find out about their own culture. They know all about Banjo Paterson, but I tell them that Italo Calvino is coming to be regarded as the peer of Proust, and Joyce, and Lawrence, and they should ensure that their youngsters should read Calvino’s folk tales. We discuss Italian cinema, and we all exchange theories on why Italy can produce a cinema of childhood sense and sensibility without mawkishness or Spielberg frenetics. They are as puzzled by the Italian obsession with children as I am.

As a variant, I take Sydney visitors for lunch at the Maylands Hotel, which is as true trad British as an Australian pub could get. The decor is pure Surrey village; darts, chalkboards, Real Ale on tap, and so on. Yet it is Yugoslav-owned and entirely family-managed, without any outside employees—mum, dad, a bevy of daughters, and sons-in-law.

The cuisine is an ethnic chaos. There’s Italian pasta, Yugoslav sausage and fish and chips. At the weekends, families gather in droves to hear the Irish folk band while consuming British ale, Yugoslav sausage and Italian espresso. The family comes from what used to be known, I think, as the Cockpit of Europe – the land of ethnic confusion and vendettas.

Yet these sweet people have a notice in the loos: “Our establishment is for your pleasure and recreation, and if any patrons behave inappropriately please let us know.” If any hoons or loudmouths turn up, they are given the bum’s rush by the family forces. They have learnt to value manners and peace of mind more than most of us.

At the very far end of the Norwood Parade area, in the pensioner cottage territory of Beulah Park, there’s the deli run by a Lebanese. It’s no great shakes as a deli, but if an aged pensioner runs out of bread, butter or milk, the owner jumps into his aged Volkswagen and delivers the litre of milk as a gesture of basic humanity. He knows at first hand what it feels like to need help when you are helpless.

‘In short, there are no ethnics in the local butcher’s shop . . . only people. The narrow has been broadened’

This illustrates, in experiential terms, my definition of multiculturalism.

These ordinary people have come to Australia to live in what that great novelist Narayan, and Graham Greene and Conrad before him, and Melville before all of them, believe to be: “Living in a free State”. That is, to be a citizen of no nation-State. To be a man of all seasons in all places.

What on earth is there about “Australian” values and conventions that are so crash-hot that we should fret that multicultural values could be a threat? A threat to what? We are, like other nation-State cultures, neither bad nor good. We could well be a better culture if we detribalised and rejected the fictionalised qualities of the nation-State in favour of a philosophy of simple humanisation. Reject the worship of the stereotype.

If you champion the image of Australia as a nation-State with superior values, then you are a bit of an idiot. Blind nation-State values, if encouraged, or politically rabble-roused by politicians, can lead to a blowing-up of the planet. I kid you not.

My God, it isn’t as if the historical proof wasn’t before our very eyes. It’s not merely the Hitler and Mussolini manipulation of good people into bad people. It is Iran, and killer religious fundamentalism. It is Pol Pot. It was the murderous genocide of Stalinisation in Eastern Europe. It is Mrs Thatcher slaughtering Argentinians in the Falklands. It is Chinese commissars having children mown down.

Multiculturalism is not the assimilation of others. This happens by natural social process. It is the detribalisation. That is the a priori condition of any civilised society.

I am not an “Australian”. I do not wish to be an “Australian”. But I do wish to be a prophet of the good things to come, and to contribute to the best community values of the bit of world to which I was born, as were my ancestors over the past century and a half.

When this conviction came to me, I had to detribalise the hard way. Australia was a petrifaction of stereotypes during the philistine decades.

I explored all the worlds I could, to find what worked and what didn’t. I was not a tourist, but a Livingstone exploring the demographic goods and evils. Like the snail, my ethnic home was something I carried on my back. Easter Island, Tahiti, Chile, Louisiana, the alti-plano of Bolivia, Britain, East Berlin, Hungary, Greece, Turkey, India and Indo-China, all over.

In all these places I sought affinities of the mind that would transcend the vicious incestuousness of nation-Statehood.

I found them. It was easy.

In Greece, I could be as Greek as any Greek. In Bolivia, I could be part of the pain of those who saw and understood what was being done to them by power-mongers. I walked blindly into three revolutions – in Czechoslovakia, in Chile, and into the violence of the colonels in Greece. These battles were my battles.

Repeatedly, I came back to my own piece of soil, loyally, with a single message in mind. Be people, be a community. Love one another, test your values right. Don’t do a Bob Hawke if you win the America’s Cup. Don’t be conned by the false victories or failures of the nation-State gods. Don’t worship who you are. Live in a free State.

No longer do you need to travel umpteen million miles to discover the truths that should be historically self-evident.

Our migration policy moved from White Australia to multiculturalism. The world, at last, came to us. It brought problems, but those problems were fundamentally ours. The migrants came to us to escape nation-State bigotries and compulsions.

The problem was not, and is not, how human beings from other places can be turned into facsimiles of ourselves. The problem is how we can change from the inherited stereotypes of a society that views itself as a hot exemplar of the right values and mores of an acceptable global social unit.

The answer is that the less we think of ourselves as “Australian”, holders of the civilised grail, the more we can enter into the free State, a harmonious village in an unpretty global world.

All we need do is to walk down the Norwood Parade, thinking nothing other than: Here I am, at home in a fraternity of languages and cultures. This is my Australia.

Consultation Submission – NPSP Budget 2026-27 and LTFP 2026/27-2035/36

Introduction
The NRA, along with some other resident groups and individuals, have expressed deep concerns about the financial direction of our Council for the past 2-3 years. We feel these concerns have not been taken seriously until the Essential Services Commission undertook their work and issued their report reaching similar conclusions.

That said, we note Council has undertaken a number of reviews to address the ESCOSA report including the Rating Strategy Review, consideration of an added gym facility into the Payneham pool complex and associated prudential review, revising the LTFP and adjusting/reducing the capital works program etc. We commend the Council for taking these actions as part of its strategy to improve the financial position over the next 10 years and making them publicly available for community consultation.

However, it must be said the forecasts in the LTFP look good on paper, but rely on the heroic assumption that there will be little to no new capital expenditure over the next 10 years. It is not realistic!

In considering the current Budget and LTFP we submit the following:

Budget 2026/27
Expenditure has increased by 10%, while income has increased by 6%. This imbalance is unacceptable.
The Employee Expense category shows the highest cost increase (average of 10.5% per annum since2022-23). Materials and Contracts also continue to rise about $1M per annum.

The result is an Operating Deficit of $2.12m which is too high and should be reduced
significantly prior to setting rates for 2026/27. Deficits of this order and a further $1.0m in 2027/28 weigh considerably on future budgets and ratepayers. Relying on the positive forecasts in the outer years of the LTFP is notoriously unreliable.

Some suggestions include:

Recurrent Budget Expenses Cost Cutting
Review Employee Expenses and Materials and Contracts line items to deliver significant savings of at least 1%, or some $450,000.
In private enterprise, contracts are frequently renegotiated, so council need to do similar. “No” is not an acceptable response from the CEO & Administration.

A further review of all operating budgets should be undertaken to find further savings.

Operating Projects Cost Cutting
Consider the real benefits to the City’s broad ratepayer base of holding the:

– Tour Down Under – $60,000 (other Councils have questioned the value)
– Gather Round – $100,000 (it is unclear whether this is football related
activities or the Food and Wine Festival or both?)

It could be argued these activities have short term benefits lasting days as opposed to
investing in expanding tree canopy, improving/expanding open space or beautifying the Parade that have benefits lasting decades for the community.

Rates
We generally support the proposals contained in the Rating Strategy Review, however we have some comments/suggestions on the rating proposals for 2026/27.

Average Residential Rate Increase – Tale of Two Cities
Total Residential rate revenue is budgeted to increase by 7%.

However, we are told (ABP p23) the average residential increase is only 5.45%. The reason for this lower figure is because the calculation includes the 27% of minimum properties that subject to no increase in their rates. Consequently, the average rate increase for the other 73% will be significantly higher than 5.45%, it must be over 7%+.
The suggestion that the average rate increase is 5.45% maybe technically correct but is misleading to 73% of residential ratepayers. We believe this distinction should be made transparent to ratepayers in its publicity, unless Council endorses in some form our proposal (below) to phase-in the reduction in the proportion of minimum rated properties.

Minimum Rate
One of the key changes proposed is to reduce the percentage of ratepayers on the
minimum rate to 25%. Legislation requires the number of properties minimum rated to no more than 35% – NPSP is around 32%.

We recommend a more phased approach while the Council is facing large deficits over the next 2 years. If the minimum rate was increased by 3% or $42(lower than the average increase for the bulk of ratepayers and less than current CPI) it would generate approximately $214,000 more rate revenue to contribute to a reduction of the deficit and would still lower the number of ratepayers on the minimum.

This mirrors the phase in approach to the changes in the differential rates for commercial and other non-residential ratepayers.

General Rates
No one wants to increase rates but the consequences of suggesting the deficit will fix itself sometime in the future is not desirable with ongoing higher debt servicing costs.

We therefore propose that all rate categories have an additional 0.5% added to the current proposed rates in the Annual Plan. It is estimated an additional $360,000 rate revenue would result.

Borrowing Levels
We note the very high borrowing levels at $86.3m in 2026/27 and with the Net Financial Liability level at 153.5% which is well beyond the LGA’s maximum guidance level of 100%, noting that all metropolitan Councils are below, and most well below, 100%.

This constrains council from being able to respond to important needs in the community and will cause further disappointment for ratepayers.

The Long Term Financial Plan has pushed out improvement plans for almost 10 years, which is clearly unrealistic and undesirable. not a desired outcome. It should include improvements to valued community assets such as the Norwood Pool and Library.

Gymnasium addition to Payneham Memorial Swimming Centre
Council has proposed to add a gymnasium facility to the Payneham Pool (including
expanded car park provision) at a capital cost of $5.9m based on concept plans. The aim is to generate operating surpluses from the gym that will partially offset the operating deficits from the swimming facility.
We are very concerned about the financial risks associated with this project for the
following reasons:

  • It is 100% funded by significant additional borrowings;
  • Cost estimates are based on concept designs, not detailed design estimates risking
    cost escalation;
  • On current estimates the capital investment will have a payback period of 11 years,
    excluding finance costs and depreciation – these costs need to be factored into the
    LTFP and their inclusion further illustrates the questionable viability of this project.
  • The prudential report on the project was very cautionary and highlighted many risks, for example:
    – Potential insolvency of the PMSC operator;
    – High potential for capital cost blow-outs, noting recent inflation due to Iran
    war;
    – Insolvency of the builder or key contractors;
    – Potential operating losses greater than projected due to escalating costs such
    as staffing, energy, utilities etc;
    – Increased borrowing costs due to higher interest rates;
    – Membership demand and revenue may be lower than projected;
    – potential limited ability to increase gym fees due to user affordability or
    market competition;
    – competition from other private gyms, existing or new, or changing fitness
    trends may impact patronage.

    We advocate further public consultation (pause point) (also recommended by ESCOSA) once detailed design costs and borrowing impacts are known so the community can be assured the project won’t replicate the history of the Swim Centre Development.

    Finally, thank you for the opportunity to put our views and hope there will be opportunities to improve Council’s financial position in the future to provide for the betterment of the City.

    Presented by the Norwood Residents Association

The Biggest issue facing Council – and you need to know about it!

By Peter Fairlie-Jones, NRA Committee Member

Most people have little interest in the finances of their local council. Right? That is natural. We elect a group of councillors representing our ward areas and collectively, under the leadership of the Mayor, they oversee and hold to account the Chief Executive and administration. The Council, with advice from the Administration, sets the priorities for managing the city and its services and authorises the budget and rate setting process. People naturally become interested when their rates go up significantly, or they notice service levels deteriorating, or both. Well, this has started to happen at NPSP! The Essential Services Commission of SA (ESCOSA) reviews the financial sustainability of all Councils individually every 4 years. They have just released their advisory report on NPSP Council that concluded that the council is potentially fiscally unsustainable. They highlight the following issues of concern that arise from the Council’s own long term financial plan (10 years):

  1. Council is taking on significant debt mainly to fund the Payneham Memorial Swimming Centre which was originally budgeted at $24m but has subsequently blown out to over $60m. As a result, debt is forecast to peak at $106.7m, and the debt ratio will average 145% over the next 10 years (peak166.8%) and far greater than the Local Government Association (LGA) suggested maximum of 100% (NB: No other metro Council exceeds 100% and most are well under)
  2. The Payneham Memorial Swimming Centre cost escalation from $24m to over $60m raises concerns about scope and project management, community consultation and financial transparency
  3. Forecast rate increases are almost twice the rate of projected CPI over the entire 10-year period (NB: this follows residential rate increases of 8.5% (23/24), 8.5% (24/25) and 9.4% (25/26))
  4. Forecast growth in operating expenses is contained at below historical levels, while also servicing increased debt, without explaining how this will be achieved
  5. Council risks further cost increases if it has underestimated the $30m cost of the Parade Masterplan, a figure that was estimated in 2020 and has not been updated since.

Further to the rather damning ESCOSA review, it needs to be recognised that during the public consultation for the 2024/25 and 2025/26 budgets in particular, the Norwood Residents Association and St Peter’s Residents Association and various individuals made written submissions and verbal presentations raising concerns regarding Payneham Pool and its impact on rates. However, the concerns were basically ignored.

What is particularly concerning is that, along with the prospect of significantly higher rates throughout the next 10 years, the Council will be in a financial straight jacket that forces it to cut or reduce services, and may be forced to sell assets (Norwood pool, a library perhaps, open space/parkland?) to reduce debt.

The opportunity to improve our city with more open space, provide more tree canopy, improve footpath maintenance, better car parking, traffic management etc will likely suffer.

The Norwood Residents Association would like to see the Council develop a detailed strategy to deal with the debt problem and associated rate increases and, importantly, consult meaningfully with the community on the actions it proposes before decisions are made.

SOAPBOX – MAY 2024

This section is for NRA members and Norwood residents to air their views on local topics and will be included in our newsletter. If you would like to contribute, please email your piece to:  norwoodresassoc@gmail.com.

These items will also be posted here on our website so you can make comments/contribute to the discussion.

To kick things off, former NRA President, Ian Radbone argues that we should be careful what we wish for when we demand more parking.

You want more parking?  Then accept more congestion.

When I was President of the Norwood Residents Association, the two most common complaints I used to hear were both about cars: too much traffic and not enough parking.  I used to respond by asking, “which do you think is worse?” because providing more parking results in more traffic.  It’s what we called a wicked problem when I used to teach public policy.  There’s no ultimate solution.

There’s a practically insatiable demand to drive more, and the more governments do to accommodate that driving, the more driving there is. 

I’m almost 70, and all my life governments have been “upgrading” (that is, widening) roads to cope with congestion.  It improves things for a while, but then it just seems to get worse than before. 

One thing that does discourage driving and encourages people to use other means of getting about, is a lack of parking.  Walking, cycling public transport are all more popular in the CBD because parking costs money.  Where parking in free and plentiful, people drive, at least until congestion gets too bad.  Then they complain about congestion, governments widen the roads, …and on it goes.

For a place like Norwood, the amount of local traffic per day can be calculated by the number of parking spaces and how often that parking space is “turned over” – how many cars use it in any one day.  The formula is:

daily local car trips = number of local car spaces x number of cars that use the space x 2.

So, if an on-street car space is used by a local employee all day it would probably generate only two trips. (Perhaps four if we include the evening.)  If it is on The Parade and has a 15 minute time limit during business hours it might generate sixty or more trips, i.e. more congestion.  It’s funny that the employee parking we complain about actually produces less congestion than customer parking.

The same applies to off-street spaces, of course.  There’s a two-hour time limit on the Council car park in Webbe Street.  Let’s assume it is 50% occupied and that every driver uses it for the full 2 hours, that is it gets turned over four times a day during business hours There are about 240 spaces in that car park, so the number of trips that car park generates would be

240 spaces x 4 turnovers x 50% occupancy x 2 trips, one in, one out = 960 trips

Shorter stays and higher occupancy would mean more trips than this. 

I don’t know how many of those trips would be using the George St/ Parade intersection, but it would be a lot, and I haven’t mentioned the 270 or so spaces owned by the shopping centre, which also have a two hour time limit, so another 1080 trips.  And I haven’t included any afterhours trips, though congestion is not such a problem then.  And then of course there’s the new car parking spaces associated with Coles, which I haven’t counted.

From time to time we hear calls for rate payers to pay for another deck to the Webbe Street car park.  Just remember that if that is done, congestion will be worse.

What can we do about it?  If we really want quiet streets, with lots of people walking and cycling, then actually cutting back on the amount of parking would do it.  But it would require a serious on-street parking regime to strictly enforce on-street parking policies, and that would not be popular with businesses and with many residents.  And The Parade’s economy relies on lots of customers driving here from other suburbs, so local businesses would not be so busy.

Another approach would be to “do an Unley”, that is, chop up streets so that they are accessible to local traffic but not to through traffic.  I live on Theresa Street, which was chopped up like this many years ago.  We don’t have traffic problems, and I can’t imagine my neighbours ever wanting to go back to the old days.  But then try to introduce new closures and opposition arises and nothing happens.  I think Donegal Street is the only other street in Norwood that has been given this treatment.  Are there others?

In the meantime, I avoid (and not add to) the congestion and parking problems by walking and cycling.  If I need a car, I hire one of two Flexicars based in Norwood, or hire a ute from Bunnings in Kent Town. 

Ian Radbone

Promising Signs For Heritage Protection – Ian Radbone

The State government has invited the Council to propose improvements to the Planning and Design Code that would provide more detail on the sorts of development that is desired and not desired, as well as more protection of the buildings that create our streetscape character. 

The Council took up the invitation at its meeting of the 22 January 2024.  You can read the detail in the Council’s agenda (item 11.2). 

Previous State governments have successively taken over more and more planning powers, culminating in the Planning and Design Code, which tends to take a cookie cutter approach to the character of our streets.  This caused a lot of unhappiness with local councils and residents, who often saw their own far more sophisticated and nuanced plans lost.  The jettisoned plans were typically based on lots of local surveys and other research. For example, the Residential Character (Norwood) Zone in the old Development Plan occupied ten pages, with a map, an explanation of the desired local character, principles of control, specific numerical controls, and diagrams like the one below. 

In addition there were five “Policy Areas” with more specific controls for that area. Fortunately the old Development Plan is still available on a State Government website, so you can see how it looks and can compare it with the Planning and Design Code.

As well as the herculean effort to come up with Area Statements that could be applied in many localities across the State, the Planning and Design Code also tries to make these fit with its various other controls, the provisions for each zone and “overlay”, as well as the so-called Technical and Numerical Variations that normally control what can and can’t be built. 

Needless to say, the State planners have often failed, with far less detail and explanation and with many inconsistencies between the zones, overlays and the Technical and Numerical Variations. 

The government has been told again and again about these problems, and it appeared that it has listened.  The Chair of the State Planning Commission, Craig Holden, has written to Mayor Robert Briar inviting the Council to update the Historic Area and Character Statements, at one stage referring to “their” (i.e. the Council’s) statements.  The Council has been invited to elaborate more on local character areas, reflecting differences from one street to another.  

While the existing confusing format of the Code will be retained, Councils can include some of the key measurements in the Character Statements.  And it can be specific about the sorts of additions that can be allowed.  Here is an example of what might be possible in an area with old single storey houses: “Predominantly single storey, with two storey additions within the roof space to the rear of buildings.”  Images of the sort of things the planners have in mind, which featured in our old Development Plan, will be brought back.

Protection for “Representative Buildings”

Another welcome aspect of the new government approach is that it has invited Council to nominate more buildings that should be subject to demolition controls.  But it is limited to certain areas of Norwood.

Under the old Development Plan, Norwood’s old buildings were not as protected as those of neighbouring suburbs.  These were referred to as “Contributory Items” in the old regime, and a lot of the lobbying in the change to the Planning and Design Code was to ensure that these Contributory Items had the same protection in the new regime.  The problem for Norwood (and Kent Town) is that the old Development Plan had very few Contributory Items nominated, despite surveys that identified these. 

The following image following is from the SA Property and Planning Atlas, with Norwood outlined in green.  The zones in light blue are Historic Areas, where there is some demolition control.  The pink areas are “Character Areas”.  There is no specific demolition control for the Character Areas.  The red dots are Representative Buildings, where demolition would need approval. 

You can see that there is a lot of Norwood that is not part of an Historic Area.  Don’t you think that there would be Representative Buildings, where demolition should need to be approved by Council, in the rest of Norwood?

The proposal to initiate a Code Amendment specifically excludes expanding the boundaries of the Historic Areas and Character Areas.  Council has been invited to nominate more Representative Buildings within the Historic and Character Areas, but that still leaves many parts of Norwood likely to have buildings that in other suburbs would be protected.

Can you help keep the NRA going?

If Norwood is to thrive as a community and not just a suburb, it needs residents to work together, to represent the residents in dealing with government, to encourage community activities, to build connections between people.  

The Norwood Residents Association has been doing this for 23 years.  

With the demise of local newspapers, our role in informing residents has never been more important.

But with three of our long-standing committee members retiring at the next AGM, including the President and Secretary, our future is in doubt. Our next AGM may be our last.  

If you are interested in helping to keep the NRA going, we’d love to hear from you.

Phone President Ian Radbone, 0402 965 929.