Global soul drives Dandenong through highs and lows
Racial conflict is often fuelled by fears new immigrants will take jobs or resources. But rather than fear, many locals see hope of a new, better future. Migrant entrepreneurs line the streets.
Makonese tells me she felt she had to buy her shop because she could see so many other migrants buying up property.
'Walk into any of these shops and ask them about their story,' says Jim Memeti. 'They would have come here with nothing. And they have established themselves now.'
Memeti is a case in point. By 19 he had his own poultry shop – eventually he would own 20. Now he's the mayor. 'Australia has been a really good country for me and my family,' he says.
He is one of the rare mayors who does not complain about crowded local roads or infrastructure delivery. 'We're pretty happy, actually,' he says with a laugh. The city is well served for transport. The recently widened Monash Freeway runs straight into the city, and EastLink offers an orbital route. There is a large train and bus interchange.
'It's so close to everything,' says Louise Noy, who has sold pet goods at the market for 24 years. 'You've got your hospitals here. You've got all your services here. Why would you not want to go here?'
The ability to buy a slice of the Australian dream surrounded by a white picket fence is a major draw. Dandenong remains relatively affordable to rent and buy in compared with other nearby areas, but prices continue to grow. The average house price rose from $475,000 in 2016 to $734,000 in 2025. Average weekly rents have climbed more steeply, up from $395 in 2023 to $530 – an increase many can't afford. The city is now a hotspot for homelessness and rough sleeping.
A global suburb
Dandenong is a global suburb, so it is exposed to the tides and eddies of the global economy, for good and ill. The long postwar boom ended in the '70s, and the federal government's move to slash tariffs exposed local factories to competition from low-paid foreign workforces. International Harvester went broke, the GM factory closed in 1991 and Heinz in 2000.
Working-class families reliant on those jobs, who could once afford to buy homes and cars and whitegoods, found themselves pushed into poverty. Unemployment at Doveton, a social-housing estate that neighbours Dandenong, reached 19 per cent in 1991; poverty rates jumped from 10 per cent to 37 per cent.
This once comfortably middle-class suburb is now stuck in the poverty trap. Unemployment hit 21 per cent there in 2015, almost four times higher than the national average.
'In Doveton we have the third generation of a household that does not have a job,' says Gabrielle Williams, the state MP for Dandenong. 'That's extraordinarily concerning' and very hard to fix, she says.
Refugees face a different problem – many are prevented from working because of the conditions of their visas. Eventually, the kindness of friends and family runs out and many find themselves homeless. The local Asylum Seeker Resource Centre is directly supporting 160 refugees, and a further 400 people use its food bank.
Poverty can foment criminality. In the early '90s Dandenong became pockmarked by urban blight: dying retail strips, vacant buildings, smashed storefronts. Dandenong still has the 12th highest rate of offences per head of population of any Victorian postcode. Most locals say they don't feel safe walking around the suburb after dark. It is Melbourne's most disadvantaged local government area.
News Corp christened it the 'the worst place in Melbourne' in 2015. Then came media focus on gang violence and the Apex Gang, a group of young men based in Dandenong who were responsible for a wave of carjackings and burglaries across the state (despite the police saying no such gang existed).
Cameron Prins, local area police commander for Greater Dandenong, says: 'Certainly that is the history. But greater Dandenong is a safe place to live and to visit – and that's an important message the community need to understand.' But disadvantage is not the driver of local crime, he says. 'We look at it from the perspective of the community being a little bit more susceptible,' he says.
Steve Khan was one of those who lost his job in the early '90s recession. With few other options, he agreed to go into business with a family friend. Their first shop, on Mason Street, 'had been vacant for god knows how many years – not a single windowpane was intact', he says.
They sold Indian groceries and rented videos, across from another store selling Indian sweets. One store on a deserted street is a risk, but two is a sign of success. Soon, more Indian stores came, selling Punjab suits and sarees, biryanis, gulab jamun and mustard oil. By the late '90s, Little India was thriving (Khan is now vice president of the traders' association).
Their success seems to have sparked a new identity for the suburb. Little India now abuts a thriving Afghan precinct in Thomas Street, where nearly every trader would have once come as a refugee, the mayor says. An inaugural Ramadan Night Market in April was so successful the council plans to bring it back for a whole month next year.
At Shams Restaurant, my table is soon laden with chicken and lamb smoky from the charcoal grill, maunto dumplings stuffed with meat and spices, and cups of green tea sweetened with small fruit candies.
'In my community, I know lots of people, they are looking for shops to rent or to buy,' owner Murtaza Khoshiwal tells me over the food. 'They want to invest in Dandenong. Last week, one of my friends, he bought a house. I said, 'It's very old.' But he said, 'It does not matter because the location is good.''
Perhaps most important is that the state and federal governments embarked on a huge redevelopment program in 2006 to address urban decline and to try to turn Dandenong into a second CBD. Government and private investment totalling more than $1 billion has beautified the suburb's public spaces. The market and town hall have been redeveloped, there's a new theatre, community hub, library and public square, and a new $122.5 million pool is coming soon.
A private developer has been tapped to deliver a $600 million redevelopment, turning a slice of the suburb into a mixed-use development of apartments, retail and businesses – a process that requires demolishing Little India. Unemployment is now down to 6 per cent, only a couple of points higher than the national average.
That redevelopment has been slower than many stakeholders wanted, and remains incomplete. 'But my goodness, I wish we had more – the scale of investment in Dandenong outweighs almost anything else that's been done in Victoria,' says Dr Hayley Henderson, an Australian National University researcher who has studied Dandenong's rebuild. 'We haven't seen a comprehensive revitalisation program like it since.'
And that's the story of Dandenong, really. One of rebuilding, one of striving for something better.
Aman Najimi has lived in Dandenong for 25 years and runs the Sadaqat Halal Butcher on Thomas Street for 18. 'When we first came to this street, it was only one shop,' he says from behind the meat counter. 'People were scared to walk in this street. But now … all the shops are open. Since Afghan people came to this street, to Dandenong, everything has been good.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sydney Morning Herald
21 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Big business quick to veto productivity tax reform
Well, you can forget about Treasurer Jim Chalmers' three-day roundtable discussions leading to any improvement in the economy's productivity and growth, let alone getting the budget back under control. Late last week, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) persuaded all of Canberra's many other business lobby groups to join it in rejecting out of hand the Productivity Commission's proposal for reform of the company tax system which, the commission argued, would increase businesses' incentive to invest more in productivity-enhancing plant and equipment, without any net reduction in company tax collections. The proposal is for the rate of company tax to be cut for all but our biggest 500 companies, while introducing a 5 per cent tax on the net cash flow of all companies. The join statement by 24 business lobby groups says that 'while some businesses may benefit under the proposal, it risks all Australian consumers and businesses paying more for the things they buy every day – groceries, fuel and other daily essentials'. Get it? This is the lobbyists' oldest trick: 'We're not concerned about what the tax change would do to our profits, dear reader, we're just worried about what it would do you and your pocket. It's not us we worry about, it's our customers.' Loading Suddenly, their professed concern about the lack of productivity improvement and slow growth is out the window, and now it's the cost of living they're deeply worried about. They've been urging governments to increase the GST for years, but now they don't want higher prices. Yeah, sure. Bet you didn't know there are as many as 24 different business lobby groups in the capital. Their role is to advance the narrowly defined interests of their paying clients back in the rest of Oz by means fair or foul. They're not paid to help the government reach a deal we can all live with, nor to suggest that their clients worry about anything other than their own immediate interests. Canberra calls this lobbying. Economists call it rent-seeking. You press the government for special deals at the expense of someone else, while ensuring you contribute as little as possible. This, apparently, is the way democracy is meant to work.

The Age
21 minutes ago
- The Age
Big business quick to veto productivity tax reform
Well, you can forget about Treasurer Jim Chalmers' three-day roundtable discussions leading to any improvement in the economy's productivity and growth, let alone getting the budget back under control. Late last week, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) persuaded all of Canberra's many other business lobby groups to join it in rejecting out of hand the Productivity Commission's proposal for reform of the company tax system which, the commission argued, would increase businesses' incentive to invest more in productivity-enhancing plant and equipment, without any net reduction in company tax collections. The proposal is for the rate of company tax to be cut for all but our biggest 500 companies, while introducing a 5 per cent tax on the net cash flow of all companies. The join statement by 24 business lobby groups says that 'while some businesses may benefit under the proposal, it risks all Australian consumers and businesses paying more for the things they buy every day – groceries, fuel and other daily essentials'. Get it? This is the lobbyists' oldest trick: 'We're not concerned about what the tax change would do to our profits, dear reader, we're just worried about what it would do you and your pocket. It's not us we worry about, it's our customers.' Loading Suddenly, their professed concern about the lack of productivity improvement and slow growth is out the window, and now it's the cost of living they're deeply worried about. They've been urging governments to increase the GST for years, but now they don't want higher prices. Yeah, sure. Bet you didn't know there are as many as 24 different business lobby groups in the capital. Their role is to advance the narrowly defined interests of their paying clients back in the rest of Oz by means fair or foul. They're not paid to help the government reach a deal we can all live with, nor to suggest that their clients worry about anything other than their own immediate interests. Canberra calls this lobbying. Economists call it rent-seeking. You press the government for special deals at the expense of someone else, while ensuring you contribute as little as possible. This, apparently, is the way democracy is meant to work.

Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.