About the Research
Economic, social and civic contributions of first and second
generation humanitarian entrants
National Centre for Social Applications of Geographical
Information Systems, University of Adelaide
People who arrive under Australia’s Humanitarian Program display considerable personal
courage, often having overcome extraordinary hardship and traumatic situations. While
there are costs involved in resettling refugees, they bring significant benefits to Australia.
This research therefore seeks to answer the question: what are the economic, social and
civic contributions to Australia of first and second generation Humanitarian Program
entrants? It involves analysis of Census data, interviews with families and in-depth
discussions with organisations such as employment, education and refugee service providers.
Key messages
The research found the overwhelming picture, when one takes the longer term perspective
of changes over the working lifetime of Humanitarian Program entrants and their children, is
one of considerable achievement and contribution.
The Humanitarian Program yields a demographic dividend because of a low rate of settler
loss, relatively high fertility rate and a high proportion of children who are likely to work the
majority of their lives in Australia. It finds evidence of increasing settlement in nonmetropolitan areas which creates social and economic benefits for local communities.
Humanitarian entrants help meet labour shortages, including in low skill and low paid
occupations. They display strong entrepreneurial qualities compared with other migrant
groups, with a higher than average proportion engaging in small and medium business
enterprises.
Humanitarian settlers also benefit the wider community through developing and maintaining
economic linkages with their origin countries. In addition, they make significant
contributions through volunteering in both the wider community and within their own
community groups.
The research provides valuable insight for all organisations that assist with and plan for the
settlement of Humanitarian Program entrants and seek to enhance their contributions to
Australian society.
Policy Innovation, Research and Evaluation Unit
June 2011
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CIVIC
CONTRIBUTIONS OF FIRST AND
SECOND GENERATION
HUMANITARIAN ENTRANTS
by
Graeme Hugo
ARC Australian Professorial Fellow,
Professor of Geography
and Director of the National Centre for
Social Applications of GIS,
The University of Adelaide
with the assistance of Sanjugta Vas Dev,
Janet Wall, Margaret Young, Vigya Sharma and Kelly Parker
Final Report to Department of Immigration and Citizenship
May 2011
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ xiii
GLOSSARY
................................................................................................................ xvii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ xx
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ xxi
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1
1.2
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................ 3
1.3
AUSTRALIA’S REFUGEE-HUMANITARIAN MIGRATION
PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 4
1.4
DATA CONSIDERATIONS: SECONDARY DATA ................................... 12
1.4.1
Introduction........................................................................................ 12
1.4.2
The Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups Approach ................ 13
1.4.3
The Second Generation...................................................................... 18
1.4.4
Linked Census and Settlement Data Bases........................................ 23
1.4.5
The Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants in Australia (LSIA) ........... 25
1.4.6
The Australian Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics
of Recent Migrants Survey ................................................................ 29
1.4.7
1.5
Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals Study ..................................... 30
PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION ................................................................. 30
1.5.1
Introduction........................................................................................ 30
1.5.2
Survey of Households ........................................................................ 32
ii
1.5.3
Limitations of the Survey................................................................... 35
1.5.4
Qualitative Studies ............................................................................. 38
1.6
MODELS OF MIGRANT INCORPORATION .............................................. 40
1.7
OUTLINE OF REPORT .................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 2.
THE DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACT OF REFUGEE-
HUMANITARIAN MIGRATION............................................................................ 44
2.1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 44
2.2
TRENDS IN REFUGEE-HUMANITARIAN MIGRATION TO
AUSTRALIA ................................................................................................... 45
2.3
THE AGE STRUCTURE OF THE REFUGEE-HUMANITARIAN
POPULATION................................................................................................. 61
2.4
GENDER COMPOSITION ............................................................................. 73
2.5
FERTILITY...................................................................................................... 75
2.6
SETTLER LOSS .............................................................................................. 79
2.7
THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF REFUGEE-HUMANITARIAN
SETTLERS....................................................................................................... 82
2.8
2.7.1
Introduction........................................................................................ 82
2.7.2
Interstate Settlement........................................................................... 87
2.7.3
Metropolitan vs Non-Metropolitan Settlement.................................. 92
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 98
CHAPTER 3.
LABOUR FORCE ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION....... 100
3.1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 100
3.2
LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION .......................................................... 103
3.2.1
The Longitudinal Survey of Immigration in Australia (LSIA)........ 103
3.2.2
Labour Force Participation at the 2006 Census ............................... 107
iii
3.2.3
Labour Force Participation Among the Second Generation ............ 110
3.2.4
Labour Force Participation According to Length of Residence
in Australia....................................................................................... 113
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.2.5
Gender Differentials......................................................................... 115
3.2.6
Labour Force Participation – Survey Evidence ............................... 118
UNEMPLOYMENT ...................................................................................... 121
3.3.1
Introduction...................................................................................... 121
3.3.2
Unemployment of Humanitarian Settlers at the 2006 Census ......... 123
3.3.3
Other Studies of Unemployment Among Humanitarian Settlers .... 125
ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH.................................................................. 127
3.4.1
Introduction...................................................................................... 127
3.4.2
Ability to Speak English at the 2006 Census................................... 130
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND .............................................................. 135
3.5.1
Introduction...................................................................................... 135
3.5.2
2006 Census Data on Educational Achievement of
Humanitarian Settlers....................................................................... 138
3.5.3
3.6
3.7
OCCUPATION AND INDUSTRY ............................................................... 145
3.6.1
Introduction...................................................................................... 145
3.6.2
Findings from the 2006 Population Census ..................................... 145
3.6.3
Evidence of Occupational Skidding................................................. 148
3.6.4
Industry ............................................................................................ 150
INCOME ........................................................................................................ 152
3.7.1
3.8
Current Education Attendance......................................................... 143
Introduction...................................................................................... 152
HOUSING ...................................................................................................... 156
iv
3.9
THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS (GFC) ................ 159
3.10
DISCUSSION OF HUMANITARIAN PARTICIPATION IN THE
LABOUR MARKET...................................................................................... 161
3.11
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 171
CHAPTER 4.
REFUGEE-HUMANITARIAN SETTLERS’ ECONOMIC
CONTRIBUTION BEYOND LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION ............... 173
4.1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 173
4.2
HUMANITARIAN SETTLERS AS ENTREPRENEURS............................ 173
4.3
DO HUMANITARIAN SETTLERS FILL PARTICULAR
EMPLOYMENT NICHES? ........................................................................... 193
4.4
4.5
ECONOMIC LINKAGES WITH ORIGIN COUNTRIES............................ 200
4.4.1
Development Effects on Origin Countries....................................... 200
4.4.2
Fostering Trade ................................................................................ 210
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 213
CHAPTER 5.
THE SOCIAL AND CIVIC CONTRIBUTION OF
AUSTRALIA’S HUMANITARIAN SETTLERS ................................................. 215
5.1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 215
5.2
VOLUNTEERING......................................................................................... 215
5.3
COMMUNITY GROUPS CONTRIBUTING TO COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 224
5.4
PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THE WIDER
COMMUNITY............................................................................................... 229
5.5
BARRIERS TO SOCIAL PARTICIPATION ............................................... 242
5.6
SATISFACTION WITH LIFE IN AUSTRALIA.......................................... 244
5.7
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 248
v
CHAPTER 6.
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................... 249
6.1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 249
6.2
THE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION........................................................... 250
6.3
SOCIAL AND CIVIC CONTRIBUTION ..................................................... 255
6.4
THE IMPORTANCE OF A LONGER TERM PERSPECTIVE................... 256
6.5
POSITIVE RECEPTION AND RESETTLEMENT AS A
FOUNDATION FOR CONTRIBUTION ...................................................... 257
6.6
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 262
APPENDIX I: INSTRUCTION PROVIDED TO ORGANISATIONS AND
RESPONDENTS ...................................................................................................... 264
APPENDIX II: THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................... 274
APPENDIX III: OFFICIAL KEY INFORMANTS....................................................... 298
APPENDIX IV: HUMANITARIAN VISAS .................................................................. 301
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 302
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1:
Australian Immigration Program: Planning Levels 2005-11 and
Outcomes 2005-09 by Migration Program Category....................................... 7
Table 1.2:
Australia: Humanitarian Program Outcomes: Visas Granted, 1994-95
to 2008-09 ...................................................................................................... 10
Table 1.3:
Generation Structure of Australian Immigrant Groups Developed by
Price (1955, 1963).......................................................................................... 19
Table 1.4:
Modified Generation Structure Classification Developed by Price
(1979, 1982)................................................................................................... 19
Table 1.5:
Variables Used to Link SDB and Census Files for Gold and Bronze
Standards........................................................................................................ 24
Table 1.6:
Number of SDB Records Available for Linking and the Numbers
Linked for Gold Standard and Each Level of Bronze Standard .................... 24
Table 1.7:
Relative Frequencies (Percent) in Each English Proficiency Category,
for Gold and Bronze Standard Linked Data Compared with SDB................ 25
Table 1.8:
LSIA: Response and Non-Response in Wave 1 ........................................... 28
Table 1.9:
LSIA: Cohort 1: Primary Applicants in Wave 1 by Interview Status in
Waves 2 and 3................................................................................................ 29
Table 1.10:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey, 2009-10: Respondents by
State................................................................................................................ 37
Table 2.1:
Australia: Number of Persons Born in a Country Which Has Sent
Significant Numbers of Refugees to Australia and Australia-Born
Persons Indicating Their Ancestry was in One of These Countries,
2006................................................................................................................ 55
Table 2.2:
Australia: Selected Refugee Groups by Country of Birth, 2001-08 ............. 59
Table 2.3:
Ancestry Multi Response: Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups,
1986, 2001 and 2006...................................................................................... 60
vii
Table 2.4:
Australia: Visa Category by Mean and Median Age, 2003-04 to 200809.................................................................................................................... 63
Table 2.5:
Australia: Settler Arrivals by Visa Category, 2003-04 to 2008-09 .............. 63
Table 2.6:
Australia: Birthplace and Ancestry, Percent 0-14, Percent 65+, Percent
75+ and Median Age, 2006............................................................................ 72
Table 2.7:
Australia: Sex Ratios by Visa Category, 2003-04 to 2008-09...................... 73
Table 2.8:
Australia: Refugee-Humanitarian Groups, First and Second Generation
Sex Ratios, 2006 ............................................................................................ 74
Table 2.9:
Australia: Total Fertility Rate of Selected Birthplace Groups, 2008............ 75
Table 2.10:
Australia: Humanitarian Birthplace Groups by Settler Arrivals and
Permanent Departures, 1991-92 to 2008-09 .................................................. 81
Table 2.11:
Australia: Indices of Dissimilarity for Selected Refugee Birthplace
Groups, 2006.................................................................................................. 85
Table 2.12:
Australia Major Capital Cities: Index of Dissimilarity, 2006....................... 86
Table 2.13:
Australian States and Territories: Percentage Distribution of the
Population by Birthplace and Overseas-Born Arriving in the Last Five
Years, 2001 and 2006 .................................................................................... 87
Table 2.14:
Australian States and Territories: Natural Increase, Net Overseas
Migration, Net Interstate Migration and Total Population Growth,
Financial Years, 2001-06 ............................................................................... 89
Table 2.15:
Australian Settler Arrivals: Visa Category by State/Territory of
Intended Residence, 2003-09......................................................................... 90
Table 2.16:
Australian States: Percentage of Population Made Up of First and
Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups, 2006........... 93
Table 2.17:
Australia: Birthplace Groups With the Highest Concentration in Major
Cities, 2006 .................................................................................................... 93
Table 2.18:
Regional Refugee Settlements ....................................................................... 98
Table 3.1:
Labour Force Participation Rate and Unemployment by Visa Category
(Percent)....................................................................................................... 104
viii
Table 3.2:
Australian Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups, First and Second
Generation: Labour Force Participation and Unemployment, 2006........... 109
Table 3.3:
Australia: Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups – People Who
Arrived Aged 12 Years and Above and Those Aged Less Than 12
Years: Labour Force Participation and Unemployment, 2006 .................... 112
Table 3.4:
Australia: Country of Birth by Year of Arrival in Australia by Labour
Force Status, 2006........................................................................................ 114
Table 3.5:
Country of Birth of Person by Sex and Labour Force Status, 2006 ............ 116
Table 3.6:
Australia-Born, Ancestry Multi-Response by Sex and Labour Force
Status............................................................................................................ 117
Table 3.7:
Australia: Labour Force Participation Rates for Immigrants by Visa
Category, 1970-2007.................................................................................... 118
Table 3.8:
DIAC Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals Study (SONA) and HSS:
Work Status by Visa Category, 2009........................................................... 119
Table 3.9:
Summary Statistics for Humanitarian Program Migrants, by Period of
Residency..................................................................................................... 120
Table 3.10:
DIAC Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals Study (SONA):
Satisfaction with Job by Visa Category, 2009 (Percent of those
working)....................................................................................................... 120
Table 3.11:
Unemployment Rates of Immigrants by Year of Arrival, Visa Group
and Age Group, 2004................................................................................... 122
Table 3.12:
Australia: Unemployment Rate of Refugee-Humanitarian Migrants,
1993-2007 .................................................................................................... 122
Table 3.13:
Visa Type of Arrivals 2001-06 by Labour Force Status in 2006:
Proportion (Percent) of All migrants Aged Over 15 Years ......................... 124
Table 3.14:
Australia: Unemployment Rates for Immigrants by Visa Category,
1970-2007 .................................................................................................... 125
Table 3.15:
Unemployment Rates, Canterbury Local Government Area, 1991 and
1996 by Language and Birthplace ............................................................... 126
ix
Table 3.16:
Visa Type of Settler Arrivals, 2001-06 by English Proficiency in 2006:
Proportion (Percent) of All Migrants Aged Over 15 Years......................... 128
Table 3.17:
Summary Statistics for Humanitarian Program Migrants, by Period of
Residency..................................................................................................... 129
Table 3.18:
Humanitarian Settlement Survey: How Settlers Got Their First job in
Australia, 2009............................................................................................. 129
Table 3.19:
Australian Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups, First and Second
Generation: Ability to Speak English, 2006 ............................................... 131
Table 3.20:
Vietnam-Born and Year of Arrival in Australia by Labour Force
Status, 2006.................................................................................................. 132
Table 3.21:
First Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Groups: Proficiency in Spoken
English by Labour Force Status, 2006......................................................... 133
Table 3.22:
Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Groups: Proficiency in
Spoken English by Labour Force Status, 2006............................................ 134
Table 3.23:
Visa Type of Settler Arrivals, 2001-06 by Post-School Qualification in
2006: Proportion (Percent) of All Migrants Aged Over 15 Years.............. 136
Table 3.24:
Australia: First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian
Birthplace Groups and Australia-Born Unemployment Rate and
Labour Force Participation Rate by Level of Education, 2006 ................... 138
Table 3.25:
First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Groups: PostSchool Qualification, Age 20+ Population, 2006 ........................................ 140
Table 3.26:
First and Second Generations Still Attending Education by Age, 2006...... 144
Table 3.27:
Visa Type of Settler Arrivals, 2001-06 by Occupation in 2006:
Proportion (Percent) of All Migrants Aged Over 15 Years......................... 146
Table 3.28:
Australia: First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
– Percent of Labour Force in Professional and Unskilled Occupations,
2006.............................................................................................................. 147
x
Table 3.29:
Australia: First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian
Birthplace Groups Percent of Workers with Bachelor or Higher
Qualifications in Managerial or Professional Occupations, 2006 ............... 149
Table 3.30:
Australia: First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian
Birthplace Groups Percent of Workers Employed in Manufacturing,
2006.............................................................................................................. 151
Table 3.31:
Visa Type of Settler Arrivals, 2001-06 by Individual Income (Weekly)
in 2006: Proportion (Percent) of All Migrants Aged Over 15 Years.......... 153
Table 3.32:
Australia: First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian
Birthplace Groups Gross Weekly Individual Income, 2006........................ 155
Table 3.33:
Visa Type of Settler Arrivals, 2001-06 by Tenure of House in 2006:
Proportion (Percent) of All Migrants Aged Over 15 Years......................... 157
Table 3.34:
Australia: Percentage of First and Second Generation RefugeeHumanitarian Birthplace Groups Who Own Or Are Purchasing Their
Own Home, 2006 ......................................................................................... 158
Table 3.35:
Barriers to Employment for Refugees as Identified by Key Informants ..... 164
Table 4.1:
Australia: Small Business Operators by Birthplace, 2004.......................... 175
Table 4.2:
Australia: Australia-Born and First and Second Generation RefugeeHumanitarian Birthplace Groups, Percent Owner/Managers, 2006 ............ 176
Table 4.3:
Recently Arrived Settlers: Percent Who Are Running Their Own
Business or Setting up a Business, 2009...................................................... 179
Table 4.4:
Australia: Australia-Born and First and Second Generation RefugeeHumanitarian Birthplace Groups, Percent Owner/Managers by Sex,
2006.............................................................................................................. 185
Table 4.5:
South Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Labour Force Status of
Settlers Before Migration, 2009 (N=252).................................................... 188
Table 4.6:
Australia: First and Second Generation by Percent Employment Type,
2006.............................................................................................................. 190
xi
Table 4.7:
National Policies for Regional Dispersal of Asylum Seekers and
Refugees....................................................................................................... 198
Table 4.8:
Australia: Remittances Sent to Relatives by Immigrants According to
Visa Category of Arrival.............................................................................. 203
Table 4.9:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Frequency and Amount of
Remittances Sent.......................................................................................... 204
Table 4.10:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Monthly Household Income
According to Whether They Provide Financial Assistance to Others ......... 204
Table 5.1:
Percent of Australia-Born, First and Second Generation Humanitarian
Settlers Who Are Volunteers by Age........................................................... 220
Table 5.2:
Immigrant Settlers Arriving Between 2001-06: Percent who Engage in
Volunteering Work by Visa Type, 2006...................................................... 221
Table 5.3:
Australia: First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Settler
Birthplace Groups: Percent Who Do Voluntary Work for an
Organisation or Group, 2006 ....................................................................... 222
Table 5.4:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Volunteering.............................. 224
Table 5.5:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Description of Networks
Within Their Ethnic Community ................................................................. 226
Table 5.6:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Assistance Given to Others in
Their Ethnic Community ............................................................................. 227
Table 5.7:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Participation in Ethnic
Community Activity .................................................................................... 228
Table 5.8:
Proportion of Migrants Without Family Members and Close Friends
Already in Australia, 2010........................................................................... 228
Table 5.9:
Degree of Connection to Local Community Among Recent Arrivals by
Visa Category, 2009..................................................................................... 229
Table 5.10:
Recent Arrivals to Australia: Have You Been Treated Well Since
Coming to Australia?, By Visa Category .................................................... 230
xii
Table 5.11:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Description of Local
Neighbourhood Social Networks................................................................. 230
Table 5.12:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Do You Feel a Part of Your
Local Neighbourhood?................................................................................. 231
Table 5.13:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Do You Feel Part of the
Mainstream of Australian Social and Cultural Life? ................................... 232
Table 5.14:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Types of Assistance Given to
Neighbours................................................................................................... 233
Table 5.15:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Activities Participated in
Within Local Neighbourhood ...................................................................... 233
Table 5.16:
Activities Engaged in by Recently Arrived Migrants, by Visa Category.... 234
Table 5.17:
Adelaide Humanitarian Migrants: Where the Migrants Meet Their
Friends (n=255)........................................................................................... 237
Table 5.18:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Participation/Membership of
Community Groups...................................................................................... 240
Table 5.19:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Involvement in Specific
Civic Roles................................................................................................... 240
Table 5.20:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Involvement in Civic and
Political Activity Since Being in Australia.................................................. 242
Table 5.21:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Answers to Question ‘I am
Happy With My Life in Australia’............................................................... 245
Table 5.22:
Level of Comfort With Living in Australia by Visa Category (Percent) .... 246
Table 5.23:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Percent Who Value Particular
Characteristics of Their Living Situation..................................................... 246
Table 5.24:
Level of Confidence About the Future by Visa Category (Percent)............ 247
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1:
Refugees Entered and Resettled per 1,000 Population in Major
Countries, 1996-2009....................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2:
Top Immigration Countries, 2010.................................................................... 5
Figure 1.3:
Australia: Humanitarian Program Offshore Arrivals, 1976-2009 .................. 6
Figure 1.4:
Refugee and Humanitarian Arrivals to Australia by Region of Birth,
1977-78 to 2008-09.......................................................................................... 8
Figure 1.5:
Australia: Unauthorised Arrivals, 1989-90 to 2010-11 .................................. 9
Figure 1.6:
Onshore Refugee and Humanitarian Arrivals by Region of Birth, 200203 to 2008-09 ................................................................................................. 10
Figure 1.7:
Australia: Migration Program Outcome by Stream and non-Program
Migration, 1976-77 to 2008-09...................................................................... 11
Figure 1.8:
Distribution of Origin Birthplace Countries of Refugee Migrants to
Australia, 2006............................................................................................... 16
Figure 1.9:
Distribution of Origin Ancestry Countries of Refugee Migrants to
Australia, 2006............................................................................................... 16
Figure 1.10:
Developing the LSIA Sampling Frame for the First Six Month
Segment for the First Interview of the First Wave ........................................ 27
Figure 1.11:
Data of Collection Strategy............................................................................ 31
Figure 1.12:
Australian Humanitarian Settlement Survey: Age-Sex Structure of
Respondents, 2009-10.................................................................................... 37
Figure 1.13:
Estimates of the Contribution of Population, Participation and
Productivity to Economic Growth in Australia Over the Past 40 Years
and Projected Over the Next 40 Years........................................................... 42
Figure 2.1:
Waves of Refugees to Australia Since 1945.................................................. 48
Figure 2.2:
Refugee and Humanitarian Program and All Indo Chinese Settlers
Arriving in Australia, 1974-2009................................................................... 57
xiv
Figure 2.3:
Australia: Age-Sex Structure of Refugee-Humanitarian Migrants,
2003-04 to 2008-09 and Total Australian Population, 2006.......................... 62
Figure 2.4:
Australia: Age-Sex Structure of Refugee-Humanitarian and Total
Migrant Intake, 2003-04 to 2008-09.............................................................. 62
Figure 2.5:
Age-Sex Structure All Refugee Birthplace Groups, Australia-Born in
Refugee Ancestry Groups, Refugee Groups Who Arrived Aged <12
Years and 12+ Years...................................................................................... 65
Figure 2.6:
Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Vietnam-Born and Australia-Born
with Vietnamese Ancestry, 2006 ................................................................... 67
Figure 2.7:
Australia: Percentage Age-Sex Distribution of Vietnam-Born and
Total Population, 1987................................................................................... 68
Figure 2.8:
Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Bosnia and Herzegovina-Born and
Bosnian Ancestry, 2006 ................................................................................. 69
Figure 2.9:
Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Croatia-Born and Croatian
Ancestry, 2006 ............................................................................................... 69
Figure 2.10:
Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Lebanon-Born and Lebanese
Ancestry, 2006 ............................................................................................... 70
Figure 2.11:
Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Afghanistan-Born and Afghan
Ancestry, 2006 ............................................................................................... 70
Figure 2.12:
Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Ethiopia-Born and Australia-Born
with Ethiopian Ancestry, 2006 ...................................................................... 71
Figure 2.13:
Australia: Average Number of Children by Age of Mother for
Australia, Lebanon, Vietnam, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cambodia
Birthplace Groups, 2006 ................................................................................ 77
Figure 2.14:
Australia: Average Number of Children by Age of Mother for
Australia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran Birthplace Groups, 2006 .................... 78
Figure 2.15:
Australia: Average Number of Children by Age of Mother for
Australia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Sierra Leone, Liberia,
Congo, Burundi Birthplace Groups, 2006 ..................................................... 79
xv
Figure 2.16:
Australia: Distribution of Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Migrants,
2006................................................................................................................ 88
Figure 2.17:
Australia: Distribution of Refugee-Humanitarian Ancestry Migrants,
2006................................................................................................................ 88
Figure 2.18:
South Australian Settler Arrivals: Percentage of National
Humanitarian and Non-Humanitarian Intake, 1996-2009 ............................. 91
Figure 2.19:
Australia: Estimated Net Rest of State1 Migration, 2001-06........................ 95
Figure 2.20:
Australia: Settlement of Refugee-Humanitarian Settlers Outside
Capital Cities, 1996-2009 .............................................................................. 97
Figure 3.1:
The Economic Impact of Immigration......................................................... 101
Figure 3.2:
Labour Force Participation Rate 18 Months After Migration, by
Gender and Visa Category ........................................................................... 105
Figure 3.3:
Unemployment Rate 18 Months After Migration, by Gender and Visa
Category....................................................................................................... 105
Figure 3.4:
Australia: Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups, First and Second
Generation and Australia-Born Labour Force Status, 2006......................... 111
Figure 3.5:
Migrants’ Proficiency in Spoken English, 2006 .......................................... 128
Figure 3.6:
Australia: Speaks English Well or Very Well by Employment Type,
Unemployed and Participation Rate for First, Second Generation and
Australia-Born, 2006.................................................................................... 135
Figure 3.7:
Highest Year of School Completed by Migrants, 15 Years and Over,
2006.............................................................................................................. 136
Figure 3.8:
Non-School Qualifications of Migrants by Visa Type, 15 Years and
Over, 2006.................................................................................................... 137
Figure 3.9:
Australia: Percent Unemployed by First, Second Generation and
Australia-Born and Qualifications, 2006 ..................................................... 142
Figure 3.10:
Australia: Participation Rate by First, Second Generation and
Australia-Born and Qualifications, 2006 ..................................................... 142
Figure 3.11:
Occupation of Employed Migrants, 15 Years and Over, 2006.................... 153
xvi
Figure 3.12:
Australia: Unemployment Rate of the Population by Birthplace, April
2001 to March 2010 ..................................................................................... 159
Figure 3.13:
Australia: Unemployment Rate of the Overseas-Born by Region of
Birth, April 2001 to March 2010 ................................................................. 160
Figure 4.1:
Global Formal Remittance Flows, 1990-2009............................................. 201
Figure 4.2:
Australia: Outflows of Remittances in US$ Millions, 1970-2008.............. 202
Figure 5.1:
Australia-Born, Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups First and Second
Generation: Percent Who Are Volunteers, 2006 ........................................ 219
Figure 5.2:
Adelaide Humanitarian Migrants’ Social Situation, 2009 (n=252) ............ 237
xvii
GLOSSARY
AABC
Australia Africa Business Council
ABS
The Australian Bureau of Statistics
AHSS
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey
APIC
Australian Population and Immigration Council
ASIC
Australian Securities and Investment Commission
AusAID
Australian Agency for International Development
AUSTRADE
Australian Government Trade Commission
CALD
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
CCS
Complex Case Support
CITSA
Council for International Trade and Commerce South Australia
DEEWR
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
DFID
Department for International Development
DIAC
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
DIMIA
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
doi moi
Economic Revolution
DP
Displaced Person
ESL
English as a Second Language
xviii
FDI
Foreign Direct Investment
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GFC
Global Financial Crisis
HIV/AIDS
Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
HSC
Higher School Certificate
ID
Index of Dissimilarity
IES
International Education Service
IGR
Intergenerational Report
IHSS
Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Services
LGA
Local Government Area
LOTE
Language Other Than English
LSIA
Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia
MBA
Master of Business Administration
MES
Mainly English Speaking
MPI
Migration Population Institute
MRC
Migrant Resource Centre
NEIS
New Enterprise Incentive Scheme
NES
Non-English Speaking
xix
NESB
Non-English Speaking Background
NGO
Non-Government Organisation
OAM
Medal of the Order of Australia
OECD
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PPV
Permanent Protection Visa
RCOA
Refugee Council of Australia
SCOA
Settlement Council of Australia
SDB
Settlement Data Base
SGP
Settlement Grants Program
SLA
Statistical Local Area
SOMTA
Somali Money Transferring Association
SONA
Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals Study
SSRM
State Specific and Regional Migration
TAFE
Technical and Further Education
TFR
Total Fertility Rate
TPV
Temporary Protection Visa
UNHCR
United Nations Higher Commissioner for Refugees
WAMMCO
Western Australian Meat Marketing Corporation
xx
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many organisations and individuals assisted the author with the undertaking of the present
study and we express our heartfelt thanks to all of them. Thank you to the Settlement
Council of Australia (SCOA) for promoting this research to its members. Andrew Cummings,
Executive Officer of SCOA worked extensively and voluntarily to recruit Migrant Resource
Centres and Settlement Agencies from across the country to assist in facilitating the
Humanitarian Entrants’ Questionnaire.
We would also like to express our appreciation to
Ms. Eugenia Tsoulis of the Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia.
The following organisations are acknowledged for facilitating the Humanitarian Survey
Questionnaire within their respective states. They were critical in recruiting participants and
ensuring that surveys were completed in a timely and accurate manner.
•
South Australia: The Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia; Australian
Refugee Association; Vietnamese Community in Australia (South Australian
chapter)
•
Queensland: Multicultural Development Association; ACESS Services Inc. Logan;
Multilink Community Services Inc.
•
Victoria: AMES; Spectrum Migrant Resource Centre; Migrant Information Centre
(East Melbourne)
•
Western Australia: Multicultural Services Centre of W.A; Metropolitan Migrant
Resource Centre Inc; The Edmund Rice Centre Mirrabooka; Fremantle
Multicultural Centre Inc.
•
New South Wales: Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre; Metro Migrant Resource
Centre
We would also like to acknowledge the great assistance and support from the staff of the
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, especially Ms. Lyn Hearfield. The support and
assistance of Ms. Vanessa Koufomanolis of Australian Survey Research is also very
gratefully acknowledged.
xxi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The displacement of people as a result of persecution is one of the world’s most persistent
and pressing issues. Australia has been one of the few countries in the world which has
accepted substantial numbers of refugees for resettlement – more than 700,000 thus far. In
Australia humanitarian migration is an important and continuing element in national political
discourse. Part of this discussion centres around the issue of the costs and benefits of refugee
resettlement for the Australian economy and society. By definition, refugees are persons who
have left their homes unwillingly, have not planned their migration and have been unable to
bring resources with them in their migration. Inevitably there must be greater costs involved
in their resettlement than is the case for other immigrants. Against the considerable costs
involved in resettling refugees, however, too often there is no attempt to consider the benefits
that refugee resettlement bring to Australia.
The prime motivation for the refugee-
humanitarian program has always been a humanitarian one with Australia accepting its
responsibility as an international citizen and a signatory to the 1951 United Nations
Convention for the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees. Nevertheless this report demonstrates, using careful analysis of secondary and
primary data, that humanitarian settlers have also made important contributions to Australia’s
economic and social development.
Assessing the contribution of refugee-humanitarian settlers is rendered difficult because
migrants’ visa categories are not included in most standard data collections. However, this
study demonstrates statistically that the countries of origin of refugee-humanitarian settlers in
Australia and those of skilled migrants is almost totally different so that census data relating
to those countries of birth are strongly representative of humanitarian settlers.
A
methodology is thus developed to investigate the characteristics of first and second
generation settlers from census data. In addition, data from a number of national samples
which identify refugee-humanitarian settlers separately are analysed. However, it was also
deemed essential to carry out a substantial primary data collection exercise. This involved a
questionnaire survey of over 600 refugee-humanitarian settlers and a large number of
in-depth qualitative interviews with humanitarian settlers, as well as a range of key
stakeholders.
xxii
The first chapter of the report presents the aims of the study, analyses the main trends in
humanitarian migration to Australia and discusses in some detail the sources of data and
methods employed. The findings regarding the contribution of humanitarian settlers are
presented in four chapters, each dealing with a separate domain where it is argued these
settlers have made significant economic, social and civic contributions. These domains are
partly built around the Department of Treasury’s Intergenerational Report which argues that
Australia’s future economic prosperity in the face of an ageing population will be strongly
influenced by developments in the ‘three Ps’ – Population, Participation and Productivity.
Accordingly, Chapter 2 considers the impact of humanitarian settlement on Australia’s
demography, Chapter 3 focuses on their participation in the workforce and Chapter 4 on their
wider contribution to the Australian economy. Chapter 5, however, shifts the focus on their
social engagement in the Australian community.
Since the Refugee and Humanitarian visa category was given a separate identity in 1978,
some 438,000 refugee-humanitarian settlers have arrived in Australia. At the 2006 Census
over a million Australians were either born in a country which has sent significant numbers
of refugees to Australia or were Australia-born with an ancestry in one of those countries.
However, the study shows that there are a number of distinctive aspects to the ‘population’
contribution of humanitarian settlement in Australia:
•
Refugee-humanitarian settlers are younger than other migrant groups and a high
proportion is made up of children who will spend all of their working lives in
Australia offsetting the effects of an ageing workforce and delivering a
‘demographic dividend’.
•
Fertility levels vary between different groups but on average they have higher
levels of childbearing than Australia-born women.
•
Refugee-humanitarian settlers have substantially lower ‘settler loss’ rates than other
migrant groups. They are more likely than other groups to spend their entire life
and raise their families in Australia.
•
There are some indications that refugee-humanitarian settlers are increasingly
settling in regional Australia in areas where development is being impeded by a
lack of labour and service provision is threatened by declining resident populations.
xxiii
A major discussion of the assessment of the economic contribution of humanitarian settlers is
their participation in the workforce and this is assessed in Chapter 3. Undoubtedly, in the
early years of settlement humanitarian settlers experience higher unemployment and lower
workforce participation than other migrants. This is a function of them on average having
less English language ability, less educational experience, different forms of family support,
less pre-migration preparation, poorer physical and mental health and greater difficulty in
having their qualifications and experience recognised. It is argued here that it is necessary to
take a longer time perspective than the initial years of settlement when assessing the
workforce engagement of humanitarian settlers than for other migrants because of the fact
that the circumstances of their migration make them conceptually different to other migrants.
Nevertheless, it is demonstrated that:
•
The levels of unemployment and participation rates converge toward those of the
Australia-born with increased residence in Australia.
•
The second generation has much higher levels of labour force engagement than the
first generation and in many cases the level is higher than for second generation
Australians.
•
English language ability is an especially important barrier to labour market
engagement among humanitarian settlers and access to English language training
has an important impact in enhancing their ability to participate in the labour
market.
•
Humanitarian settlers have a lower proportion with post-school education than
other migrants - 47 per cent had completed Year 12 or equivalent and over 20 per
cent had a post-school qualification. Nevertheless there is substantial human
capital embodied in this group and it belies the perception of them being unskilled.
•
There is evidence of ‘occupational skidding’ among humanitarian arrivals whereby
arrivals do not get jobs commensurate with their qualifications which means that
their skills are not currently being fully utilised.
•
The proportion of recent refugee arrivals aged between 15 and 24 attending an
educational institution is higher than for other migrants and the Australia-born.
Humanitarian settlers on average place high store on education for their children.
xxiv
•
There is evidence of occupational segmentation amongst humanitarian settlers with
a third of recent arrivals being in unskilled jobs, three times the rate of other
arrivals. However, there is clear evidence of occupational mobility over time and
across generations. There also is concern, however, for some who are trapped in
low income jobs in secondary labour market niches.
•
Humanitarian settlers suffered more in the recent global financial crisis than the
Australia-born and other migrants in terms of an increase in unemployment levels.
The labour market experience of humanitarian settlers has been a mixed one. On the one
hand, there is strong evidence presented here regarding significant upward mobility with
length of residence in Australia and between generations. On the other hand, there is also
evidence of some groups being trapped in low income occupations. There can be no doubt
that for many humanitarian settlers initial penetration of the labour market involves
downward mobility or deskilling, and that some are not able to break out of this situation.
There is concern that after controlling for a range of factors such as language and education, a
‘refugee gap’ remains and it cannot be doubted that discrimination in the labour market is
still in evidence. Much remains to be done to assist humanitarian settlers to enter the
Australian labour market and to facilitate their upward mobility within it but it is
incontestable that they have made, and are making, a considerable contribution to the
Australian economy through their participation in the labour market.
It is clear that humanitarian migrants are disproportionately concentrated in low income
sectors of the labour market. While fully acknowledging that more needs to be done to
remove discrimination, facilitate recognition of qualifications and experience and give those
settlers an equal chance with other groups to be upwardly mobile, the fact remains that they
are filling important shortages in the labour market which are not being filled by other
migrant groups.
Turning to other economic contributions of humanitarian settlers, Chapter 4 demonstrates that
humanitarian migrants have made, and continue to make, a distinct contribution through their
role as entrepreneurs. Migration is selective of risk takers, people who question the status
quo, recognise and take up opportunities. Indeed it is argued that humanitarian migration
may be more selective of this group than other visa categories of migration to Australia.
Humanitarian settlers have a higher incidence of owning their own business than other
xxv
migrant groups.
The key role that families and ethnic networks play in establishing
businesses amongst humanitarian settlers is discussed. It is argued here that there is a role for
policy and program intervention to facilitate some humanitarian settlers initiating their own
business. It is also demonstrated that humanitarian settlers make increasingly important
contributions to regional development, especially in areas where development is being
constrained by labour shortages. It is argued that humanitarian settlers can play an even more
important role in regional development in the future. In North America and Europe migrants
are settling in increasing numbers outside of gateway cities and facilitating this increasing
trend can be an important element in the increasing focus on regional development in
Australia.
While the focus here is on humanitarian settlers’ economic contribution to Australia, it is also
pointed out that they also have significant effects in their homeland areas.
While the
evidence on remittances from Australia is limited, it would seem that humanitarian settlers
remit more money to their homelands than other migrant groups. The humanitarian diasporas
also play other roles in their home countries which have a positive developmental impact.
Humanitarian settlers contribute to Australia’s development assistance to low income
countries.
While there is a strong emphasis on the economic contribution of humanitarian settlers,
Chapter 5 turns to examining the social impacts which are considerable. The first area
examined relates to volunteering. While there are significant cultural factors which lead to
systematic underreporting of volunteering among humanitarian settlers, it is apparent that
there are high levels of volunteering within and outside humanitarian settler communities. It
is demonstrated too that there is significant civic engagement of humanitarian groups through
ethnic communities. Survey work indicated the development of strong ethnic networks
which played an important role, not only in assisting adjustment to life in Australia but also
in linking with the wider Australian community. Only a quarter of humanitarian settlers had
no family or friends in Australia upon arrival in the country.
Humanitarian settlers reported being well connected to their local community to a greater
extent than other categories of migrants indicating a strong attachment to the immediate
communities in which they live. Nevertheless, a minority indicated that they had not been
treated well since arriving in Australia. It appears as though humanitarian settlers are better
integrated into local communities than into wider Australian society. There is substantial
xxvi
embodied social capital in humanitarian settler communities. There are a number of people
who arrived in Australia as humanitarian settlers who have made outstanding civic
contributions to Australia, especially through local government and to a lesser extent federal
and state governments. The contribution is even greater among second generation migrants
who are more civically engaged than their parents. Barriers remain to integration including
language, housing, financial stress and discrimination.
There is clear evidence that
interventions of carefully targeted programs have substantially reduced the effect of these
barriers.
The initial years of settlement of humanitarian settlers are often difficult and intensive in the
use of government provided support services. The circumstances of their migration make this
inevitable. Nevertheless the evidence which has been assembled here has demonstrated that
over time there is a strong pattern of not only economic and social adjustment but also of
significant contribution to the wider society and economy. This is not to say there are not
minorities that get stuck in an underclass situation who find it difficult to adjust and achieve
upward mobility. These groups are a cause for concern and must be the target of appropriate
policy. Nevertheless the overwhelming picture when one takes the longer term perspective of
changes over the working lifetime of settlers and their children is one of considerable
achievement and contribution. This progress needs to be seen as more than a convergence
toward the Australian average in indicators such as unemployment, labour force participation,
income, housing, volunteering, education, etcetera.
There is also an element of
distinctiveness about the contribution – there are dimensions which add more than human
capital. For example, it has been demonstrated that humanitarian settlers in Australia are
more likely to demonstrate the entrepreneurial and risk taking attributes often associated with
migrants, than migrants of other visa categories. They concentrate in particular occupational
niches where there are worker shortages and they are increasingly moving to regional
localities suffering chronic labour shortages. Moreover, they add a distinctively different
cultural diversity and cultural capital elements to Australian society.
-1-
CHAPTER 1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The displacement of people as a result of persecution is one of the contemporary world’s
most persistent and pressing issues. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) has identified three major long term solutions to the growing numbers 1 of people
displaced from their homeland – repatriation, absorption in their country of initial refuge or
resettlement in a third country. Third country resettlement remains one of the major planks in
the global refugee regime although the number of countries willing and able to accept
refugees for resettlement remains limited. Over the last decade, Australia has accepted more
refugee-humanitarian immigrants for permanent resettlement in relation to its resident
population than any other country, as is shown in Figure 1.1, which shows the number of
refugees resettled per 1,000 resident population. In Australia humanitarian migration is an
important and continuing element in national political discourse. Part of this discussion
centres around the issue of the costs and benefits of refugee resettlement for the Australian
economy and society.
By definition, refugees are persons who have left their homes
unwillingly, have not planned their migration and have been unable to bring resources with
them in their migration. Inevitably there must be greater costs involved in their resettlement
than is the case for other immigrants. Against the considerable costs involved in resettling
refugees, however, too often there is no attempt to consider the benefits that refugee
resettlement brings to Australia. The prime motivation for the refugee-humanitarian program
has always been a humanitarian one, with Australia accepting its responsibility as an
international citizen and a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Nevertheless it
must also be recognised that historically refugee and humanitarian settlers have also made
important contributions to Australia’s economic and social development (National Population
Council, 1993). Refugee and humanitarian settlers are often in a disadvantaged situation
compared with other immigrants because of the forced nature of their migration and much of
the recent research on their settlement in Australia has understandably focussed on the
difficulties many consequently experience in adjusting to the Australian labour and housing
markets and Australian society generally.
1
However, this focus on the difficulties
The UNHCR has reported that in 2009 there were 15.2 million persons who were mandated refugees, 27.1
million Internally Displaced Persons and 983,000 asylum seekers (UNHCR, 2010).
-2-
Figure 1.1:
Refugees Entered and Resettled per 1,000 Population in Major Countries,
1996-2009
UNHCR Statistical Yearbook, various issues and US Census Bureau
International Data Base
Source:
Australia
Canada
Norway
Country of Resettlment
United States
New Zealand
Sweden
Finland
Denmark
Ireland
Netherlands
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Number of Refugees Per 1000 Resident Population
faced by many refugee-humanitarian settlers can deflect attention from the important
contributions they have made, and continue to make, to the Australian society and economy.
This study’s major objective is to redress this imbalance and make a careful and
comprehensive assessment of the contributions made by this important group. This report is
largely based on an analysis of secondary data sources to assess the economic, social and
civic contributions of refugee-humanitarian settlers in Australia. It is combined with the
findings of primary research into this topic involving both survey based and qualitative
analysis.
This initial chapter outlines the objectives of the study and provides the context for the study.
It then critically discusses the sources of secondary data to be used in later chapters. This is
of particular significance because, as in the case with all visa categories of migrants in
Australia, there is a lack of comprehensive, accurate data relating to them.
Although
Australia has perhaps the most comprehensive data on stocks and flows of migrants as a
-3-
whole of any nation in the world (Hugo, 1994), there is a lack of information on the
experience in Australia of migrants who entered the country under specific visa categories.
An understanding of these limitations is basic to an interpretation of later chapters. There
then is some consideration of the methods used to collect primary data for this study. It is
necessary before considering data sources, however, to make a few introductory remarks
about Australia’s refugee-humanitarian migration program. The final part of the chapter
outlines the structure of the report after a brief consideration of the major theories of
immigrant incorporation.
1.2
1.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
To make a comprehensive assessment of the labour force involvement of refugeehumanitarian settlers including a consideration of the extent to which their skills are
fully utilised, the barriers they face and their mobility within the labour force over time.
2.
To assess the extent to which refugee-humanitarian settlers have developed their own
businesses and to which they have opened up and developed export linkages with their
home areas and other markets.
3.
To assess the extent to which refugee-humanitarian settlers are engaged in volunteer
work outside of the formal labour force.
4.
To assess the extent to which refugee and humanitarian settlers participate in wider
Australian society at local, regional and national levels.
5.
To assess the extent to which refugee and humanitarian settlers are connected to their
local communities and to Australia more generally, and to evaluate their satisfaction
with life in Australia and their intentions about whether they intend to remain in
Australia.
In seeking to address these five areas there will be a conscious attempt to differentiate the
following groups to the extent that this is possible using existing data sources.
•
First and second generation migrants, although this is especially difficult given the
lack of data sources relating to the second generation.
•
Gender
•
Birthplace
-4-
•
Family/household type
Ideally it would have been desirable to differentiate humanitarian settlers on the basis of their
different sub-category of visa. In practice this was not found to be possible.
1.3
AUSTRALIA’S REFUGEE-HUMANITARIAN MIGRATION PROGRAM
Humanitarian migration is an important continuing part of Australia’s Immigration Program
(Department of Immigration and Citizenship [DIAC], 2009a). Australia is one of the world’s
major countries of immigration. While it is currently the 55th largest country in the world,
Figure 1.2 shows that it has the 11th largest foreign-born population. Moreover, in a world of
rapid growth in the number of international migrants (United Nations, 2009) Australia is one
of the few nations which has consistently sustained a substantial immigration inflow over the
post-World War II period. One persistent feature of this sustained immigration inflow has
been the significance of refugees in that flow. Australia has a long history of accepting
refugees, displaced persons and others fleeing persecution, beginning in the 1830s with
Germans fleeing religious persecution in Russia, settling in South Australia (Price, 1990).
Nevertheless, Price (1990) identifies 1938 as the key year in which Australia began to play a
-5-
Figure 1.2:
Source:
Top Immigration Countries, 2010
United Nations, 2009
major global role in refugee resettlement when there was a substantial influx of Jews fleeing
Nazi Germany. It was not until the latter years of World War II that involvement in refugee
issues became a major element in Australian government policy.
As Price (1990, 22)
explains, these years:
‘… marked a new phase in refugee work. No longer was relief, repatriation,
transport and resettlement being left to voluntary organisations and individuals
with the government being concerned, internationally, only with matters of
legal status and protection and locally, with how many refugees would be
permitted to enter. Now government was financially and administratively
involved in all areas of refugee work and making sure the Australian voice
was heard in international councils and organizations’.
-6-
In particular the beginnings of major inflows of refugees was the settlement of over 300,000
‘DPs’ (Displaced Persons) from Eastern Europe in the aftermath of World War II (Kunz,
1988). As a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugees Convention and the 1967 Protocol, Australia
has had a strong commitment to share responsibility in protecting and finding an orderly
resolution of the plight of refugees, and resettlement in Australia is an important element in
this commitment (DIAC, 2009a, 71).
It was not until 1978, however, that refugee-
humanitarian migration became a specific sub-program within the revamped Migration
Policy which identified a number of specific streams within the Immigration Program –
Economic/Skill/Business, Family, Refugee-Humanitarian and Other including New
Zealanders able to enter Australia under the terms of the Trans Tasman Travel Arrangement
(TTTA).
Figure 1.3:
Source:
Australia: Humanitarian Program Offshore Arrivals, 1976-2009
DIAC, unpublished statistics; Department of Immigration and Multicultural
and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA), Australian Immigration: Consolidated
Statistics and DIAC Immigration Update, various issues
The inflow of refugee-humanitarian settler arrivals since the late 1970s is shown in Figure
1.3. The contemporary Australian permanent immigration program is a highly controlled one
with the government each year setting caps on the family, skill and humanitarian migration
intakes. Table 1.1 shows that the planning level for the number of humanitarian entrants was
increased from 13,000 in 2007-08 to 13,500 in 2008-09 and again to 13,750 in 2009-10.
-7-
The changing nature of the refugee-humanitarian inflow to Australia is depicted in Figure 1.4
which shows the numbers and region of origin of refugee-humanitarian arrivals settled in
Australia since the Humanitarian sub-program was introduced in 1978. The peak inflows
were experienced in the late 1970s and early 1980s when there were major inflows of
Indo Chinese, and, to a lesser extent, Eastern Europeans. Since then, however, it is apparent
Table 1.1:
Source:
Australian Immigration Program:
Planning Levels 2005-11 and
Outcomes 2005-09 by Migration Program Category
DIAC, unpublished statistics; Evans, 2010
Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Planning Level
Outcome
Planning Level
Outcome
Planning Level
Outcome
Planning Level
Outcome
Planning Level
Planning Level
Humanitarian
Family
Skilled
Special
Eligibility
Total
13,000
14,144
13,000
13,017
13,000
13,014
13,500
13,507
13,750
13,750
42,000
45,290
46,000
50,080
50,000
49,510
46,500
56,370
60,300
54,550
97,500
97,340
97,500
97,920
108,500
108,540
115,000
114,780
108,100
113,850
500
310
500
200
300
220
300
180
300
300
153,000
157,084
157,000
161,217
171,800
171,284
185,300
184,837
182,450
182,450
-8-
Figure 1.4:
Source:
Refugee and Humanitarian Arrivals to Australia by Region of Birth,
1977-78 to 2008-09
DIMIA Australian Immigration Consolidated Statistics and DIAC
Immigration Update, various issues
that the mix of regions of origin has shifted as Australia responded to refugee crises in
different parts of the world with the Middle East and Africa increasing in recent years. A key
feature of the refugee-humanitarian intake which is evident in Figure 1.4 is the ‘wave’ nature
of the inflow with different particular groups being dominant in different periods in response
to the outbreak of political upheaval in different parts of the world.
However, the arrivals data presented in Figure 1.3 and Figure 1.4 depict only part of the
Australian Humanitarian Program. Figure 1.5 shows that over the last two decades there has
been an ebb and flow of asylum seekers arriving by sea or air in Australia and applying for
asylum. While asylum seekers have attracted substantial public attention in Australia, their
numbers remain small, accounting for 0.5 percent of all asylum seekers worldwide in 2009.
-9-
Figure 1.5:
Source:
Australia: Unauthorised Arrivals, 1989-90 to 2010-11
DIMIA, 2002, 2004 and 2005; DIAC, 2007, 2009a; Phillips and Spinks, 2010
6000
Boat Arrivals
Air Arrivals
5000
Number
4000
3000
2000
1000
2010/11*
2008/09
2009/10*
2007/08
2006/07
2005/06
2004/05
2003/04
2002/03
2001/02
2000/01
1999/00
1998/99
1997/98
1996/97
1995/96
1994/95
1993/94
1992/93
1991/92
1990/91
1989/90
0
Year
* Air Arrivals not available from 2009/10 onwards. Boat Arrivals in 2010/11 are to 20 September
These asylum seekers are assessed to establish whether or not they qualify for refugee status
under the UNHCR criteria. Those who are assessed as refugees and are given the opportunity
to settle in Australia become ‘onshore’ refugee settlers. The ‘arrivals’ shown in Figure 1.3
depicts persons who had experienced persecution and been assessed and accepted for
resettlement in Australia while in a foreign country but do not include ‘onshore’ humanitarian
settlers. It does not include those asylum seekers who are assessed as refugees and are then
given the opportunity to settle permanently in Australia. Accordingly, in Table 1.2 the
numbers of ‘offshore’ and ‘onshore’ refugee-humanitarian settlers in recent years are shown.
The ‘onshore’ settlers have been less diverse in their countries of origin as is evident in
Figure 1.6. Table 1.2 indicates that over the last 15 years the total annual intake of refugeehumanitarian settlers has varied between 9,960 in 1999-2000 to 16,250 in 1995-96.
- 10 -
Table 1.2:
Source:
Australia: Humanitarian Program Outcomes: Visas Granted, 1994-95 to
2008-09
DIAC Population Flows: Immigration Aspects, various issues; DIAC, 2009a
% of Total
Onshore
Offshore
Total
Immigration
Intake
1994-95
1,480
13,220
14,700
13.6
1995-96
1,200
15,050
16,250
13.8
1996-97
2,250
9,650
11,900
11.3
1997-98
1,590
10,470
12,060
12.0
1998-99
1,830
9,530
11,360
10.8
1999-2000
2,460
7,500
9,960
8.8
2000-01
5,740
7,990
13,730
9.9
2001-02
3,900
8,450
12,350
9.6
2002-03
870
11,660
12,530
9.1
2003-04
2,049
11,802
13,851
9.3
2004-05
1,082
12,096
13,178
8.4
2005-06
1,386
12,758
14,144
7.8
2006-07
1,831
11,186
13,017
6.8
2007-08
2,215
10,799
13,014
6.3
2008-09
2,497
11,010
13,507
6.2
Other
Africa
6,000
America
Asia
5,000
Middle East and North
Africa
Europe
4,000
Oceania
3,000
2,000
1,000
Year
2008-09
2006-07
2004-05
0
2002-03
Source:
Onshore Refugee and Humanitarian Arrivals by Region of Birth, 2002-03
to 2008-09
DIAC Immigration Update, various issues
Number
Figure 1.6:
- 11 -
Figure 1.7:
Australia: Migration Program Outcome by Stream and non-Program
Migration, 1976-77 to 2008-09
DIAC Population Flows: Immigration Aspects, various issues; DIAC
Immigration Update, various issues; DIAC, 2009
Source:
120,000
100,000
Number
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
2008-09
2006-07
2004-05
2002-03
2000-01
1998-99
1996-97
1994-95
1992-93
1990-91
1988-89
1986-87
1984-85
1982-83
1980-81
1978-79
1976-77
0
Year
Family
Skill
Special Eligibility
Other/New Zealand Citizens
Humanitarian
No te: Data p rio r to 1986-87 fo r o ff-shore o nly. Sp ecial Eligibility n ot in cluded p rior to 1982-3.
Each year the government sets a quota for the Skilled, Family and Humanitarian elements
within the immigration program. The current quota is 13,750. Figure 1.7 and Table 1.2 show
that while the numbers of refugees has remained relatively consistent in recent years their
percentage of the total intake has reduced.
It is estimated that around three quarters of a million refugee-humanitarian migrants have
settled in Australia since Federation (Refugee Council of Australia [RCOA], 2010, 3). Hence
they have played an important role demographically in the growth of the nation’s population.
However, their contribution to Australia has been much more than a numerical one and this
study seeks to identify and quantify some important dimensions of this impact.
- 12 -
1.4
DATA CONSIDERATIONS: SECONDARY DATA
1.4.1
Introduction
As a country of immigrants, Australia has some of the most comprehensive and accurate data
systems relating to international migration of any nation in the world. The most fundamental
distinction that can be made between types of data relating to migration and migrants is
between stocks and flows.
•
Flows are the number of migrants that flow between two places over a given time
period.
•
Stocks are the number of migrants in a place at a specific point in time.
Australia has excellent data on both stocks and flows of immigrants. The main sources of
information on immigration flows are maintained by DIAC and include:
•
The Movements Data Base which contains the information on all persons who
move in and out of Australia from the arrival and departures cards they complete.
•
The Settlement Data Base which contains information on all persons who apply for
and receive a visa and who actually arrive in Australia.
From the perspective of the present study it is important to note that both of these sources
allow refugee-humanitarian settlers to be identified and studied as a separate sub-group.
The intrinsic nature of flow migration is to provide information on the number of migrants
and their characteristics at the time of migration. However, our major objective in this study
is to investigate the subsequent contribution of humanitarian migrants after their arrival, and
during their period of residence in Australia. Accordingly the focus of this study necessitates
us analysing stock data. The only source of comprehensive data on the stock of migrants in
Australia is the national Census of Population and Housing. The Australian population
census has one of the most comprehensive suites of questions relating to international
migration of any country in the world (Hugo 1994) as well as collecting extensive
information on a number of the characteristics of individuals and families (especially relevant
for the present study are variables relating to labour force, care and voluntary work, internet
connection, education, housing, etcetera.). However, the census does not include a question
which differentiates the types of visa under which migrants arrived in Australia. Hence there
- 13 -
is no opportunity to identify in the census the entire, or a representative sample of, the stock
of refugee-humanitarian settlers and their children. Accordingly a number of innovative
approaches to using the census to study refugee and humanitarian settlers have been adopted.
1.4.2
The Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups Approach
While it is not possible in the Australian population census to identify persons who entered
Australia under the Humanitarian Program the reality is that the birthplace profile of refugeehumanitarian settlers differs significantly from other immigrants. In 2008-09, for example,
the Index of Dissimilarity (ID) 2 between the birthplace composition of the refugeehumanitarian intake and that of all other categories of migrant groups was 74.8. 3 This means
that in order for the birthplace distribution of refugee-humanitarian settlers to duplicate that
for the rest of the immigrant intake, three quarters of refugee-humanitarian settlers would
need to change their birthplace. The pattern is even more striking when the birthplace
distribution of refugees is compared to the skilled migrants category. The ID in 2008-09 was
91.0. 4 This measure definitively establishes that the refugee-humanitarian immigrant
population have a quite distinct birthplace distribution which means that it is possible to
classify birthplace groups as being predominantly made up of refugee-humanitarian settlers
or being predominantly made up of non-humanitarian groups. Moreover, it will be noted that
the lowest ID is with Family Migration (67.0). It is clear that refugee-humanitarian settlers
are important sponsors of family migrants. This adds extra support to identifying particular
birthplace groups as ‘refugee-humanitarian’ since they not only include the original refugee
settlers but also family members who subsequently join them. We strongly argue that this
approach provides a robust way of establishing the characteristics of the refugeehumanitarian population.
2
The ID can be defined as a quantitative statement of the evenness of the distribution of two sub-populations.
The index can be interpreted as the percentage of a particular sub-population which would have to change
their place of residence if the distribution of that group between sub-areas of the region under study is to be
made exactly the same as that of the other sub-group. An index of 0 would mean that the two subpopulations had exactly the same relative distribution while an index value of 100 represents a complete
‘apartheid’ situation, with no person of one sub-group living in the same sub-area as people of the other subgroup.
3
This has been a consistent pattern over the years. In 2007-08 the ID was 73.9.
4
In 2007-08, the ID was 88.3.
- 14 -
Accordingly it was decided here to use an approach which recognises particular birthplace
groups as Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups. These are birthplaces in which the
majority of settlers are persons who entered Australia as refugee-humanitarian settlers
(Appendix IV) and the family members which they later brought to Australia through the
Family Migration Program. This approach was used in an earlier study for the now defunct
National Population Council (Hugo and Rivett, 1993). In that study birthplace categories in
which refugees made up a large part of settlers were identified to provide an indication of the
characteristics of refugee settlers. The groups they identified and studied were:
•
Vietnam
•
Estonia
•
Cambodia
•
Latvia
•
Laos
•
Lithuania
•
Chile
•
Poland
•
Timor
•
Russia
•
Lebanon
•
Hungary
•
Iran
•
Czechoslovakia
•
El Salvador
•
Romania
•
Ethiopia
•
Bulgaria
For the present study this has had to be modified to include the following groups which have
become important arrival groups among humanitarian settlers:
•
Former Yugoslav Republic
•
Congo
•
Bosnia and Herzegovina
•
Congo, Democratic Republic
•
Croatia
•
Liberia
•
Montenegro
•
Sierra Leone
•
Serbia
•
Burundi
- 15 -
•
Ukraine
•
Eritrea
•
Egypt
•
Kenya
•
Sudan
•
Somalia
•
Iraq
•
Tanzania
•
Burma (Myanmar)
•
Uganda
•
Afghanistan
An assessment had to be made of each birthplace group of settler arrivals coming to Australia
to assess whether a majority of arrivals had come under the humanitarian program. On this
basis we had to delete Russian and Polish from the original list because of the subsequent
immigration of many non-humanitarian settlers from those sources. In addition, we have not
included China although it had a significant number of humanitarian settlers. In the post
Tiananmen period the bulk of its settlers have been in the Skilled and Family visa category
(Hugo, 2008a). It is argued strongly that this approach allows us to provide an accurate
picture of the characteristics of the major groups of refugee-humanitarian settlers in
Australia.
The ‘Refugee-Humanitarian’ birthplace group approach is obviously not an ideal way of
identifying all persons who have moved to Australia under the humanitarian part of the
Australian immigration program. It folds together all sub-groups in this program – onshore,
offshore, refugee, humanitarian and protection visa holders. In addition, it excludes groups
from countries like China where the great majority of immigrants have arrived under the
skilled and family component of the immigration program. However, the ID analysis has
definitively and statistically shown that almost all migrants in these ‘refugee-humanitarian
birthplace groups’ indeed came to Australia under the humanitarian program or as family
migrants sponsored to come to Australia by relatives who came under the humanitarian
program. In the absence of being able to specifically identify the visa category under which
overseas-born migrated to Australia, this approach provides a robust way of differentiating
persons with a humanitarian migration background from other persons of migrant origin.
- 16 -
Figure 1.8:
Source:
Figure 1.9:
Source:
Distribution of Origin Birthplace Countries of Refugee Migrants to
Australia, 2006
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2006 Census
Distribution of Origin Ancestry Countries of Refugee Migrants to
Australia, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
- 17 -
Figure 1.8 shows the countries of origin distribution of the refugee-humanitarian birthplace
groups as they are represented in the 2006 population census. It is clearly evident in the map
that there are five clusters:
•
Eastern Europe
•
The Middle East and Afghanistan
•
Indo China
•
Latin America
•
The Horn of Africa
A similar pattern is in evidence if we examine the ancestry data from the population census
and this is presented in Figure 1.9. Refugee-humanitarian migration tends to occur in waves
over time when particular birthplace groups of migrants are dominant in a particular time
period during a period of crisis in a particular country (Kunz, 1988). This is because waves
of refugees from one particular country are usually generated by an event at a point in time
which pushes out large numbers of people fleeing for their lives. This is reflected in Figure
1.4 when the significance of different origin areas of refugees to Australia can be seen to vary
over the period since 1978. Hence different birthplace groups will vary in the length of time
they have lived in Australia. Studying groups with different lengths of residence in Australia
is important to providing a comprehensive picture of the impact of migration. In assessing
the impact of migration the dimension of time is crucial. As the Longitudinal Survey of
Immigrants to Australia (LSIA) has shown, the economic, social and civic impacts of
migrants will differ considerably according to their length of settlement in Australia (CobbClark and Khoo, 2006; VandenHeuvel and Wooden, 1999; Richardson, Robertson and Ilsley,
2001). It is necessary then to examine migrants at a full range of points in time along the
period of time they live in a destination. To take only part of that time gives a partial picture
of their contribution.
- 18 -
1.4.3
The Second Generation
There is unanimity in the migration literature that ‘immigrant group integration does not
cease with the first generation but rather continues through the second and beyond’ (Bean and
Brown, 2010, 3). Migration analysts have insisted that any comprehensive analysis of the
impact of migration needs to go beyond the first generation (Alba and Nee, 2003; Brubaker,
2001). However, one of the important but neglected areas in assessments of the impact and
contribution of migration is the impact of the second generation of the children of refugeehumanitarian settlers. There is increasing evidence that a comprehensive analysis of the
contribution of migrants’ needs to go beyond the first generation to consider that of their
children. This is of particular salience since one of the consistent findings of surveys of
settlers of all types in Australia is that a major plank of their motivation in coming to
Australia is for the wellbeing and prospects of their children (Hugo, Khoo and McDonald,
2006). Australia has been one of the global leaders in showing the significance of the
contribution of the second generation of migrants. This has been facilitated by the inclusion
of questions in the Australian census on the second generation in several population censuses
beginning in 1971. Since then there have been a number of important studies which have
demonstrated that the second generation of a majority of immigrant groups has been more
successful economically than their parents (Ware, 1981; Khoo, McDonald, Georgas and
Birrell, 2002; Khoo, forthcoming).
The significance of the second generation in studying the impact hence is critical so the issue
of its definition is important. The work of Charles Price has been seminal in many areas of
Australian immigration research, not least in the study of the second generation. In his work
on Southern European communities in Australia during the 1950s and 1960s, he developed
the following classification of generations (Table 1.3). This classification cannot be applied
to census data and is reliant upon more detailed survey or unit record official sources.
However, in later work Price (e.g. 1979, 1982) adopted a modified definition of generation
structure which can be applied to census data. This is shown in Table 1.4 and is obviously
much simpler and amenable to study using census data, although the typology depicted in
Table 1.3 may be more theoretically meaningful. Price (1979, 1988) has also painstakingly
estimated the number of births to the second generation of each group of immigrants and
each succeeding generation down to the ninth generation.
For some purposes
- 19 -
Table 1.3:
Generation Structure of Australian Immigrant Groups Developed by
Price (1955, 1963)
Classification
Description
I
Overseas-born persons aged 12 years or more at the time of emigration
II
III
Table 1.4:
(a)
Overseas-born persons aged less than 12 years at the time of emigration
(b)
Australia-born children of I
(a)
Australia-born children of II(a)
(b)
Australia-born children of II(b)
(c)
Australia-born persons married to II(a)
Modified Generation Structure Classification Developed by Price (1979,
1982)
Classification
Description
I
The foreign-born
II
The Australia-born of foreign parentage
Price has modified his definitions of migrant generations. For example, in his examination of
occupational mobility and change, he has identified the following:
Ia
Those born outside Australia and hence steeped in the tradition of their
birthplace (arriving in Australia aged in their 20s or older).
- 20 -
Ib
Arrived in Australia in their teens and perhaps have a few years of schooling
in Australia.
IIa
Born outside Australia but had bulk of schooling in Australia.
IIb
Born in Australia to parents born overseas.
Price’s approach to differentiating the generations has been adopted in some fieldwork-based
studies (e.g. Hugo, 1975), but analysis of birthplace of parents census data has been very
limited. J.J. Rowland (1982) has used these data in combination with others to arrive at
estimates of the ethnic composition of the Australian population. Some of the most effective
use of second generation data from the Australian census has been made by Ware (1981) in
her study of Australia’s Italian community. She analyses differences between the Italy-born
and second generation with respect to a range of social, economic and demographic
characteristics as revealed by data from the 1976 census. Most other studies which deal with
the second generation are small scale field surveys such as that of Putnins (1975), which
investigated aspects of the cultural changes undergone by second generation Latvians in the
City of Adelaide. This is of relevance to the present study since most of the Latvians arrived
in Australia as Displaced Persons.
As indicated earlier, Australia first asked a birthplace of parents question in the 1971 census
and as indicated in Appendix I this question has been included in each successive
enumeration. However, there has been an important modification in the 2001 and 2006
censuses. Prior to 2001 the question asked was as follows:
•
Where were each person’s father and mother born?
Father’s Country of birth ............................
Mother’s Country of birth...........................
Although there were some problems with non-response to this question (Hugo, 1992, 279) it
allowed the country of birth of the fathers and mothers of the Australia-born population to be
established and detailed analysis of the characteristics of the second generation to be made as
- 21 -
was demonstrated in the chapters on the second generation in the 1986, 1991 and 1996 Atlas
of Australian People series. 5
However, from 2001 the actual country of birth of parents was not collected. The question
now merely asks whether an Australia-born person’s parents were born in Australia or
overseas. This raises a number of problems in the present study. This comes from the fact
that because entry visa category is not asked of foreign-born persons in the population
census, it is necessary for us to use birthplace as a surrogate for refugee-humanitarian status.
Birthplace categories, in which it is known refugee-humanitarian settlers make up a
substantial proportion, have been designated refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups.
However, since it is not possible to differentiate the particular country of birth of parents of
the Australia-born an alternative approach has had to be made to identify the second
generation in this study.
The analysis of this data will provide a comprehensive picture of the characteristics of the
stocks of the major refugee-humanitarian settlers in Australia at the time of the 2006 census.
There will be some capacity to differentiate within the groups by the length of time they have
been in Australia.
The second issue to be confronted is how to identify the second generation for each of these
birthplace groups. Clearly the second generation for recently arrived groups like most of
those from Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, etcetera will be small and mostly in the dependent child
age groups. However, for other groups it is likely to be significant. The approach adopted
here to identify the second generation is to utilise the ancestry question asked in the 2006
census (Appendix I). First, all Australia-born persons who indicate that one or both of their
parents were born in a foreign country are identified. The ancestry of this group will then be
5
Hugo, G.J. (1989 to 1992), Atlas of the Australian People Volumes I to VIII: 1986 Census. AGPS,
Canberra.
Atlas of the Australian People : 1991 Census (1995-1998). v.[1]. South Australia/Andrew Beer and Cecile
Cutler; v.[2]. Tasmania/Andrew Beer and Cecile Cutler and Debbie Faulkner; v.[3].Queensland /Richard T.
Jackson;
v.[4]. Western Australia /Graeme Hugo; v.[5]. Northern Territory/Graeme Hugo; v.[6].
Australian Capital Territory/Ian Burnley; v.[7]. Victoria/Chris Maher and Wayne Caldow; v.[8]. New
South Wales/Ian Burnley; v.[9]. National Overview Graeme Hugo, Chris Maher. AGPS, Canberra.
Atlas of the Australian People : 1996 Census. v.[1]. South Australia/Andrew Beer and Cecile Cutler; v.[2].
Tasmania/Graeme Hugo; v.[3]. Queensland/Graeme Hugo; v.[4]. Western Australia/Bruce Visser and
Andrew Beer; v.[5]. Northern Territory/Cecile Cutler and Andrew Beer; v.[6]. Australian Capital
Territory/Jim Walmsley, Fran Rolley, Herb Weinand; v.[7]. Victoria/Jim Walmsley, Fran Rolley, Herb
Weinand; v.[8]. New South Wales/Jim Walmsley, Fran Rolley, Herb Weinand; [9]. National
Overview/Graeme Hugo. AGPS, Canberra.
- 22 -
used to allocate them to one or other of the Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups
indicated in 1.4.2 above. These will be taken to represent the second generation of that group
and their characteristics will be analysed. Of course this approach has limitations.
•
Where second generation individuals give their ancestry as ‘Australian’ will mean
that they are missed.
•
Where this group do not respond to the question they will be missed. The nonresponse rate was 3.7 percent.
•
In some cases the second generation may give their ancestry as being the name of
an ethnic group within their national population of origin rather than that of the
total national population.
•
The persons who identify as Australia-born but have an ancestry which is one of
the ‘refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups’ are identified here as second
generation humanitarian settlers in Australia. Of course they involve third and
subsequent generations. However, the bulk of them will be second generation
because of the relative recency of refugee settlement in Australia. Accordingly,
while they will, for convenience, be referred to as the second generation in
subsequent parts of this study they do include subsequent generations as well.
Hence this approach will miss some second generation groups. We will attempt to overcome
part of this problem by identifying some ethnic groups which fit in to the last category. An
obvious one is the Kurdish group. We can identify the Australia-born of Kurdish ancestry
and assume that the bulk of these are the second generation of Kurdish refugee-humanitarian
settlers from Iraq and Turkey.
- 23 -
1.4.4
Linked Census and Settlement Data Bases
One of the most exciting developments in Australian international migration data collection is
the linking of 2006 Australian census data on persons who arrived in Australia between the
2001 and 2006 censuses with the relevant data on those persons held by DIAC on the
Settlement Data Base (SDB). This represents a major potential leap forward in understanding
settlement of migrants in Australia, especially since it allows a linking of information on the
visa type of the settler with their characteristics. There are of course a range of important
issues of confidentiality in all data-linkage exercises and the ABS has placed a large range of
restrictions on the use of that information which has restricted its utility in the present study.
The ABS (2009) has published a paper which assesses a quality of the Data Linkage exercise.
The study identified 806,952 records in the SDB of persons who applied for and were granted
visas to live permanently in Australia in the period between the 2001 and 2006 population
censuses. The data were not linked, however, through linking the names and addresses of the
individuals which was possible but deemed not to be possible because of confidentiality
factors. Accordingly there was ‘probablistic linking’ which linked records from the two files
(SDB and 2006 Population of Census and Housing) using several variables from both files.
While the linked data set produced was formed using 100 percent of census records, a subset
of a five percent random sample was created. The ABS recognises three levels in the linking
process – gold, silver and bronze. Gold standard involves linking actual names. The bronze
standard, however, uses variables to link records and these are listed in Table 1.5. The
numbers of records which could be linked under the bronze level are shown in Table 1.6. It
will be noted that the extent of linkage that was possible was greatest for the ‘Bronze Low’
standard. It must be noted, however, that the potential for incorrect matches is greatest for
the ‘Bronze Low’ standard. Nevertheless this was the data set that was available for use here.
- 24 -
Table 1.5:
Source:
Table 1.6:
Source:
Variables Used to Link SDB and Census Files for Gold and Bronze
Standards
ABS, 2009, 9
Number of SDB Records Available for Linking and the Numbers Linked
for Gold Standard and Each Level of Bronze Standard
ABS, 2009, 12
- 25 -
Table 1.7:
Source:
Relative Frequencies (Percent) in Each English Proficiency Category, for
Gold and Bronze Standard Linked Data Compared with SDB
ABS, 2009, 18
since that was the data made available by ABS. The potential for error is evident in Table 1.7
which compares a single variable (Ability to Speak English) across a range of different
matched data sets. Although there are some differences between the results for the entire
SDB and the ‘Bronze Low’ linked data set the pattern shown by both is similar.
In short, although the data which has been made available by the ABS are limited and the
results need to be interpreted with considerable caution, the availability of some census data
differentiating recent migrants on the basis of their visa of entry into Australia represents a
small but significant step forward. It is regrettable that it was not considered possible to use
the gold standard matching. There is considerable potential for the use of that information for
policy related migration-settlement research.
Nevertheless, some data from the bronze
standard matching are used in this study and this illustrates the potential of this data source.
1.4.5
The Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants in Australia (LSIA)
LSIA was a comprehensive survey of the settlement experiences of three waves of
immigrants to Australia. It is not intended here to provide an exhaustive description and
analysis of LSIA as this has been done elsewhere (Hugo, 2004; Gartner, 1996; Cobb-Clark,
2006a). A few points need to be noted, however, because data from LSIA have been used
extensively to portray the experience of refugee-humanitarian settlers in Australia (e.g. see
Cobb-Clark and Khoo [eds.], 2006; Richardson et al., 2001, 2004).
The three waves of LSIA were as follows:
- 26 -
1.
LSIA 1 – Interviewed 5,192 primary applicants aged 15 and over and 1,837 migrating
unit spouses who arrived between September 1993 and August 2005. This represented
around seven percent of the total in scope principal applicants. The sample is stratified
according to visa category and region/country of origin.
They were interviewed
initially between three and six months of arrival and they were reinterviewed
approximately 18 months (Wave 2) and 42 months (Wave 3) after arrival.
2.
LSIA 2 – Interviewed 3,124 primary applicants and 1,094 migrating spouses or around
ten percent of in scope principal applicant settler arrivals between September 1999 and
August 2000. It was stratified in a similar way and the sample was reinterviewed only
once approximately 18 months after arrival.
3.
LSIA 3 – Interviewed only applicants from the Family and Skilled Migration Streams.
The number were 9,939 who either:
•
arrived in Australia between December 2004 and March 2005; or
•
were granted an onshore visa between the dates.
They were surveyed again 12 months later.
Unlike LSIA 1 and 2 which involved personal interviews, LSIA 3 used a mail back
survey in Wave 1 and a phone survey in Wave 2.
The LSIA surveys represent a major landmark in our understanding of the settlement
experiences of immigrants in Australia. They do suffer from some shortcomings including
the following:
•
The first two waves did not include onshore migrants.
•
The LSIA 3 did not include refugee-humanitarian migrants and hence is not useful
to the present study.
•
The data largely refers to immigrants arriving in Australia a decade or more ago.
•
As Cobb-Clark (2006a, 213-216) shows, the data indicate only the early years of
adjustment ‘rather than long run equilibrium behaviour. The shortness of the two
panels leaves many important questions regarding long term immigrant settlement
unanswered’.
- 27 -
Another issue which bears especially on the LSIA results on the refugee-humanitarian stream
relates to the representativeness of the sample. The efforts to obtain a random sample in
LSIA 1 and LSIA 2 were exhaustive (Hugo, 2004). It is important to recognise that while
every possible effort was made to achieve randomness there was an attrition of the sampling
frame at several points of the process which reduced the representativeness of the final
sample drawn. This can be illustrated with respect to LSIA 1. Figure 1.10 shows that there
was significant attrition even in the development of the sample. A complex rolling procedure
was used to identify and recruit the sample and the numbers in Figure 1.10 are only for the
first six months of the two year sampling period. Nevertheless, it will be noted that of the
10,141 in scope primary applicant arrivals, only 4,178 (41.2 percent) usable addresses were
found so that there was an attrition of 58.8 percent even before the sample was drawn. Since
it is likely that the addresses of a potential sample member would be more likely to be
available if the migrant was in receipt of government services, it may be that the sample is
Figure 1.10:
Source:
Developing the LSIA Sampling Frame for the First Six Month Segment
for the First Interview of the First Wave
Modified from Gartner 1996, Figure 15a, 15b
Total P A
Arriva ls
11,520
O ut of Sc ope on B asis of
A ge, Visa C ate gory,
Intende d Addre ss,
C ountr y of B irth
1,379
I n S cope
10,141
Infor ma tion on S AI F
5,470
Usea ble A ddress
4,138
N o S AIF
4,671
N o Addr ess
1,332
Out of S cope on
P ostcode
Not Followed
up Due to Tim e
Constra ints
3,371
Ar rival Ca rd
Exa m ine d
1,300
U se able Addr ess
1,116
O ut of Sc ope on
P ostc ode
Sa mp ling Fr am e
4,178
S pec ial S trate gy
to ge t Addr esses
of Ce rtain Groups
N o Addr ess
184
No Fur the r
S trate gie s
Out o f S cope on
Postcode
- 28 -
biased in favour of those settlers who are receiving government services like unemployment
benefits. This is perhaps especially the case for refugee-humanitarian settlers. Addresses for
the sampling frame were accessed through the SDB but it was found that the contact
addresses given in the SDB varied in quality between groups and the information quality
varied between groups. For example it was especially poor among refugees so extra contact
information was obtained from the Humanitarian Settlement Services Section (HSSS) and
Business Skills Area of DIAC. This may have produced bias toward those using services.
Table 1.8:
Source:
LSIA: Response and Non-Response in Wave 1
Modified from Gartner, 1996, Figure 23
Number
Percent
Total selected
8,750
100.0
Total interviewed
5,192
59.4
Unable to track
1,561
17.8
228
2.6
1,470
16.8
299
3.4
Refused
Overseas
Other
Note: The data in this table refer to the total sample whereas Figure 1.10
shows only the first six month segment of the sample of LSIA 1.
Further attrition of the sample occurred after the sample was drawn. Table 1.8 shows that of
the 8,754 selected, 5,196 were actually interviewed. Clearly again there was a significant
loss of the original sample population of the 40.6 percent. There was also a further attrition
in Wave 2 and Wave 3 of LSIA 1 as Table 1.9 shows.
- 29 -
Table 1.9:
Source:
LSIA: Cohort 1: Primary Applicants in Wave 1 by Interview Status in
Waves 2 and 3
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 1999, 31, 32
Interview Status
Wave 2
Wave 3
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
4,468
86
3,752
72
Unable to track
251
5
563
11
Refused
109
2
225
4
Overseas temporarily
204
4
289
6
Overseas permanently
78
2
234
5
Out of scope in Australia
27
1
41
1
4
0
19
0
Other
51
1
69
1
Total
5,192
100
5,192
100
Interviewed
Deceased
The issue being raised here is not at all to discredit LSIA and its findings. The surveys have
been enormously useful in research and policy development. The point being made is that
one has to be quite careful about extrapolating from the survey of the entire refugee
population for at least the following reasons:
•
The data only relate to the early years of settlement in Australia.
•
The sample is a selective one which may give people who are on federal benefits a
greater chance of selection.
1.4.6
The Australian Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics of Recent
Migrants Survey
The ABS conducts a monthly survey of the adult population and periodically (1994, 1987,
1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2007) a module is attached to the survey on ‘Labour Force
Status and Other Characteristics of Recent Migrants’. Prior to 2007 the survey was of all
migrants but in 2007 it was restricted to those who:
- 30 -
‘… were born overseas, arrived in Australia after 1997, were aged 15 years
and over on arrival, were not an Australian citizen on arrival, were not born in
New Zealand, do not hold New Zealand citizenship and have permanent
resident status’ (ABS, 2008, 2).
This survey does provide a breakdown on the basis of visa category and information can be
obtained on humanitarian migrants. However, the numbers are relatively small which means
that for many variables there are insufficient numbers in the sample to provide reliable
estimates.
1.4.7
Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals Study
An important initiative in data collection on the settlement experience of recent immigrants to
Australia was the Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals (SONA) Study, initiated by DIAC in
2009. This involved a postal survey of some 39 questions relating to the initial experience of
migrants sent to a sample of recent immigrants drawn from the SDB. A total of 8,576
responses were received of which over a half (5,378) were refugee-humanitarian settlers.
1.5
PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION
1.5.1
Introduction
The secondary data sources discussed in the previous section can provide a wealth of
information about humanitarian settlers in Australia but they are limited in the extent to
which they provide insight into the perceptions, attitudes and motivations of these settlers. In
order to explore in greater depth the nature and causes of the humanitarian settler experience,
it is necessary to talk directly with them. Accordingly it was deemed necessary to carry out
extensive primary data collections among the humanitarian settlers.
A major issue which confronts all primary data collection regarding immigrants in Australia
is the lack of comprehensive and accurate sampling frames. There are no comprehensive
registers of immigrant population or of subsets of that population. This means that there is no
basis on which samples can be drawn which are statistically representative of the migrant
population or major subsets of that population. There is no sampling frame available which
allows us to obtain a representative cross-section of respondents that represents statistically
the first and second generation humanitarian settler population.
Accordingly, it was
- 31 -
necessary to adopt a purposive method for identifying refugee-humanitarian settlers for the
primary data collection part of the study.
As Figure 1.11 indicates, two major forms of primary data collection were undertaken for the
present study. The first involved carrying out a survey of a cross-section of the humanitarian
settler population using a standard questionnaire which included questions relating to their
settlement experience. The second involved intensive qualitative interviews with a range of
leaders within refugee-humanitarian communities and among a number of stakeholders who
are involved in some way with the settlement process. The strategy was for the information
from the surveys and the qualitative work to feed detail into the statistically robust framework
of information provided by the analysis of secondary data.
Figure 1.11: Data of Collection Strategy
To satisfactorily address the questions posed for this study we will need to go beyond
secondary data sources and collect primary information directly from refugee-humanitarian
settlers themselves and a number of key informants with particular knowledge of, and insight
into, those communities. It has been necessary to undertake a number of primary data
collection activities in order to meet the objectives of the study. This ‘mixed methods’
approach is especially relevant to carrying out research into humanitarian settlement for the
following reasons:
•
The lack of representative sampling frames means that it is necessary to triangulate
information from a number of sources to piece together an understanding of the
complex processes involved in settlement.
•
The humanitarian community are more difficult than most to study for a number of
reasons. Many have a well founded fear of authorities based on their refugee flight
- 32 -
experience. An ongoing PhD study has found that such barriers are present even
for a researcher who is an ‘insider’ (Njuki, forthcoming).
•
There is suspicion among humanitarian groups divulging information about
economic and business activity since many operate in semi-informal contexts. This
was especially noticeable in our efforts to investigate the entrepreneurial and
business activity of humanitarian settlers.
Accordingly, the strategy adopted here was a mixed methods approach which involved
undertaking a number of separate primary data collections which seek both quantitative and
qualitative information on refugee-humanitarian settlers, their children, characteristics,
behaviour and attitudes.
The methodology that was developed and all data collection
instruments were submitted to the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee
and were scrutinised and approved by that Committee.
1.5.2
Survey of Households
A major element of the study was a survey of refugee-humanitarian settler households. It
was originally planned that the DIAC SDB would be used as the sampling frame for selecting
the survey respondents. After close examination, however, it was found that this could not be
used mainly because the addresses on the data base mainly related to recent migrants. This
makes the SDB a highly useful sampling frame for undertaking surveys of recent settlers like
the SONA Study referred to in the previous section. This was not appropriate in the present
study because the clear objective was to examine the settlement experience of humanitarian
migrants over their entire working lives. To restrict consideration to recent settlers would
deny us insights into longer-term settlement outcomes.
Accordingly it was decided to adopt a more purposive approach to sample selection which
sought to gain representation of a range of representative birthplace groups covering refugeehumanitarian settlement since 1975.
It was decided to engage with a range of key
organisations, especially Migrant Resource Centres (MRCs) in order to be able to identify
respondents. While we have received good support from MRCs it became apparent that they
are not able to identify sufficient numbers in all of the sub-groups which we need to
interview. Accordingly, we widened our scope to engage with a range of migrant, ethnic and
settlement organisations in order to identify individuals and groups to be interviewed. This
was quite time-consuming but yielded good results. We had to engage with a wide range of
- 33 -
stakeholders and gain their trust and cooperation before being able to do the survey. We
underestimated the extent of time it would take to gain the trust of communities to become
involved in the study and to complete the questionnaires.
Hence, survey participants were recruited through MRCs and settlement agencies selected
through assistance from the Settlement Council of Australia (SCOA). SCOA sent through an
Expression of Interest in November 2009 to its networks and organisations responded on the
basis of their capacity to recruit suitable participants. In total 13 organisations expressed an
interest to recruit participants and facilitate the questionnaire. Each organisation decided the
number of participants they believed they could recruit and this varied extensively according
to the size and capacity of individual organisations.
Organisations were instructed to choose participants according to various selection criteria.
These included that participants:
•
be 18 years or over;
•
have arrived as first generation migrants who have come on a humanitarian/refugee
visa OR be the children of migrants who have come in on a humanitarian/refugee
visa;
•
have been in Australia for between five and 25 years;
•
have a level of English which is sufficient to complete the questionnaire; AND
•
beyond this organisations were asked to recruit participants from a broad
demographic cross-section of the target community, including
employed/unemployed, single/married, teenagers in school and community leaders,
and a composition that was a fair reflection of the humanitarian intake.
Organisations were further asked to relay information and basic instructions to participants.
These included:
•
That they complete a consent form;
•
That their identity was not disclosed and all information provided was anonymous.
•
That if they did not want to answer/under the question to tick the option ‘I don’t
know/want to answer’.
- 34 -
A copy of the materials provided to respondents and the consent form they were asked to
complete is provided in Appendix I together with the information sheet presented to the
organisations that assisted in the selection of respondents and undertaking the interviews.
The survey questionnaire was developed in consultation with stakeholders and was pilot
tested with 20 respondents. The questionnaire is included as Appendix II and comprised a
number of mainly multiple choice questions which covered eight main areas.
•
Part 1: This included questions about participants’ demographic, household and
family situations.
•
Part 2: This included questions about participants’ experiences prior to migrating
to Australia and covered areas such as their employment experiences prior to
migration; their education experiences and highest qualification achieved.
•
Part 3: This was directed at first generation migrants only and covered the area of
settlement experiences. Questions focused on year of arrival; experiences
surrounding skills recognition and employment status within their early settlement
period; their initial employment experiences; citizenship status; English proficiency
and education.
•
Part 4 focused on participants’ education and employment experiences. Participants
were asked about their current and past study and qualifications achieved while
living in Australia; their current activities and income sources; whether they owned
a business while living in Australia and their situations with regards to paid and
unpaid work.
•
Part 5 covered participants’ social and cultural experiences in Australia. It
comprised questions about participants’ experiences and participation in their local
neighbourhood and ethnic community. Questions considered facilitators and
barriers to social participation and participants’ beliefs about whether they felt part
of their local and ethnic communities within the Australian context. It further asked
questions around participants’ past experiences and future intentions about
sponsoring family to migrate to Australia.
•
Part 6 included questions about participants’ experiences and roles within the
Australian community and beliefs about whether they felt part of Australian life
- 35 -
and culture. This included questions about their community and volunteer work as
well as their civic engagement.
•
Part 7 considered participants’ current satisfaction and future intentions to reside in
Australia.
•
Part 8 was directed at second generation migrants only and focused on questions
about participants’ parents’ migration experiences as well as their beliefs about
participation in Australia.
1.5.3
Limitations of the Survey
There were a number of lessons learned from undertaking the survey. Excellent cooperation
was gained from the MRCs and other organisations that worked on selecting the respondents
and applying the questionnaires but a number of difficulties were experienced:
•
There are significant difficulties with language with the settlement agencies and
MRCs not always being able to ask questions in the first language of respondents.
Issues of low literacy and limited English language skills were especially problems
with recently arrived humanitarian settlers.
•
For those who have experienced a long-term state of civil war, or periods in camps,
literacy in their own language, let alone English, is problematic and this had
implications for the data collected in the survey. Newer arrivals in particular may
have encountered increased linguistic and cultural barriers to participating in this
survey.
•
While settlement agencies and MRCs were asked to work with participants to
complete the survey, we cannot guarantee that this process was always followed.
Some questions were left unanswered, indicating that respondents may not have
understood questions or answered them in a way which accurately expressed their
views. Where respondents were assisted with their answers, it is also possible that
they may have written what was suggested by the person helping them.
•
People who have recently arrived in a new country, especially out of war situations,
often have a fear of authority and mistrust in strangers (Cottone, 2005). Hence,
although the surveys were confidential, we cannot expect that respondents
necessarily felt safe to share information about sensitive issues such as income or
job experience with MRCs and settlement agencies;
- 36 -
•
Recruitment of participants that matched the selection criteria described above was
an ongoing challenge. Settlement agencies and MRCs work with Integrated
Humanitarian Settlement Strategy and Settlement Grants Program clients who have
usually been here for five years or less. This made it difficult for them to recruit
participants given that a key criteria was that participants needed to be here for over
five years; in some instances MRCs did not follow these instructions and
consequently a small proportion of the sample have been here for five years or less.
•
Similarly while researchers stressed that a key sample for this questionnaire should
be second generation migrants, this was not a key focus for recruiting
organisations. A separate survey for second generation refugees could have
assisted in recruiting this target group. Recruiting organisations should have had a
quota of participants who had to be second generation, i.e. 30 percent.
•
Other problematic issues relate to accessing community members because of their
perceptions of over-consultation.
•
Organisations were asked to provide this questionnaire to only one member of a
household. This meant that in many instances the head of household – usually male
–completed the questionnaire. This has important gender implications as other
members of the household – including women and young adults - may have been
missed.
•
While ethnic community-based organisations (other than MRCs and settlement
agencies) were approached to distribute the questionnaire in the early stages, this
idea was discarded because some leaders were unclear about the distinction
between refugees and other migrants and several felt uncomfortable asking about
this; in other instances leaders were not adequately organised to recruit participants.
Despite the considerable difficulty in undertaking the survey it was successful in providing
detail to assist in interpreting the more representative secondary data analysis. All told, 649
humanitarian settler families were interviewed. Table 1.10 shows that the respondents were
distributed across five states.
Our original objective was to interview around 1,000
respondents but the issues detailed above meant that this was impossible. Nevertheless, we
believe a good coverage of settlers was obtained.
Despite our attempts to
- 37 -
Table 1.10:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey, 2009-10: Respondents by State
Australian Humanitarian Settlement Survey, 2009-10
State
Number of Interviews
New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory
77
Victoria
197
Queensland
111
South Australia (SA)
158
Western Australia (WA)
106
Total
649
Figure 1.12: Australian Humanitarian Settlement Survey: Age-Sex Structure of
Respondents, 2009-10
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settlement Survey, 2009-10
Males
60+
Females
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
<20
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
Number
include as many longstanding settlers in our sample as possible, some 60 percent had been in
Australia less than ten years. There is a real problem in being able to identify longer term
humanitarian settlers since many of them do not maintain contact with settlement
organisations. It was decided to undertake more in-depth interviews with longer standing
settlers in order to gain more detailed information on their experience. Similarly, it was
extremely difficult to identify adult second generation humanitarian settlers because they also
have tended not to maintain linkages with humanitarian settlement organisations. Again it
- 38 -
was decided in-depth interviews would be the best strategy to add depth to the secondary data
analysis. There was a broad spread of countries covered with the largest groups coming from
Africa (37.9 percent) and Asia (31.9 percent) with 22.9 percent coming from the Middle East
and seven percent from Europe.
The questionnaires were completed by a responsible adult in each household. Some 46.7
percent were male and 53.3 percent female. Figure 1.12 shows that the respondents were
well spread across the adult age categories.
1.5.4
Qualitative Studies
It was always intended that a major part of the present study would involve in-depth
qualitative work. One of the qualitative strategies that were planned was for focus groups to
be arranged among key groups of first and second generation refugee settlers to explore in
depth several of the topics being investigated by the study. These were to be arranged along
birthplace lines with particular ethnic and migrant associations used as a basis for identifying
the focus groups. The issues explored in the focus groups were to be economic participation,
economic linkages with the home country, civic participation, volunteering, social
participation, satisfaction with life in Australia and future settlement intentions. It was found
in practice, however, that the focus group was not an effective methodology to employ with
the humanitarian groups studied here. It was found that participants did not open up in the
focus group context so we concentrated on in-depth interviews with key respondents and
stakeholders. These in-depth interviews were conducted with over seventy stakeholders
across metropolitan South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and
Victoria from November 2009 until April 2010.
Stakeholders – or key informants as they are referred to here – were selected on the basis of
their knowledge, insight into and experience on: refugees’ migration and resettlement
experiences; Australia’s resettlement program and services; the factors promoting and
hindering refugees’ engagement with the labour market and participation with the wider
community. Several key informants were also selected on their specific expertise around
refugee youth, refugees with a disability and aged refugees.
Key informants interviewed for the project came from a range of organisations and groups
including:
- 39 -
•
MRCs and settlement agencies
•
Local government
•
State government departments including DIAC, Department of Families and
Communities (SA) and Department of Employment, Education and Innovation
(Queensland)
•
State based multicultural agencies such as Multicultural SA; Office of Multicultural
Interests (WA) and the Victorian Multicultural Commission
•
Peak bodies such as Ethnic Community Councils and the Refugee Council of
Australia
•
Advocacy organisations
•
Employers
•
Education providers
•
Mainstream service providers such as Job Network Providers
•
Ethnic community councils, bodies and groups
•
Leaders among humanitarian settler groups
A list of those key informants by state is documented in Appendix III. 6 Interviews with key
informants focused broadly on the factors promoting and hindering refugees’ contribution to
Australia. Under this broad topic a range of other issues impacting on the extent and nature
of refugees’ contribution were identified and explored. Key among these were resettlement
services; the differences and commonalities refugee and humanitarian entrants experience
with other migrants; and the ways in which government and community can facilitate
refugees’ contribution through an empowerment focused model.
Across all these areas, all key informants emphasised the sheer resilience and determination
refugees exhibited in making a new life for themselves in Australia and their deep desire to
contribute to the country which has offered them refuge. Many stressed that refugees – as
their clients, colleagues or communities – did not want to live off welfare benefits and many
found this humiliating and adverse to their cultural values and principles.
6
Individual refugee-humanitarian respondents who were interviewed in-depth are not identified.
- 40 -
1.6
MODELS OF MIGRANT INCORPORATION
Incorporation of migrants into destination societies and economies has become an area of
increasing attention among both policymakers and researchers (Fix, 2007). In Australia this
has been an important focus throughout the post-war period (Holton, 2004). Bean and Brown
(2010) recognise three major theories of immigrant and ethnic group integration:
•
The Assimilation Model: This approach which dominated in Australia during the
first half of the post-World War II era involves the convergence of immigrant
groups toward the ‘mainstream’, majority population. This ‘melting pot’ approach
sees ‘immigrant/ethnic and majority groups becoming more similar over time in
their norms, values, behaviours and characteristics … it would expect those
immigrants residing the longest in the host society and the members of later
generations would show greater similarities to the majority group than immigrants
who have been there shorter times’ (Bean and Brown, 2010, 6).
•
The Ethnic Disadvantage Model: This theory suggests that lingering
discrimination and institutional barriers prevent migrants from achieving upward
mobility so that integration remains incomplete.
•
The Segmented Assimilation Model: The idea of this approach brings together
elements of both the assimilation and ethnic disadvantage perspectives. It argues
that some migrants experience structural barriers which limit their access to
employment and other opportunities while others experience upward mobility
(Portes, Fernández-Kelly and Haller, 2005). This approach emphasises multiple
pathways to incorporation and the policy emphasis is on identifying the contextual,
structural and cultural factors that separate successful incorporation from
unsuccessful integration.
The last model recognises the diversity of experience of migrants and recognises that neither
of the two desired approaches fully depicts how groups of migrants adjust to their destination.
This seems to be the most appropriate theoretical context for the present study which seeks to
assess the contribution of humanitarian settlers. The experience of settlers is clearly impacted
by a number of elements which will vary between groups of settlers and within those groups.
These factors include:
- 41 -
•
The human capital of experience and knowledge that the settlers bring with them.
•
The context into which they arrive. This especially applies to the economic
situation. Canadian research suggest that settlers whose initial arrival is at a time of
economic downturn and high unemployment are to some extent ‘scarred’ by this
and it remains a barrier throughout their lives, even when economic conditions
improve (Martin, 2010).
•
The responsiveness of the destination community to the new arrivals.
In attempts to assess the success of migrant incorporation in destinations there is little
agreement about the spectrum of dimensions which need to be investigated (Hirschman,
2001). Bean and Brown (2010, 13) conceptualise four domains of incorporation which
should be considered – economic, sociocultural, spatial and political. In the contemporary
Australian context it is important also to consider the recent Third Intergenerational Report
(Swan, 2010) when assessing the economic contribution and potential contribution of
different migrant groups in Australia. That report argues that population ageing will impact
significantly on Australia’s future economic growth and that there are three ‘P’ processes
which will be crucial to future prosperity.
•
Population – growth of the workforce age population
•
Participation – the extent to which they participate in the workforce
•
Productivity – output per worker
- 42 -
Figure 1.13: Estimates of the Contribution of Population, Participation and
Productivity to Economic Growth in Australia Over the Past 40 Years
and Projected Over the Next 40 Years
Source:
Swan, 2010, xiii
Figure 1.13 shows that productivity has been the major contributor to growth over the last 40
years. It is important that any assessment of the contribution of refugee-humanitarian settlers
to the Australian economy takes account of their effect on the three Ps. Accordingly, this
study will investigate the contribution of humanitarian settlers in the following domains:
•
Population – the demographic contribution
•
Participation in the labour force
•
Productivity – contribution to Australian economic growth
•
Sociocultural engagement in the community
- 43 -
1.7
OUTLINE OF REPORT
The second chapter of this report indicates an assessment of the demographic impact of
refugee-humanitarian migration to Australia. This is of considerable relevance given the
national attention being paid to the effects of low fertility and ageing on the Australian
economy and, to a lesser extent, society (Swan, 2010). Chapter 3 focuses on the economic
contribution of refugee-humanitarian settlers from a labour force perspective. It especially
examines issues of labour force participation levels and the involvement of this group in the
labour force. Chapter 4 continues the theme of economic contribution by examining the role
of refugee-humanitarian migrants in business and the extent and nature of their
entrepreneurial activity. Chapter 5 addresses the social and civic contribution of refugeehumanitarian migrants. In the final chapter an overall assessment of the contribution of
humanitarian settlers is made and some of the main policy implications are drawn out.
- 44 -
CHAPTER 2.
THE DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACT OF REFUGEEHUMANITARIAN MIGRATION
2.1
INTRODUCTION
The Third Intergenerational Report (Swan, 2010, 21) argues that Australia’s future economic
growth in the context of an ageing society is through the development and support of social
policies in the ‘3Ps’:
•
Productivity
•
Participation
•
Population
In the context of the current chapter it is the third ‘P’ which is a focus of attention. A
growing population is seen as assisting in managing the pressures of an ageing population
and providing the skills to support economic growth. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on
the contribution of the refugee-humanitarian immigration intake to Australian population
growth and in particular to its contribution to the workforce age groups. It begins with a brief
discussion of the numerical contribution of refugee-humanitarian migration to population
growth in Australia as a whole and to the respective states and territories. It then looks at the
age-sex distribution of the refugee-humanitarian intake and examines some of its
implications. The fertility of refugee-humanitarian groups is then discussed, since the second
generation of refugee-humanitarian settlers is an important group when assessing the impact
of this group on the economy.
Research has drawn attention to the ‘demographic dividend’ of economic growth that can be
delivered by a favourable age structure. (Wang and Mason, 2007; Mason and Lee, 2006;
Mason, 2007). Such an age structure is one where the workforce grows faster than the
overall population – especially when it grows faster than the dependent segments of the
population (children and the elderly). In Asia, the rapid and sustained declines in fertility that
followed a baby boom generation created a special demographic situation: the ratio of the
working age to the non-working age population is the highest it has ever been. While this
- 45 -
does not automatically confer a dividend of enhanced economic growth if there is an
unfavourable policy environment, several empirical studies of Asian countries have
confirmed the existence of a dividend (Mason, 2007).
If the correct policies are in place, the combined effect of this large working age population
and the appropriate health, family, labour, financial and human-capital policies can create
cycles of wealth creation.
Asia’s demographic dividend has coincided with the era of
globalisation, and will continue to increase for the next decade or so before it begins to
decline in the late 2020s. It has been estimated that 20 percent of China’s rapid economic
growth in recent decades has been due to a high ratio of working to non-working population
delivered by low fertility (Wang and Mason, 2007).
It is shown in this chapter that
humanitarian migration has in fact delivered a type of demographic dividend through its age
structure. It is also shown that refugee settlers have lower emigration rates than other types
of migrants, which adds to their economic contribution.
The final part of the chapter examines the spatial distribution of refugee-humanitarian settlers
in Australia. It is argued that their increasing settlement in regional areas is making a small
but important contribution to meeting labour shortages in some parts of regional Australia.
2.2
TRENDS IN REFUGEE-HUMANITARIAN MIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA
Australia’s first experience with a modern refugee situation goes back to the period
immediately before World War II, although refugees have sought and received asylum in
Australia since the earliest days of European settlement (Australian Population and
Immigration Council [APIC], 1979, 5). Some months after the 1938 Evian Conference,
Australia agreed to accept, over a three-year period, 15,000 Jewish refugees who had fled
Germany, Austria and the Czech Sudetenland as a result of the anti-Semitic policies pursued
by Hitler. However, only 7,500 had arrived by mid 1939, when the outbreak of war forced
the program’s suspension (APIC, 1979, 5). It is in the post-war period that resettlement of
refugees has assumed major significance. Australia has resettled around three quarters of a
million refugees since Federation. This represents around a tenth of the overall immigration
intake and around a twentieth of the total national population growth. Hence, from a purely
demographic perspective, the significance of refugee migrations is considerable.
- 46 -
A refugee component was specifically included in the Australian immigration program only
in 1978, but there have been a variety of arrangements under which refugees have
immigrated to, and settled in, Australia.
An important feature of refugee-humanitarian
migration has been its wave nature. These include the following waves where Australia has
responded to the outbreak of war or violent displacement in different parts of the world:
•
Displaced Persons Program which involved the settlement of 180,000 Central and
Eastern Europeans displaced as a result of World War II. This program ran from
1947 to 1954.
•
White Russians from China, involving the resettlement of some 14,000 Russians
who arrived in North China as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution and the later
white Intervention in 1921, and their dependants.
•
Hungarians who fled Hungary after the 1956 uprising, involving the resettlement of
14,000.
•
Czechs who fled Czechoslovakia after the Prague uprising in 1968, resulting in the
resettlement of almost 6,000.
•
Lebanese who were resettled as a consequence of the 1974 Civil War, involving
some 18,000 during the period 1975 to 1978 and others following subsequent
crises.
•
Indo Chinese from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, involving the resettlement of
130,000 since 1975.
•
Eastern Europeans under a continuing commitment following the end of the
displaced Persons Program in 1954, and from Poland following the Polish crisis of
1980-81.
•
Latin Americans largely from Chile and El Salvador resettled under programs
which were begun in 1982, involving resettlement of some 3,000.
•
Refugees from the Middle East and North Africa following the Gulf War and other
major outbreaks over the last two decades (143,265 persons).
- 47 -
•
In the 1990s there was a significant inflow from the former Yugoslavia and the
former USSR following conflicts in Eastern Europe (92,670 persons).
•
Refugees from Iran and Iraq have been important for over two decades (52,110
persons).
•
The Horn of Africa countries of Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan have been
important origin areas over the last decade (39,439 persons).
•
Afghanistan refugees began to move to Australia after the 1979 Russian invasion of
Afghanistan but have been especially significant since the 1990s (18,609 persons).
•
Sri Lanka (22,541 persons) and Myanmar (7,862 persons) have become significant
origins in recent years.
The wave nature of refugee-humanitarian settlement in Australia has been referred to in
Chapter One (Figure 1.4) as a key feature. Figure 2.1 shows the major waves of refugeehumanitarian migrants coming to Australia since 1945. The present report concentrates
largely on three waves of refugee-humanitarian settlers who have come to Australia since
1978 when the government introduced a specific refugee-humanitarian sub-program into the
Immigration Program. Since that time, 438,620 persons have entered Australia as refugeehumanitarian settlers. However it is estimated that since Federation around three quarters of
a million refugees have settled in Australia (Refugee Council of Australia, 2010).
- 48 -
Figure 2.1:
Source:
Waves of Refugees to Australia Since 1945
Drawn from data in Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC),
2009b, 25
Around 700,000 people in humanitarian need resettled since 1945
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
More than 2800 people from Sierra Leone
resettled since 1999
Around 2300 Liberians resettled since
2004
170 000 displaced persons from Eastern
Europe between 1947 and 1954
Almost 6000 Czechs resettled after the
Prague Spring in 1968
14 000 Hungarians resettled after the
1956 uprising
Around 42 000 people resettled from the
former Yugoslavia since 1991
18 000 Lebanese resettled after the 1975
civil war
Around 28 000 Sudanese resettled since
1996
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
More than 2700 Somalis resettled since
1996
Around 43 000 people resettled from the
Middle East and South West Asia since
the late 1970s
14 000 White Russians from China
resettled between 1947 and 1985
Almost 6500 Burmese resettled since
2004
More than 155 000 Vietnamese resettled
since 1975
More than 16 000 people from Central
and South America resettled since 1973
As was indicated in Chapter 1 there is no way of identifying former refugee-humanitarian
settlers in the Australian population so that an accurate estimation of the current ‘stock’ of
- 54 -
former refugees in Australia is not possible. Clearly the three quarters of a million arrivals
over the last century have suffered attrition due to mortality and subsequent emigration to
other countries. However, they have also added to the population growth through:
•
Fertility of refugee women after their arrival in Australia.
•
Subsequent assistance and encouragement given to other family members and
friends to migrate to Australia under the family or skill elements of the migration
program.
In order to give an indication of the scale of the demographic impact of refugee-humanitarian
migration on the contemporary Australian population, Table 2.1 shows the numbers at the
2006 Australian population census who were:
(a)
born in a country which has been the origin for a large number of refugeehumanitarian settlers to Australia; and
(b)
are Australia-born but also indicated that their ancestry was from one of those
designated countries.
This clearly does not provide a completely accurate picture of first and second generation
humanitarian settlers in Australia. The first generation is incorrect insofar as it:
(a)
includes persons who migrated to Australia with a different (non-refugeehumanitarian) visa;
(b)
excludes persons born in other countries who came to Australia under a humanitarian
visa.
However, in almost all of the countries listed in Table 2.1, most of the persons either
migrated to Australia as a refugee-humanitarian settler or as a sponsored family member of
such a settler.
- 55 -
Table 2.1:
Source:
Australia: Number of Persons Born in a Country Which Has Sent
Significant Numbers of Refugees to Australia and Australia-Born Persons
Indicating Their Ancestry was in One of These Countries, 2006
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2006 Census
Country of Origin
Group Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Total Refugee Groups
First Generation
(Birthplace)
Second Generation
(Ancestry)
Total
2,627
50,996
1,934
20,161
5,611
3,072
13,878
15,354
3,323
13,666
2,123
64,916
5,584
35,484
12,750
7,484
6,131
31,606
3,112
20,832
4,750
115,912
7,518
55,645
18,361
10,556
20,009
46,960
10,435
34,498
23,304
7,179
9,911
10,178
33,215
17,357
24,631
24,528
9,317
9,397
9,375
75,849
159,850
3,614
7,240
2,123
1,709
3,444
107,561
54,305
28,045
31,868
11,440
11,006
12,819
182,410
214,155
16,751
12,378
753
521
2,015
5,034
22,549
35,520
1,523
1,809
4,314
62,256
19,049
658,126
3,304
5,022
356
675
513
1,045
4,404
3,317
51
63
1,720
19,974
1,692
432,323
20,055
17,400
1,109
1,196
2,528
6,679
26,953
38,837
1,574
1,872
6,034
82,230
20,741
1,090,449
With respect to the second generation the numbers are subject to a number of qualifications
which apply to all of the ancestry data collected at Australian censuses (Khoo and Lucas,
2004; ABS, 1984; ABS, 1994a). These include:
- 56 -
(a)
An increasing number of Australia-born persons give their ancestry as Australian as
opposed to the birthplace of their overseas-born parents or grandparents.
(b)
Some refugee origin groups give their ancestry as an ethnic/religious category other
than a country such as Tamil (1,543 persons in 2006), Kurdish (1,245) and Armenian
(5,841).
(c)
The data includes third and later generations as well as the second generation.
Nevertheless, despite these limitations it is argued here that Table 2.1 gives a robust picture
of the scale of the demographic impact of post-war refugee migration on the contemporary
Australian population.
It is of note that at the 2006 Australian census over a million
Australians - over five percent of the population - indicted that they were either born in a
country which has sent a significant number of refugees to Australia, or were Australia-born
and indicated that their ancestry was in one of those countries.
The largest single refugee-humanitarian group are the Vietnamese, the first and second
generation of whom numbered 214,155 or around one percent of the total national
population.
Together with Cambodians (31,868) and Laotians (12,819) the Vietnamese
refugee movement predominantly occurred in the 15 years following the reunification of
Vietnam in 1975. Figure 2.2 shows the annual inflow of Indo Chinese immigrants since 1975
and indicates how the refugee-humanitarian component was dominant in the initial years but
has been gradually replaced by other, mainly family, migration.
The second largest group are the Lebanese, whose second generation is larger than their first
generation with a total population of 182,410. Lebanese refugee-humanitarian migration and
follow up family migration has occurred over a long period which means that a mature
community has developed with a large second generation. The communities from Iran and
Iraq have been more recently developed so they have a much smaller second generation.
- 57 -
Figure 2.2:
Source:
Refugee and Humanitarian Program and All Indo Chinese Settlers
Arriving in Australia, 1974-2009
Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs
unpublished statistics and DIAC Immigration Update, various issues
The third largest community is from Croatia with 115,912. It will be noted that the second
generation is also larger than the first generation, reflecting the fact that there were two waves
of migration - firstly, following World War II and then following the conflicts surrounding
the break-up of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The group from Bosnia-Herzegovina
(28,045 persons) are similarly experiencing two waves of humanitarian inflows. Several of
the European origin groups predominantly date from refugees mainly in the early post-war
years so they are older established communities with large second generations. They include
those from Bulgaria (4,750), the Czech Republic (17,357), Estonia (7,518), Hungary
(55,645), Latvia (18,361), Lithuania (10,556), Romania (20,009), Russian Federation
(46,960), Slovakia (10,435) and Ukraine (34,498).
There have been more recent refugee movements from Asia represented in the growing
communities from Afghanistan (20,055) and Burma (Myanmar) (17,400) where the second
generation are relatively young and few in number. Refugee migration from Sri Lanka is of
increasing significance but the large Sri Lankan community (82,230 persons) has only a
minority of refugees with economic and family migrants being predominant. The small East
- 58 -
Timor group (11,440) dates back to the refugee flow following Indonesian invasion of East
Timor in 1975.
Africa has been a significant source of refugee-humanitarian flows in recent years (Hugo,
2009a). In each case the second generation is very small compared to the first generation.
The largest groups originate from Sudan (20,741), Ethiopia (6,679), Somalia (6,073) and
Eritrea (2,528).
The refugee-humanitarian origin population hence represent a very diverse group in terms of
their ethnic, birthplace and religious origins. Also varied is their time of arrival in Australia,
so the average time that community members have had to adjust to the labour market and
other aspects of life in Australia differs. It is important to bear those differences in mind
when assessing their contribution to the national economy and society.
Because the timing of the waves of refugees differs between different ancestry and birthplace
groups, they are experiencing quite different rates of population growth. Table 2.2 shows the
annual growth rates of the major refugee birthplace groups between the 2001 and 2006
population censuses and also, where 2008 population estimates are available, for the 2006-08
period. It will be noted that several groups have grown quite rapidly with rates well above
the national population growth rate, which itself has been higher over this period. This
especially applies to the African groups but also Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. Several of the
European groups grew only slowly and some even decreased.
The largest groups of
Vietnamese and Lebanese grew only slowly indicating the major influx from these origins
has passed.
- 59 -
Table 2.2:
Source:
Australia: Selected Refugee Groups by Country of Birth, 2001-08
ABS, 2001 and 2006 Censuses and Estimated Resident Population Data
Country of Birth
2008
2006
Growth Rate p.a. (%)
2001
2001-06
2006-08
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
3,428
2,677
2,571
0.8
2.0*
Croatia
69,962
50,996
51,909
-0.4
-1.0
Estonia
2,271
1,934
2,389
-4.1
0.1
Hungary
23,267
20,161
22,752
-2.4
-1.1
Latvia
6,077
5,611
6,688
-3.5
-3.5
Lithuania
3,334
3,072
3,687
-3.6
-3.3
Romania
16,746
13,878
12,821
1.6*
1.0
Russian Federation
20,373
15,354
15,021
0.4
5.2*
Slovakia
5,437
3,323
2,984
2.2*
1.7
Ukraine
15,168
13,666
14,062
-0.6
-1.9
Chile
27,903
23,304
23,420
-0.1
1.5
Czech Republic
14,217
7,179
6,973
0.6
0.3
37,898
24,631
23,848
0.6
-0.3
Cambodia
29,417
24,528
22,979
1.3*
2.0*
East Timor
10,487
9,317
9,389
-0.2
-0.7
El Salvador
10,822
9,397
9,696
-0.6
0.2
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Laos
10,955
9,375
9,565
-0.4
0.7
Lebanon
89,065
74,849
71,349
1.0
1.5
Vietnam
193,288
159,850
154,831
0.6
2.1*
Afghanistan
22,919
16,751
11,296
8.2*
8.1*
Burma (Myanmar)
17,217
12,378
10,973
2.4*
10.6*
Burundi
Na
753
27
94.6*
na
Congo
Na
520
136
30.8*
na
Eritrea
2,620
2,015
1,599
4.7*
4.9*
Recent Arrivals
7,527
5,634
3,544
9.7*
7.3*
Iran
Ethiopia
29,582
22,549
18,789
3.7*
6.0*
Iraq
41,664
32,520
24,832
5.5*
5.4*
Liberia
Na
1,523
124
65.1*
na
Sierra Leone
2,842
1,809
363
37.9*
16.7*
Somalia
5,514
4,314
3,713
3.0*
4.6*
Sri Lanka
79,995
62,256
53,461
3.1*
5.6*
Sudan
24,796
19,049
4,900
31.2*
7.2*
Total population
21,431,781
20,061,646
18,972,354
1.1
1.8
Australia
15,975,917
14,072,946
13,629,481
0.6
1.2
Mainly English Speaking (MES)
1,982,653
1,675,351
1,601,421
0.9
2.8
Non-English Speaking (NES)
3,503,211
4,313,349
3,741,452
2.9
4.4
* Above national average growth rate.
- 60 -
Table 2.3:
Source:
Ancestry Multi Response:
1986, 2001 and 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Ancestry, Multi Response
Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups,
2006
Australian
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgarian
Croatian
Estonian
Hungarian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Romanian
Russian
Slovak
Ukrainian
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chilean
Czech
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnian
Khmer
Timorese
Salvadoran
Lao
Lebanese
Vietnamese
Recent Arrivals
Afghan
Burmese
Southern and East African, nec (includes Afar,
Namibian, Tutsi)
Central and West African, nec (includes Fang,
Fulani, Kongo)
Eritrean
Ethiopian
Iranian
Iraqi
Liberian
Sierra Leonean
Somali
Sinhalese
Sudanese
Kurdish
Tamil
2001
1986
Growth Rate (%)
200119862006
2006
1.8
8.0
7,371,823
6,739,594
3,402,047
4,898
118,049
8,234
67,623
20,061
13,275
18,325
67,056
8,504
37,584
4,179
105,747
7,543
62,859
18,938
12,317
16,121
60,213
7,054
33,960
3,179
47,833
7,820
57,928
20,610
11,404
9,009
46,352
2,449
29,885
3.2
2.2
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.5
2.6
2.2
3.8
2.0
4.4
9.5
0.5
1.6
-0.3
1.5
7.4
3.8
13.3
2.3
25,433
21,194
21,579
17,126
13,344
24,228
3.3
4.4
6.7
-1.3
18,463
25,553
6,242
6,871
10,768
181,753
173,666
17,993
21,361
5,491
6,617
10,086
162,239
156,581
19,414
13,821
12,410
10,557
6,459
92,428
64,998
0.5
3.6
2.6
0.8
1.3
2.3
2.1
5.2
7.0
10.3
6,422
9.4
5.5
8.0
6,001
1,642
5.6
12.9
4.6
8.4
14.7
26.2
9,725
2,231
10.1
10.8
2,865
2,656
2,659
5,603
23,575
16,763
1,144
875
6,404
73,849
17,844
5,470
8,897
2,029
3,054
18,798
11,190
5,007
58,602
3,788
4,494
7,706
20,750
1,928
1,304
Note: Only ancestries with at least 2,000 responses in 2001 included.
5.0
4.7
36.3
4.0
2.9
13.5
11.0
21.2
- 61 -
Another way of examining the dynamics of the growth of the stocks of refugee-humanitarian
settler groups is to use ancestry data and Table 2.3 presents this data for the 1986, 2001 and
2006 censuses. As with the birthplace data, the table highlights the rapid recent growth of the
African groups (e.g. Sudanese, Somalis, Eritrean and Ethiopian).
2.3
THE
AGE
STRUCTURE
OF
THE
REFUGEE-HUMANITARIAN
POPULATION
There is an increasing amount of research evidence that points to the impacts that age
structure has on economies. Wang and Mason (2007) have estimated that between 15 and 20
percent of China’s rapid economic growth in the reform era has been due to the demographic
dividend of a favourable ratio of working age to non-working age population. Hence from an
economic perspective the age structure of refugee-humanitarian populations is of
significance. An important characteristic of the contemporary refugee-humanitarian intake,
as Figure 2.3 indicates, is that it is substantially younger than the national Australian
population. Indeed the median age of the refugee-humanitarian intake over the 2003-09
period was 31.8 years compared with a median age of 42.9 in the Australian population. The
Index of Dissimilarity between the age structure of the refugee inflow and the total
population is 33.5, meaning that a third of the refugees would need to change their age group
to duplicate the national resident population.
It is also important to point out that not only is the refugee intake young when compared with
the national resident population, it is very young when compared with the total immigration
intake. Figure 2.4 overlays the age-sex composition of the refugee-humanitarian settlers
arriving in the 2003-09 period with that of the total migrant intake. It is readily apparent that
dependent age children and young adults aged 15-24 are significantly overrepresented
compared with all immigrants while the middle and older working age groups (25-49) are
significantly underrepresented. In fact the median ages of skilled (31.5), family (29.4) and
other
(24.5)
migrants
are
significantly
higher
than
that
for
refugees
(20).
- 62 -
Figure 2.3:
Australia: Age-Sex Structure of Refugee-Humanitarian Migrants, 200304 to 2008-09 and Total Australian Population, 2006
DIAC unpublished data; ABS 2006 Census
Source:
Refugee Humanitarian (shaded) and Total Australian Population
65+
60-64
Females
Males
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
Age
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Percent
Figure 2.4:
Source:
Australia: Age-Sex Structure of Refugee-Humanitarian and Total
Migrant Intake, 2003-04 to 2008-09
DIAC unpublished data
Refugee Humanitarian (shaded) and Total Migrant Intake
Males
65+
Females
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
Age
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Percen t
It is of some relevance to this study that so many refugee-humanitarian migrants are in the
youngest working ages in which many are making the crucial transition from school to work.
- 63 -
Table 2.4:
Source:
Australia: Visa Category by Mean and Median Age, 2003-04 to 2008-09
DIAC unpublished data
Visa Category
Mean
Median
Total Settler Arrivals
27.3
31.8
Humanitarian
21.8
20.0
Family
31.4
29.4
Skill
26.4
31.5
Other
26.1
24.5
Australia 2006 Census
36.7
42.9
Note: Calculated from five year interval data.
Table 2.5:
Source:
Australia: Settler Arrivals by Visa Category, 2003-04 to 2008-09
DIAC unpublished data
Percent
Percent
Percent
0-14
15-29
30+
Total Settler Arrivals
25.5
30.1
44.4
100.0
Visa Category
Total
Humanitarian
39.7
32.8
27.5
100.0
Family
12.7
41.7
45.6
100.0
Skill
28.6
21.7
49.8
100.0
Other
29.4
32.1
38.5
100.0
The greater youth of the intake of refugee-humanitarian settlers is apparent in Table 2.4
which indicates the mean and median ages of the settler intake of the major visa categories
over the 2003-09 period. It will be noted that both mean and median ages are substantially
less for refugee-humanitarian arrivals. This is reinforced in Table 2.5 which shows the
proportions in each visa category in the 0-14, 15-29 and 30+ age categories. This shows the
proportion of humanitarian arrivals who are dependent children is almost twice that for the
other categories. Clearly dependent children are a very important part of the refugee intake.
Thus the demographic impact of refugees is somewhat different to that of the other visa
categories. A higher proportion of refugee-humanitarian arrivals than other groups are made
up of children who receive their education in Australia.
- 64 -
The majority of refugee-humanitarian migrants arrive in Australia as children or young
adults. This means that for the bulk of refugee entrants virtually their entire working lives
will be spent in Australia. On the other hand, a significant number of other migrants have
spent a substantial period working in their home nations before coming to Australia. The fact
is that refugee-humanitarian migrants are disproportionately concentrated in the age groups
which contribute toward a demographic dividend which potentially can be delivered when the
size of the workforce increases faster than the population as a whole due to large numbers
entering the workforce ages (Pool, 2004; Wang and Mason, 2007). It is an important point
that because many refugee-humanitarian migrants arrive as children, the majority of these
arrivals spend almost all of their working lives in Australia, maximising their potential
economic contribution compared with other visa categories that often arrive in mid-career.
These age structural elements also must be borne in mind in comparing the workforce
performance of recently arrived refugee-humanitarian immigrants to other recently arrived
settlers. Simple comparisons of labour force participation, income, etcetera, between visa
categories of migrants in the early years of settlement are influenced by the fact that refugeehumanitarian settlers are much more concentrated in the working ages - where the transition
from education to the labour market occurs - while other migrants have mostly been
employed in their homeland before migration, some with extensive experience in the labour
market. Further, unemployment rates in the total and Australia-born labour markets are much
higher in the youngest labour force ages (ABS, 2010a). It could thus be argued that any
simple comparison of workforce engagement and performance by visa category which is not
age standardised is invalid.
- 65 -
Figure 2.5:
Age-Sex Structure All Refugee Birthplace Groups, Australia-Born in
Refugee Ancestry Groups, Refugee Groups Who Arrived Aged <12 Years
and 12+ Years
ABS, 2006 Census
Source:
R e f u g e e B ir t h p la c e g r o u p s ( s h a d e d ) a n d A u s t r a lia P o p u la t io n
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
8 5 +
0 -8 4
5 -7 9
0 -7 4
5 -6 9
0 -6 4
5 -5 9
0 -5 4
5 -4 9
0 -4 4
5 -3 9
0 -3 4
5 -2 9
0 -2 4
5 -1 9
0 -1 4
5 -9
0 -4
M a le s
6
F e m a le s
4
2
0
2
4
6
P e rc e n t
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
M a le s
8 5 +
0 -8 4
5 -7 9
0 -7 4
5 -6 9
0 -6 4
5 -5 9
0 -5 4
5 -4 9
0 -4 4
5 -3 9
0 -3 4
5 -2 9
0 -2 4
5 -1 9
0 -1 4
5 -9
0 -4
8
6
A u s t r a lia - b o r n in R e f u g e e A n c e s t r y g r o u p s ( s h a d e d ) a n d
A u s t r a lia P o p u la t io n
F e m a le s
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
P e rc e n t
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
8 5 +
0 -8 4
5 -7 9
0 -7 4
5 -6 9
0 -6 4
5 -5 9
0 -5 4
5 -4 9
0 -4 4
5 -3 9
0 -3 4
5 -2 9
0 -2 4
5 -1 9
0 -1 4
5 -9
0 -4
M a le s
8
6
R e f u g e e g r o u p s A r r iv e d A g e d < 1 2 ( s h a d e d ) a n d A u s t r a lia
P o p u la t io n
F e m a le s
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
P e rc e n t
R e f u g e e g r o u p s A r r iv e d
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
8 5 +
-8 4
-7 9
-7 4
-6 9
-6 4
-5 9
-5 4
-4 9
-4 4
-3 9
-3 4
-2 9
-2 4
-1 9
-1 4
5 -9
0 -4
M a le s
8
6
4
2
A g e d 1 2 + ( s h a d e d ) a n d A u s t r a lia n
P o p u la t io n
F e m a le s
0
P e rc e n t
2
4
6
8
- 66 -
While the flows of refugee-humanitarian migrants into Australia are very young, the stocks
vary considerably in their age structure because the different groups vary so much in the
timing of their immigration to, and settlement in, Australia. Figure 2.5 depicts the age
structures of four composite groups of refugee-humanitarian settlers and their characteristics.
The first age pyramid represents the total population who were born in the countries who
have sent a large number of refugee-humanitarian settlers to Australia. This shows a strong
concentration in the ages above 30. Of course, this reflects the fact that the children born to
refugees after arrival are regarded as Australia-born. Nevertheless, it will be noted that the
overconcentration in relation to the Australia-born is in the prime working age groups of
25-59. Hence the age structure has a strong overrepresentation in the age groups which
contribute to a ‘demographic dividend’.
The second part of Figure 2.5 is almost the obverse of the first one because it largely includes
the Australia-born children of the group depicted in the first diagram – the Australia-born
who indicated they had the ancestry of a refugee-humanitarian birthplace group as defined in
the previous chapter. They are clearly dominated by dependent age children and young
adults with all age groups less than 30 being overrepresented compared with the total
Australian population. This provides another dimension to the already youthful nature of the
refugee-humanitarian intake as was discussed earlier in this section – the additional children
born to refugees after their arrival in Australia.
As was discussed earlier, it is important to differentiate the refugee-humanitarian birthplace
groups between those that arrived in Australia as adults and those who arrived as children.
The latter clearly do much of their schooling in Australia and as a result have different
resources to adjust to Australian economy and society. Accordingly, the third and fourth
diagram in Figure 2.5, as would be expected, shows that those who arrived here as children
are a much younger age structure than those who came as adults.
- 67 -
Figure 2.6:
Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Vietnam-Born and Australia-Born
with Vietnamese Ancestry, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Source:
Vietnamese Ancestry (shaded) and Vietnam Birthplace
Males
75+
Females
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
Age
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
Percent
It is important to note that there are major differences in the age composition of different
refugee-humanitarian groups due to the wave nature and the different timing of migration for
different groups. Hence, in comparing the labour force and others experience of these
groups, we compare some groups in which many have spent several decades working in
Australia with others where most have less experience. Taking for example the largest single
group, the Vietnamese, Figure 2.6 overlays the age-sex composition of the Vietnam-born and
the Australia-born with Vietnamese ancestry. Clearly, the latter are largely the children of
the former and the Vietnam-born are dominated by people who moved to Australia as young
adults in the 1970s and 1980s. Hence most of the Vietnam-born now are in their 30s, 40s and
50s and in the peak working ages, while most who are Australia-born with Vietnamese
ancestry are aged less than 25. The fact that most refugee-humanitarian populations have a
distinctive demography due to the wave nature of their migration to Australia can be shown
by comparing the age structure of the Vietnam-born in 2006 shown in Figure 2.6 to that of
the Vietnam-born population twenty years earlier shown in Figure 2.7. This shows that in
1987 the Vietnam-born were strongly concentrated in the 10-39 age groups. In Figure 2.7
their age structure is overlaid with that of the total Australian population at that time showing
- 68 -
the dominance of young working ages. Clearly, by 2006 there had been little addition to the
Vietnam-born and the original migrants have aged up the age pyramid.
Figure 2.7:
Source:
Australia: Percentage Age-Sex Distribution of Vietnam-Born and Total
Population, 1987
ABS, 1988
Figure 2.8 shows the Bosnia and Herzegovina-born and their second generation and there is a
bimodal pattern evident in two waves of migration in the 1970s and 1990s. A quite different
pattern is evident in Figure 2.9 which shows the situation for Croatian refugees. Clearly,
most came to Australia in the early post-war years and now are aged over 40 but the second
generation is dominated by young adults and the grandchildren of the original refugees.
- 69 -
Figure 2.8:
Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Bosnia and Herzegovina-Born and
Bosnian Ancestry, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Source:
Bosnian Ancestry (shaded) and Bosnia Birthplace
Males
75+
Females
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
Age
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
Percent
Figure 2.9:
Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Croatia-Born and Croatian Ancestry,
2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Source:
Croatian Ancestry (shaded) and Croatia Birthplace
Males
75+
Females
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
Age
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
10
8
6
4
2
0
Percent
2
4
6
8
10
- 70 -
The Lebanese are one of the largest groups and their age distribution is shown in Figure 2.10.
A strong concentration in the working ages is apparent for the Lebanon-born while for the
second generation the bulk are aged under 30.
Figure 2.10: Australia:
Age-Sex Distribution of Lebanon-Born and Lebanese
Ancestry, 2006
Source:
ABS, 2006 Census
Lebanese Ancestry (shaded) and Lebanon Birthplace
Males
75+
Females
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
Age
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Percent
Figure 2.11: Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Afghanistan-Born and Afghan
Ancestry, 2006
Source:
ABS, 2006 Census
Afghan Ancestry (shaded) and Afghanistan Birthplace
Males
75+
Females
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
Age
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
20
15
10
5
0
Percen t
5
10
15
20
- 71 -
Turning to some of the more recently arrived groups, Figure 2.11 shows the pattern for those
from Afghanistan. The Afghanistan-born are predominantly in the working age groups while
their children are in the dependent ages. A similar pattern is evident in Figure 2.12 which
shows the pattern for the group of Ethiopian origin.
Figure 2.12: Australia: Age-Sex Distribution of Ethiopia-Born and Australia-Born
with Ethiopian Ancestry, 2006
Source:
ABS, 2006 Census
Ethiopian Ancestry (shaded) and Ethiopia Birthplace
Males
75+
Females
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
Age
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percent
The substantial differences in the age structure of the various refugee-humanitarian are shown
in Table 2.6 which indicates the median age and the broad age distribution of those in the
refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups and of their Australia-born children. There are some
clear patterns in evidence. In the overseas-born group the median age ranges between 24.4
years for the Liberia-born to 76.5 for those from Estonia. The oldest groups are those groups
who arrived in the early post-war years, especially those who came as part of the Displaced
Persons wave (Kunz, 1988). They included the groups from Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia and
Hungary. In these groups a large percentage are aged 65 years and over – 48.8, 73.5, 77.1
and
51.1
percent
respectively.
On
the
other
hand
the
youngest
groups
- 72 -
Table 2.6:
Source:
Birthplace
Australia: Birthplace and Ancestry, Percent 0-14, Percent 65+, Percent
75+ and Median Age, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
%
0-14
24.8
6.3
8.4
Australia
MES
NES
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
4.5
Croatia
1.4
Estonia
1.6
Hungary
0.9
Latvia
0.6
Lithuania
1.2
Romania
3.8
Russian Federation
5.3
Slovakia
2.2
Ukraine
2.5
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
2.4
Czech Republic
1.4
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
5.0
Cambodia
2.7
East Timor
1.9
El Salvador
1.9
Laos
0.9
Lebanon
2.5
Vietnam
1.9
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
15.8
Burma (Myanmar)
3.3
Burundi
23.6
Congo
26.4
Eritrea
5.6
Ethiopia
14.5
Iran
7.6
Iraq
10.3
Liberia
15.3
Sierra Leone
20.1
Somalia
11.9
Sri Lanka
5.5
Sudan
26.6
First Generation
%
%
Median
65+
75+
Age
11.1
5.5
32.8
19.7
8.9
48.3
17.9
8.3
43.8
Ancestry
Australian
%
0-14
27.2
Second Generation
%
%
Median
65+
75+
Age
10.6
5.1
30.8
19.4
31.9
77.3
51.1
77.1
73.5
18.3
25.9
18.8
48.8
11.9
8.7
54.5
24.8
48.8
48.0
10.5
16.7
11.7
34.9
45.3
57.2
76.5
65.4
74.5
74.1
44.7
44.5
43.6
63.5
Bulgarian
Croatian
Estonian
Hungarian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Romanian
Russian
Slovak
Ukrainian
14.5
29.9
9.3
11.9
9.2
8.5
17.8
12.7
12.7
9.8
11.0
1.7
20.9
18.8
41.9
19.4
9.5
15.0
11.8
16.2
6.2
0.4
14.0
8.9
13.9
11.8
5.0
8.0
5.7
12.0
39.6
26.4
46.7
42.7
47.0
46.8
37.2
41.0
38.2
45.0
10.4
27.5
2.9
17.4
45.7
55.1
Chilean
Czech
25.1
12.5
5.4
14.0
1.5
8.8
30.8
41.6
10.2
7.4
10.9
6.1
7.8
12.2
7.3
2.3
2.8
4.3
2.2
2.9
4.4
3.1
41.8
40.3
42.7
38.1
42.8
45.0
41.0
Bosnian
Khmer
Timorese
Salvadoran
Lao
Lebanese
Vietnamese
59.6
69.5
24.7
78.9
22.1
43.6
69.3
0.2
0.0
5.5
0.0
4.9
1.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.3
0.0
1.8
0.6
0.0
11.0
10.4
30.1
9.5
32.1
17.4
10.9
3.1
19.2
1.3
2.9
3.9
2.0
9.0
5.9
0.5
0.7
2.2
11.5
2.4
1.1
8.2
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.7
3.7
2.0
0.3
0.2
0.7
5.1
1.0
28.9
46.4
25.2
26.0
37.2
33.8
40.4
35.7
24.4
25.7
29.4
43.1
24.6
Afghan
Burmese
S&E Africa
C & W Africa
Eritrean
Ethiopian
Iranian
Iraqi
Liberian
Sierra Leonean
Somali
Sinhalese
Sudanese
Kurdish
Tamil
77.8
44.1
54.3
53.3
29.0
90.7
66.8
83.7
87.9
90.2
94.6
57.1
88.9
83.5
80.6
1.1
0.2
4.5
1.8
2.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
6.9
0.4
0.1
2.8
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
8.0
17.6
12.8
13.6
27.2
6.4
10.7
5.8
1.6
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
13.0
1.5
6.8
8.8
are the recently arrived communities from Africa and Afghanistan. The ages of the second
generation are extremely young for recently arrived groups, while for others there are
significant proportions in the working age groups.
- 73 -
2.4
GENDER COMPOSITION
Migration is a profoundly gendered process and gender is an important dimension in the
experience of refugees. Table 2.7 shows the sex ratios (males per hundred females) of the
different visa category groups arriving in Australia over the 2003-09 period. While there is
Table 2.7:
Source:
Australia: Sex Ratios by Visa Category, 2003-04 to 2008-09
DIAC, unpublished data
Settler
Humanitarian
Family
Skill
Other
Arrivals
2003-04
93.1
103.4
64.7
108.7
100.0
2004-05
93.1
112.1
63.7
109.0
99.0
2005-06
91.4
99.1
61.1
108.4
101.3
2006-07
90.3
92.8
58.5
109.8
101.5
2007-08
92.3
100.9
57.9
111.8
102.9
2008-09
89.7
94.2
55.7
110.4
101.9
2003-09
91.5
100.3
59.9
109.8
101.3
some fluctuation from year to year, the refugee-humanitarian intake is more balanced
between males and females than any of the other groups. There is some variation in the
gender balance between the stocks of the various birthplace groups as is indicated in Table
2.8.
- 74 -
Table 2.8:
Source:
Australia: Refugee-Humanitarian Groups, First and Second Generation
Sex Ratios, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Refugee Country
Born in
Aged Less
Aged 12 Years
Second
Refugee
Than 12 Years
or More on
Generation
Country
on Arrival
Arrival
Ancestry
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
100.1
Croatia
105.6
Estonia
78.0
Hungary
105.0
98.1
100.7
106.3
99.7
95.6
103.1
105.3
95.6
Latvia
81.7
95.3
Lithuania
82.7
95.1
Romania
96.9
104.9
94.3
94.5
Russian Federation
62.1
93.7
57.2
91.3
Slovakia
95.5
Ukraine
72.8
100.9
68.8
95.1
Chile
90.9
96.1
87.8
100.9
Czech Republic
97.2
101.2
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
97.8
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
100.4
108.4
98.6
102.9
Cambodia
86.6
105.3
82.8
104.2
East Timor
96.5
97.4
95.7
102.9
El Salvador
92.7
100.4
88.6
103.7
Laos
92.9
94.9
91.3
107.7
Lebanon
107.8
101.2
108.6
100.6
Vietnam
89.0
105.2
84.8
103.3
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
118.9
105.1
93.7
98.5
Burundi
110.3
101.7
Congo
121.6
108.8
Eritrea
96.4
102.0
Burma (Myanmar)
Ethiopia
100.2
99.1
100.6
102.1
Iran
110.0
109.6
109.3
105.0
Iraq
110.5
103.9
112.2
103.1
Liberia
87.2
241.2
100.9
74.3
92.5
108.0
Sri Lanka
101.2
98.8
Sudan
118.2
100.4
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
97.0
102.6
93.2
99.1
- 75 -
2.5
FERTILITY
The demographic contribution of refugee-humanitarian settlers is only partly reflected in the
numbers of settlers. As the stock of such settlers grows in Australia the extent to which they
have children contributes to population growth. They add to population growth through both
net migration and natural increase. Accordingly it is important to examine the fertility levels
and patterns of refugee-humanitarian settlers. There are two sources of such information –
registration data and the population census.
Table 2.9:
Source:
Australia: Total Fertility Rate of Selected Birthplace Groups, 2008
ABS, unpublished data
Country of Birth
Total Fertility Rate
Australia
1.93
Total Overseas-Born
1.81
Bosnia and Herzegovina
1.57
Croatia
1.30
Hungary
1.55
Romania
1.72
Russian Federation
1.68
Iran
1.36
Lebanon
3.57*
Cambodia
2.40*
Laos
2.13*
Vietnam
1.98*
Sri Lanka
1.69
Chile
1.79
El Salvador
1.82
Note: No African groups are shown here because the numbers are
not yet large enoughfor their births data to be published separately.
Registration of births in Australia is mandatory and the birth registration form asks the
birthplace of mothers. Accordingly it is possible to use this data to measure the fertility of
- 76 -
birthplace groups. Table 2.9 shows the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) 7 of selected refugee
birthplace groups as indicated by the 2008 birth registration data. Unfortunately the numbers
of births to women in several of the recently arrived refugee-humanitarian groups were too
small to allow the calculation of the TFR. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the level
of fertility of the overseas-born population is lower than that of the Australia-born. Most of
the refugee groups for which data are available are larger, long established groups. For the
Lebanon- and Indo China-born, however, the levels of fertility are higher than for the
Australia-born. Indeed, the TFR for the Lebanon-born is almost twice that of the total
population.
In order to examine the patterns of childbearing among refugee-humanitarian birthplace
group women we compare the average number of children which have been born to those of
Australia-born women. Figure 2.13 shows patterns for some of the long established refugeehumanitarian groups. It will be noted that the Lebanese have significantly higher fertility
than the Australia-born with women having over one more child by the time they have
completed their fertility. It will be noted that the fertility difference is evident even in
younger ages. For the other large group, the Vietnamese, it will be noted that the pattern of
childbearing is quite similar to that of the Australia-born. The largest difference is among
older women aged 50+ (2.9 compared to 2.52 children per women). In an analysis of
Vietnamese fertility at the 1986 census, Hugo and Rivett (1993, 16) found that Vietnamese
women had slightly more children than their Australian counterparts but the difference was
especially marked at older ages. Figure 2.13 shows the average number of children of
Vietnamese women in 2006 and it is slightly less than that of Australia-born women except in
the oldest ages. It is apparent, then, that with extended residence in Australia, Vietnamese
fertility has converged toward the Australian average. Cambodian women, on the other hand,
had higher fertility on average than their Australia-born counterparts, although not as high as
for the Lebanese. This is a longstanding pattern among Cambodians in Australia (Stevens,
1984). The final group shown in Figure 2.13, that of women from Bosnia-Herzegovina,
shows a similar pattern of fertility to Australia-born women.
7
The TFR can be defined as: the average number of children that would be born alive to a woman during her
lifetime if she were to pass through all her child-bearing years conforming to the age-specific fertility rates
of a given year.
- 77 -
Figure 2.13: Australia: Average Number of Children by Age of Mother for Australia,
Lebanon, Vietnam, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cambodia Birthplace
Groups, 2006
Source:
ABS
In Figure 2.14 the following patterns of three major refugee groups from Afghanistan, Iraq
and Iran are compared to those of Australia-born women and they show generally higher
levels of childbearing. The exception is the Iran-born which shows a similar pattern to the
Australia-born. The levels of fertility are especially high for the Afghan refugees who have
on average one more child than their Australia-born counterparts. For Iraqis the differences
are somewhat smaller.
- 78 -
Figure 2.14: Australia: Average Number of Children by Age of Mother for Australia,
Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran Birthplace Groups, 2006
Source:
ABS
The fertility levels of recent refugee-humanitarian arrivals from some African countries are
depicted in Figure 2.15. It has been necessary to combine together a number of individual
birthplace groups in order to get sufficient numbers of women in the various age groups to
derive reliable estimates. Taking, first of all, the group born in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and
Sudan it is apparent that they have substantially higher levels of childbearing than Australiaborn women. This is especially marked at younger childbearing ages. Whereas women in
this group aged between 25 and 29 years have on average 1.77 children, the figure for the
Australia-born was only 0.68 (38 percent). This reflects the fact that many in these birthplace
groups have quite large families of children which has important implications for housing,
female participation in the workforce, schooling, youth issues, etcetera (RCOA, 2009). For
those born in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo and Burundi the fertility levels are higher still
- 79 -
with similar patterns of much higher levels of childbearing at the younger ages. Obtaining
housing large enough to accommodate large families was an issue raised in focus groups and
key informant interviews, especially in non-metropolitan areas. Also the fact that there are
often several pre-school age children in households is a factor holding back many African
refugee women from workforce participation.
Figure 2.15: Australia: Average Number of Children by Age of Mother for Australia,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo,
Burundi Birthplace Groups, 2006
Source:
ABS
2.6
SETTLER LOSS
In examining the economic, social and demographic contribution of any migrant group into
Australia it is of crucial significance to take into account the issue of settler loss. It is not
often recognised that a significant proportion of ‘permanent settlers’ to Australia
subsequently leave the country, often returning to their homeland. Indeed, the settler loss
issue was the subject of a great deal of policy concern and government sponsored research in
- 80 -
the early post-war decades (Hugo, 1994, Chapter 4). Clearly, the scale and nature of the
contribution of migrants is greatly influenced by the extent to which they remain in Australia.
The rate at which settlers left Australia reached as high as 25 percent by the mid 1970s (Price,
1975). One of the most consistent findings of these studies was that refugee-humanitarian
settlers had the lowest rate of settler loss of all visa categories. For example, Lukomskyj and
Richards (1986, 622) traced the departure rate of all migrants who settled in Australia in
1980. They found that nine percent had left Australia by 1984 but for refugees the rate was
only 0.6 percent.
The analysis of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia
(LSIA) 1 data also found that settlers who entered Australia as refugees had the lowest
probability of subsequently migrating out of Australia (Hugo, Rudd and Harris, 2001,
Chapter 3).
A low level of settler loss among refugee-humanitarian groups is to be expected, especially in
the early years of settlement, because of the very reason for them leaving their homeland –
the fact that they were forced out by the threat of persecution. However, equally it would be
expected that a removal of that threat may lead to some return migration. Nevertheless, it is
apparent that low levels of settler loss have continued in the refugee-humanitarian group.
Table 2.10, for example, compares the number of settler arrivals for the refugee-humanitarian
birthplace groups with the number of residents leaving permanently to live in those countries
over the 1993-2009 period. The ratio of departures to arrivals among birthplace groups is
more than twice as high among the non-refugee-humanitarian groups.
This is clearly
indicative of low rates of settler loss among refugees – a pattern which has been consistent
across studies of emigration from Australia over the last fifty years (Hugo, 1994).
- 81 -
Table 2.10:
Source:
Australia: Humanitarian Birthplace Groups by Settler Arrivals and
Permanent Departures, 1991-92 to 2008-09
DIAC, unpublished data
Country of Birth
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
Other Overseas Birthplace Groups
Settler Arrivals
Resident
Permanent
Departures
Ratio
Departures:Arrivals
2,068
6,641
165
2,012
394
376
5,830
3,954
354
4,482
170
1,508
51
1,052
94
67
553
358
94
232
0.08
0.23
0.31
0.52
0.24
0.18
0.09
0.09
0.27
0.05
3,620
1,233
2,085
304
0.58
0.25
11,627
11,814
210
2,651
1,286
22,754
60,177
716
1,343
177
387
601
4,662
11,881
0.06
0.11
0.84
0.15
0.47
0.20
0.20
18,609
10,537
1,637
1,941
1,969
8,564
15,228
36,882
2,898
3,060
5,946
37,104
26,800
312,823
1,562,293
451
389
3
17
79
192
1,651
2,020
13
25
194
1,775
275
33,419
412,963
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.11
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.11
0.26
The levels of settler loss are extremely low among recently arrived refugee groups such as
those from Afghanistan, Burundi, Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iraq, Liberia, Sierra Leone,
Somalia and Sudan. The rates are somewhat higher among the longer established groups
- 82 -
who are from countries where the political-economic situation has changed such that they are
now able to return to their homeland. Indeed, in some countries like Vietnam there are
efforts to encourage their return to assist in the development of their homeland. Nevertheless,
in most cases the numbers returning are quite small. Vietnam represents an interesting case.
There has been a flow back of 11,881 persons since 1993 but this is small in relation to the
total Vietnamese population 8 in Australia.
Given the rapid economic development in
Vietnam following the doi moi change in opening up the Vietnamese economy this must be
considered a relatively modest backflow. There is also a significant flow back of Lebanese
but a more common pattern is for the Lebanese community to live in both Australia and
Lebanon, spending long periods in both countries. There has also been a small but significant
flow back to East Timor since it gained independence from Indonesia. Indeed, there have
been almost as many permanent departures from Australia to East Timor as people who have
moved from East Timor to Australia.
The key point here is that one aspect of the economic contribution which refugeehumanitarian migrant settlers make to Australia is that they tend to spend their entire lives
and raise their families in Australia to a greater extent than other migrant visa category
groups.
This greater commitment to life in Australia needs to be factored in to any
assessment of their contribution.
2.7
THE
SPATIAL
DISTRIBUTION
OF
REFUGEE-HUMANITARIAN
SETTLERS
2.7.1
Introduction
One of the important dimensions of the contribution of refugee-humanitarian settlers is that
the impact will vary from place to place within Australia. Migrants do not settle in the same
pattern as the existing resident population. Accordingly it is crucial to examine the pattern of
settlement of refugee-humanitarian migrants because the economic and social impacts of
migrants, including refugees, are spatially concentrated.
Where migrants settle is of
significance (Hugo, forthcoming) because firstly, for migrants, especially refugeehumanitarian groups, location can be an especially important factor influencing their
8
In 2006 there were 159,850 Vietnam-born persons and 54,305 Australia-born persons who indicated they
had Vietnamese ancestry.
- 83 -
behaviour and this is certainly the case for recently arrived settlers. Location can influence
access to work opportunities and the ability to interact with people who speak the same
language and have similar cultural and religious backgrounds. It will influence the extent
they are able to draw on the social capital embodied in networks with fellow settlers from the
same background including those who have been in Australia longer who are able to cushion
their adjustment to life in a new land. It is also a significant factor influencing their access to
goods and services, including those provided by different levels of government, which will
impinge on the speed and level of their adjustment.
Of importance from the perspective of the contribution of refugee-humanitarian settlers is the
extent to which they are settling outside of capital cities. In recent times it has been argued
that the development of regional Australia is being hampered by labour shortages. The extent
to which refugees are assisting to meet this shortage is important to establish.
Immigrants’ ability to adjust to, and participate in, Australian housing and labour markets
will be influenced by where they live. It influences the extent to which they mix on a day-today basis with second, third and later generation Australians. It will have an impact on the
extent of cultural and language maintenance they are able to achieve. It affects what schools
their children can attend and the level of mixing they will have with non-immigrant children.
The local community can be a crucial factor in the adjustment of new migrants to life in
Australia since it is the arena in which many of their day-to-day interactions take place.
Secondly, where immigrants settle influences the extent and nature of their impact on
Australia.
The impact that settlers have on local and regional economies not only is
influenced by the resources which they bring to those communities but the structure,
composition and needs of the communities. Hence any assessment of the impact of refugeehumanitarian settlement in Australia needs to examine where they settle in Australia.
One of the important considerations in examining the distribution of refugee groups is the
extent to which they are spatially concentrated.
The extent of spatial concentration of
particular ethnic groups is an issue which has attracted attention in Australia. On the one
hand are commentators (e.g. Healy and Birrell, 2003) who see such concentrations as a
negative influence creating a barrier to the adjustment of the groups involved. Others (e.g.
Viviani, Coughlan and Rowland, 1993; Jupp, 1993) see such concentrations playing more
positive roles:
- 84 -
•
Providing a cushion for new arrivals allowing them to adjust to Australian society
gradually, being surrounded by families, institutions, shops etcetera, and an ability
to communicate in the home language.
•
Such concentrations may serve as an incubator for ethnic business activity.
•
The ethnic businesses often provide an initial entry point for labour and housing
markets for migrants that are more readily adopted.
It is important, therefore, to examine the extent to which the different refugee-humanitarian
groups are spatially concentrated. In order to do this we have calculated the Index of
Dissimilarity (ID) for the major refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups and these are depicted
in Table 2.11. The ID has been defined in Chapter One and is a quantitative statement of the
evenness of the distribution of two sub-populations, in this case the Refugee-Humanitarian
Birthplace Group against the Total Population.
The first point that needs to be noted in Table 2.11 is the fact that the Indices are all very high
indicating a high degree of spatial concentration among refugee-humanitarian settlers.
Refugee-humanitarian groups are among the most spatially concentrated of all migrant
groups in Australia. While for some groups the numbers are quite small so that they are more
likely to be concentrated, it is evident that the IDs are high for both large and small refugeehumanitarian birthplace groups. This concentration is partly a function of recently arrived
refugees being settled in particular localities where they are able to access support through
compatriots or ethnic specific services.
Moreover, those coming as family or refugee-
humanitarian migrants are often quite constrained in where they can live both economically
in terms of what housing markets they can afford to buy into, and also because they need to
rely upon the support of friends, family and compatriots to support them in adjusting to life in
Australia.
- 85 -
Table 2.11:
Source:
Australia: Indices of Dissimilarity for Selected Refugee Birthplace
Groups, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census (based on SLAs)
Birthplace
Year
2006
2001
1996
1991
Croatia
45.8
46.4
47.1
Romania
47.6
48.1
49.5
Russian Federation
50.5
Ukraine
54.2
53.6
53.9
Bosnia and Herzegovina
58.1
57.9
58.5
Cambodia
72.5
73.2
75.1
East Timor
71.7
El Salvador
61.9
Laos
68.6
Lebanon
70.7
70.3
69.6
68.7
Vietnam
68.6
69.5
70.4
68.5
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
71.0
Burma (Myanmar)
60.8
Burundi
87.1
Congo
82.0
Eritrea
76.8
Ethiopia
66.5
Iran
55.4
56.6
57.0
Iraq
76.2
74.7
74.8
Liberia
80.3
Sierra Leone
77.3
Somalia
79.5
Sri Lanka
56.4
55.2
53.2
Sudan
65.2
However, it is not only recent arrivals that are strongly concentrated. If we examine the IDs
for some of the longer established larger groups there are several which live in
concentrations. Both the Lebanese and Vietnamese are strongly concentrated, most of them
in large cities, especially Sydney. However, it will be noted that the highest IDs were
recorded by some of the recently arrived groups from Africa.
- 86 -
It is interesting if we compare the IDs for refugee-humanitarian birthplaces with those for
other birthplace groups. Table 2.12 compares the levels of concentration of a range of
birthplace categories for Australia’s capital cities. It will be noted from the table that there
are wide differences between birthplace groups in their propensity to concentrate with the
highest being mainly for those groups who have come to Australia as refugee-humanitarian
settlers such as those from Iraq (72.4), Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (66.9),
Lebanon (64.0) and Vietnam (60.7). The lowest are for the mainly English speaking (MES)
groups such as those born in the UK (21.6), Ireland (22.0), New Zealand (23), Canada (26.7)
and the USA (28.2). The figures are also low for longstanding Western European groups like
Table 2.12:
Source:
Australia Major Capital Cities: Index of Dissimilarity, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Birthplace
2006
Census
Afghanistan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Canada
China (excl. SARs and Taiwan Province)
Croatia
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Fiji
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong (SAR of China)
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Japan
62.9
50.9
26.7
50.9
38.5
42.0
69.0
60.5
48.6
66.9
14.7
50.9
50.9
38.5
45.5
72.4
45.0
22.0
40.7
44.7
Birthplace
2006
Census
Korea, Republic of (South)
Lebanon
Malaysia
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Poland
Singapore
Somalia
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Thailand
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States of America
Vietnam
58.4
64.0
42.6
51.2
21.6
23.0
38.0
39.3
29.0
42.8
72.3
35.0
47.3
57.9
34.8
58.7
21.6
28.2
60.7
those born in the Netherlands (21.6), Germany (14.7) and Poland (29). The Greece- and
Italy-born are still quite concentrated (50.9 and 40.7 respectively) but their second generation
have dispersed more widely throughout Australian cities, especially the Italians. A spatial
concentration among some Asian, African and Middle Eastern birthplace groups is evident
with again the refugee birthplace groups being prominent. For the Vietnamese, for example,
- 87 -
39.7 percent of the group in Sydney live in a single local government area, Fairfield, which
has 4.5 percent of the total population of Sydney.
2.7.2
Interstate Settlement
In assessing the pattern of settlement of refugee-humanitarian migrants we will first examine
the extent to which they settle in particular states and territories. Table 2.13, Figure 2.16 and
Figure 2.17 show that immigrants have settled in disproportionately large numbers in New
South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. New South Wales shows an interesting pattern
with the state accounting for 41.1 and 40.7 percent of the nation’s migrants who arrived in the
last five years at the 1996 and 2001 censuses compared with having 33.2 and 32.6 percent
respectively of the national Australia-born population. However, at the 2006 Census it had
only 34.1 percent of the recent migrants, indicating a sharp reduction in the proportion of new
migrants settling in New South Wales. Victoria, on the other hand, has increased its share of
new arrivals as have Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. Victoria is an
interesting case because after a long period of receiving less than its proportionate share of
immigrants it is now attracting a larger share than its share of the total national population.
Table 2.13:
Source:
Australian States and Territories: Percentage Distribution of the
Population by Birthplace and Overseas-Born Arriving in the Last Five
Years, 2001 and 2006
ABS, 2001 and 2006 Censuses
Australia-Born
State/Territory
New South Wales
Overseas-Born
Persons Arriving in Last 5 Yrs
1996
2001
2006
1996
2001
2006
1996
2001
2006
33.2
32.6
32.1
33.5
35.9
35.1
41.1
40.7
34.1
Victoria
24.0
24.0
24.4
26.6
26.3
25.9
24.2
23.6
26.1
Queensland
20.0
20.4
20.9
14.2
15.0
16.8
15.3
17.5
18.5
South Australia
8.2
8.1
8.0
7.7
7.2
6.8
4.5
4.1
5.7
Western Australia
8.9
9.1
9.1
12.2
12.6
11.8
11.6
11.3
12.5
Tasmania
3.0
2.8
2.8
1.2
1.1
1.4
0.8
0.7
0.9
Northern Territory
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
Australian Capital Territory
Total
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
- 88 -
Figure 2.16: Australia: Distribution of Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Migrants,
2006
Source:
ABS, 2006 Census
Figure 2.17: Australia: Distribution of Refugee-Humanitarian Ancestry Migrants,
2006
Source:
ABS, 2006 Census
- 89 -
The relative contributions of net international migration as well as net interstate migration
and national increase to population change in the states and territories are shown in Table
2.14. It will be noted that in New South Wales, the state with the largest population, there
was a net international migration gain of almost 200,000 which accounted for 79.6 percent of
the state’s population growth between 2001 and 2006. Moreover the state experienced a
significant net loss due to interstate migration – a longstanding pattern (Hugo, 2003a). In the
past this has been the pattern in Victoria as well but a turnaround in the state’s economy saw
it experience a small net interstate migration gain between 1996 and 2001, although there was
a subsequent small net loss in 2001-06. Conversely Queensland’s net international migration
gain was not as large as the net gain by interstate migration.
Clearly there are wide
differences between the states and territories in the significance of immigrant settlement and
this impacts upon state/territory economies.
Moreover, these patterns are experiencing
change.
Table 2.14:
Source:
Australian States and Territories: Natural Increase, Net Overseas
Migration, Net Interstate Migration and Total Population Growth,
Financial Years, 2001-06
ABS, 2007
Natural Increase
Net International Migration
Net Interstate
Total
Migration
State/Territory
Population
No.
% of
Growth
No.
% of
Growth
% of
No
Growth
Growth
New South Wales
191,089
79.0
192,586
79.6
-136,330
-56.3
241,965
Victoria
143,880
44.5
142,892
44.2
-2,197
-0.7
323,584
Queensland
132,050
28.5
129,944
28.1
164,362
35.5
462,600
28,179
49.9
27,522
48.7
-12,639
-22.4
56,476
South Australia
Western Australia
68,668
43.5
82,832
52.5
-1,399
-0.9
157,886
Tasmania
10,026
58.5
3,758
21.9
3,105
18.1
17,137
Northern Territory
13,862
107.4
3,475
26.9
-8,474
-65.7
12,906
13,531
90.8
2,412
16.2
-6,428
-43.1
14,908
601,389
46.7
585,421
45.4
-
-
1,288,248
Australian Capital
Territory
Australia*
* Includes Other Territories.
- 90 -
How do patterns of refugee-humanitarian settlement fit into this pattern? Table 2.15 shows
the state/territory of intended residence of different visa category settlers arriving in Australia
between 2003 and 2009. Refugee-humanitarian settlers show a greater propensity than other
migrant groups to settle in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia
and the Northern Territory. The pattern of a higher proportion of refugees settling in New
South Wales, and to a much lesser extent Victoria, reflects the significance of the large
refugee populations who already live in those states and serve as support for newly arrived
settlers.
Table 2.15:
Source:
Australian Settler Arrivals: Visa Category by State/Territory of Intended
Residence, 2003-09
DIAC, unpublished data
Non-Program
State
Humanitarian
Skill
Family
(mainly New
Zealanders)
Total
Population
New South Wales
33.8*
30.3
42.3*
24.0
33.0
Victoria
28.5*
26.0*
27.1*
18.1
24.8
Queensland
10.8
14.6
13.2
43.3*
19.7
9.0*
8.5*
4.4
2.0
7.6
13.2*
18.5*
10.2*
11.0*
9.9
Tasmania
2.4
0.5
0.7
0.5
2.4
Northern Territory
1.1*
0.5
0.8
0.4
1.0
Australian Capital Territory
1.3
1.0
1.3
0.6
1.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
South Australia
Western Australia
Total
* Above Population Representation
It is especially interesting, however, that there is a disproportionate tendency for refugeehumanitarian settlers to move to South Australia (Hugo, 2010a). This is a ‘lagging’ state to
which there has been a disproportionately low immigration of overseas settlers over recent
decades. 9 This points to an important role that refugee-humanitarian settlers are increasingly
playing in Australia of settling in lagging areas where there are perceived to be significant
shortages of workers and of people generally.
9
Although since 2002 it has greatly increased Skilled migration after two decades of very low immigration
intake (Hugo, 2008c).
- 91 -
The South Australian government identified slow population growth as a major barrier to the
economic development of the state as far back as the mid 1990s (Hugo, 2008b) and it was
confirmed in the development of a State Population Policy in 2004 (State of South Australia,
2004) which included, among its objectives, to increase the state’s share of the national
immigration intake to the state’s share of the national population by 2014. The major vehicle
for achieving this objective was to use the State Specific and Regional element within
Australia’s Immigration Program (Hugo, 2008c). This scheme is designed to attract migrants
to particular parts of Australia that are economically lagging but it is restricted to potential
settlers applying to come to Australia under the Skill part of the program. (DIAC, 2009a).
However, the South Australian government adopted a deliberate strategy to attract refugeehumanitarian settlers to the state as part of its attempt to lift immigration levels. DIAC
directs many refugee-humanitarian settlers to areas where there is an assurance of support
from family, compatriots, non-government organisations and government.
The South
Australian government used this to attract a relatively high proportion of refugee settlers to
the state and lobbied DIAC to achieve this. Accordingly, Figure 2.18 shows that the state’s
Figure 2.18: South Australian Settler Arrivals: Percentage of National Humanitarian
and Non-Humanitarian Intake, 1996-2009
Source:
DIAC
12.0
10.0
Humanitarian
8.0
Percent
6.0
4.0
Non Humanitarian
2.0
0.0
Year
- 92 -
share of refugee-humanitarian settlers has been much greater than its share of the nonhumanitarian intake.
However, it will be noted that in recent years there has been a
converging of the state’s shares of the humanitarian and non-humanitarian intakes. This is
predominantly due to the state being able to attract a greater share of the non-humanitarian
intake. This has been part of a wider recovery of the economy in South Australia (Hugo,
2009c). The impact of refugee-humanitarian migration being a factor in the development of
lagging regions is not well understood but it is apparent that refugee-humanitarian migrants
played a role as a ‘location leader’ in the upturn of migration to South Australia and in turn
contributed to the revival of economic fortunes in that state.
2.7.3
Metropolitan vs Non-Metropolitan Settlement
Like other Australian post-war immigrants, refugee-humanitarian settlers have until recently
concentrated in Australia’s major cities and contributed to the economic growth, restructuring
and increasing heterogeneity of those cities. While in 1947 only one in eight people living in
Australia’s major cities was overseas-born, by 2006 it was three out of every ten. The
proportion of immigrants living in major cities increased from 61.8 to 82.8 percent in 2006
while for the Australia-born it grew from 49.7 to 61 percent. It is interesting that while there
was a decline in the numbers of Australia-born living in rural areas there was a small increase
in the overseas-born. In 1947, 31.8 percent of Australians lived in rural areas but only 13.9
percent did so in 2006, while for the overseas-born the population fell from 24.7 to 6 percent.
If we examine the refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups, Table 2.16 shows the proportion
that the first and second generation groups make up of the resident population in each state
and also in the Capital and Rest of State parts of each state. It will be noted that the first
generation share varies from 4.5 percent of the Victorian population to 0.7 percent of the
Tasmanian population. The first and second generations are most strongly represented in
New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, with South Australia and
Western Australia also having a substantial representation. The representation in capital
cities is greater in all states and territories. In Sydney more than one in ten residents is a first
or second generation refugee while the equivalent percentage for Melbourne is 9 percent,
Canberra 6.1 percent, Adelaide 5.6 percent, Perth 5.1 percent and Brisbane 3.5 percent. The
representation is much lower in non-metropolitan areas with the highest in Victoria 1.8
percent, New South Wales 1.6 percent while it is 1.3 percent in Queensland, South Australia
and Western Australia.
- 93 -
Table 2.16:
Source:
Australian States: Percentage of Population Made Up of First and
Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
State/Territory
First Generation
Second Generation
Percent of Population
Percent of Population
Total
Capital
Rest of State
Total
Capital
Rest of State
New South Wales
4.2
6.3
0.7
2.9
4.0
0.9
Victoria
4.5
5.9
0.8
2.6
3.1
1.0
Queensland
1.3
2.1
0.6
1.0
1.4
0.7
South Australia
2.5
3.3
0.5
1.9
2.3
0.8
Western Australia
2.4
3.1
0.5
1.6
2.0
0.8
Tasmania
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.5
Northern Territory
1.4
2.2
0.4
0.9
1.3
0.6
Australian Capital Territory
3.3
3.3
1.3
2.8
2.8
2.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
There are significant variations between different birthplace groups in their propensity to
settle in major cities. Table 2.17 shows the groups which have the highest concentrations in
Australia’s major cities and it is immediately noticeable that all are countries which mainly
speak languages other than English. Moreover, it is clear from Table 2.17 that several of
these groups concentrated in major cities were refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups.
Table 2.17:
Source:
Australia: Birthplace Groups With the Highest Concentration in Major
Cities, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Birthplace
Percentage Birthplace
Percentage
Vietnam
97.2*
South Korea
95.2
Lebanon
97.2*
Sri Lanka
94.5
China
96.2
Egypt
94.1
Bosnia and Herzegovina
96.1*
Turkey
93.5
Hong Kong
96.0
Greece
93.4
Iraq
96.0*
India
92.4
Former Yugoslavia
95.6*
* Refugee-humanitarian birthplace group.
- 94 -
While there can be no doubting the significance of immigrants in major Australian cities,
especially Sydney, there are some indications that international migration is increasingly
influencing non-metropolitan areas and that government policy is playing a role (Hugo,
2008c, forthcoming).
While the government has been attempting to encourage non-
humanitarian migrants to settle in non-metropolitan areas through the State Specific and
Regional Migration (SSRM) scheme (Hugo, 2008c) there has been an increase in labour
shortages being reported in non-metropolitan areas. This was partly because the general
tightening of the labour market which was occurring in Australia due to low fertility and
ageing was exacerbated in regional areas by internal migration.
Figure 2.19, for example,
shows the substantial net internal migration losses of young adults that regional Australia
sustained in the late 1990s. This net loss of working age people from non-metropolitan areas
has occurred at a time where there has been expansion of job opportunities in some industries
and in some communities in non-metropolitan Australia.
Some of these developments
include:
•
A massive expansion of mining activity fuelled by the demand from China in
remote areas of Australia, especially in Western Australia, Queensland and
increasingly South Australia.
•
Food processing is increasing as Australia expands its exports of primary produce,
especially to Asia.
•
Expansion of the tourism industry has created jobs in many non-metropolitan areas.
•
Increasing retirement migration to coastal and other scenically attractive areas.
•
Lifestyle, amenity-led migration into attractive ecological areas especially in
coastal, alpine and river areas, especially within two hours drive of a major city
(Burnley and Murphy, 2004).
- 95 -
Figure 2.19: Australia: Estimated Net Rest of State1 Migration, 2001-06
Source:
ABS, 2001 and 2006 Censuses
20000
10000
0
Net Migration ‐10000
Males
Females
‐20000
‐30000
‐40000
Age
1
i.e. area outside of the Capital City Statistical Division.
Increasing reports of labour shortages in non-metropolitan areas in the mid 1990s saw the
introduction of a special component in the migration program to channel immigrants into
those areas (Hugo, 2008b). The essence of the SSRM program is that it enables employers,
state and local governments and families in designated lagging economic regions to sponsor
skilled immigrants without them having to meet the full requirements of the General Skilled
Migration Points Test. Consequently there is an array of visa categories available under the
scheme. While the SSRM scheme is only available to migrants in the Skill stream, it is clear
that these developments have also had an influence on settlement patterns of refugeehumanitarian migrants. These include:
•
The increasing evidence of labour shortage in non-metropolitan areas in and of
itself is attracting humanitarian migrants. This is especially the case because of the
fact that many of the jobs being created or made available are unskilled or low
skilled so that many humanitarian migrants can compete for those jobs more
readily than they can compete for many metropolitan jobs.
- 96 -
•
One of the spin-offs of the SSRM scheme is that local and regional government
instrumentalities have grown used to taking a more proactive role in immigration
and settlement as a strategy to deal with local labour shortages.
Accordingly it is apparent that more refugee-humanitarian arrivals are settling in nonmetropolitan areas. This followed a 2003 Review of Settlement Services undertaken by the
then Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) 10 which
recommended:
‘That the needs based planning process support the direction of humanitarian
entrants to regional locations offering appropriate employment opportunities
and access to specialist and mainstream services’ (DIMIA, 2003, 12).
The 2004 Federal Budget made provision for $12.4m funding to support regional settlement
of refugees and decide the numbers settling in such areas by 2005 (Taylor and Stanovic,
2005, 1).
It is not known precisely how many refugee-humanitarian migrants have settled in regional
communities for a number of reasons:
•
Much of the settlement has occurred since the 2006 population census.
•
In some cases refugee settlers have left their families in capital cities and lived
temporarily in the destination to take jobs.
•
It may be that several of these groups were not detected in the census.
One clear indicator of the increased propensity for refugee-humanitarian migrants to settle
outside of Australia’s largest cities is given by the information provided by all arrivals of the
state/territory in which they intend to settle on the Incoming Passenger Card completed by all
arrivals into Australia. This is not a fully reliable indicator since it is known that this data
often reflect the place that immigrants arrive at rather than where they intend to settle.
Moreover, it is apparent that many of those moving to regional areas spend some initial time
in a capital city. Nevertheless, the data from the Incoming Passenger Cards do indicate a
clear increasing tendency to settle outside of capital cities. Between 1996 and 2009 the
10
Now DIAC – Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
- 97 -
proportion of migrant arrivals indicating they intended to settle outside of Australia’s capital
cities increased from 4.8 to 12.1 percent. Figure 2.20 shows also that the numbers intending
to settle outside the capitals increased from 629 in 1996 to 1,580 in 2009. While we are
uncertain what proportion of these settlers have remained in non-metropolitan areas, it is
clear that refugee settlement in regional Australia is increasing and contributing to
overcoming labour shortages in regional areas.
Figure 2.20: Australia: Settlement of Refugee-Humanitarian Settlers Outside Capital
Cities, 1996-2009
Source:
DIAC unpublished data
- 98 -
Table 2.18:
Source:
Regional Refugee Settlements
RCOA, 2010, 21-23; Brotherhood of St. Lawrence, 2005, 3
Location
Group
Shepparton (Victoria)
Iraqis, Congolese
Mildura (Victoria)
Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans
Mt Gambier (South Australia)
Burmese
Bendigo (Victoria)
Iraqis
Swan Hill (Victoria)
Sudanese
Cobram Barooga (Victoria)
Iraqis, Afghans
Gippsland (Victoria)
Bosnians, Nepalese, Sudanese
Colac (Victoria)
Sudanese
Young (New South Wales)
Afghans
Warrnambool (Victoria)
Sudanese
Murray Bridge (South Australia)
Afghans, Uzbeks, Sudanese
Bordertown (South Australia)
Sudanese
It is clear that settlement outside major cities is increasing. Table 2.18 lists some of the
regional communities that have concentrations of recently arrived refugee groups. Their
settlement has experienced some difficulty associated with the limited support, lack of
suitable housing and other difficulties experienced by the settlers (Taylor and Stanovic,
2005). While not minimising these difficulties it is apparent that refugees are meeting some
important and significant labour shortages in Australia’s regional areas and this dimension of
their contribution needs to be considered (Shapley, n.d; Missingham, Dibden and Cocklin,
2006; Stillwell, 2003, 2004; Taylor, 2005).
2.8
CONCLUSION
This chapter has discussed what could be considered the ‘demographic’ contribution of
refugee-humanitarian settlers to Australia – an important social dimension of their overall
impact on the Australian society and economy. It has been demonstrated that they have
indeed had a unique impact not only by virtue of the fact that they have added three quarters
of a million people directly to the population. This demographic impact has been amplified
by the fact that:
- 99 -
•
The refugee-humanitarian intake is younger than all other migrant streams.
•
Several refugee birthplace groups have higher fertility than the Australian average.
•
Refugee-humanitarian migrants have the lowest remigration, return migration and
settler loss rates of all visa categories.
While refugee-humanitarian groups are strongly concentrated in Australia’s capital cities,
especially Sydney and Melbourne, there is an increasing number that are settling in regional
Australia. It is difficult at this stage to estimate the numbers settling in regional areas
because much of the settlement has come after the 2006 census. The 2011 census should
give a better indication of the numbers involved. The involvement of refugee-humanitarian
migrants in filling crucial labour shortages in regional industries such as agricultural product
processing, forestry, abattoirs and agricultural work is discussed in the next two chapters.
Moreover, refugee families are an increasing presence in the life of country towns and
regional centres. This trend is also apparent in other immigration receiving locations like
Canada (Asal, 2008; Couton and Gaudet, 2008; Murdie, 2008) and Europe (Halfacree, 2008;
Rogaly, 2008; Kasimis, 2008; Fonseca, 2008; Morén-Alegret, 2008).
In the context of the Third Intergenerational Report (Swan, 2010) it could be argued that
humanitarian settlers are making a significant contribution to the population dimension of the
3 ‘Ps’ which are critical to continuation of economic growth in Australia. Research has
shown that a demographic dividend can be delivered to a society by a favourable balance
between working and non-working age population. For example, it has been estimated that
20 percent of China’s rapid economic growth in recent decades has been due to the high ratio
of working to non-working age population delivered by low fertility (Wang and Mason,
2007). It is apparent that humanitarian settlers in Australia are delivering a demographic
dividend of types through:
•
Its very young age structure.
•
Relatively high fertility, although it varies between groups.
•
A large proportion of children who will be educated in Australia and hence are
likely to be able to enter the Australian labour market.
•
The lowest rate of settler loss of all visa categories.
•
An increasing concentration in regional areas.
- 100 -
CHAPTER 3.
3.1
LABOUR FORCE ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION
INTRODUCTION
One of the most fundamental elements in assessing the contribution of any migrant group to
the host society (but by no means the only dimension) is their contribution to the economy.
The economic contribution of migrants remains one of the strongest justifications for the
Australian immigration program and while the justification for the Humanitarian Program is
emphatically a humanitarian one it is also important to recognise that this group of migrants
also makes significant economic contributions.
What is involved in assessing the economic contribution of a sub-group of immigrants? The
multiple dimensions of this contribution are summarised in Wooden’s (1994a, 113) model of
the economic impact of migration which is shown in Figure 3.1. Clearly, immigration
impacts upon both aggregate supply and demand in the economy. One of the major elements
in assessing the economic contribution of humanitarian settlers relates to the supply side issue
of the labour force. This will be the focus of the present chapter while other economic
contributions are considered in Chapter 4.
In assessing humanitarian settlers’ contribution to the Australian labour force this chapter will
first of all address the issue of labour force participation levels and then move on to analysing
the work status of refugees and compare them to the other migrant population as well as nonmigrants. The analysis will examine patterns for different refugee groups and for groups
differentiated on the basis of their length of residence in Australia. The latter is of particular
importance since it is argued here that much of the prevailing stereotyping of refugeehumanitarian settlers as being disengaged from the workforce and being heavily dependent
upon social security is in large part a function of only examining their initial years in
Australia. Accordingly, the approach here is to examine engagement with the labour force
across a longer period of residence in Australia. Indeed, we examine intergenerational
differences by separately analysing the workforce participation in the second generation of
refugee-humanitarian settlers.
- 101 -
Figure 3.1:
Source:
The Economic Impact of Immigration
Wooden, 1994a, 113
The chapter goes on to examine the sectors of the economy in which refugee-humanitarian
migrants are currently engaged, and in the past, have been engaged. It is important to
disaggregate the areas of the labour market in which migrants work, since there is
considerable international evidence of segmentation of labour markets associated with
migration.
Accordingly,
particular
sub-sectors
disproportionately dependent on the impact of migrants.
of
the
economy
can
become
- 102 -
The next section examines the economic situation of the various refugee-humanitarian
migrants in Australia. The ability of migrants to engage in the workforce is an important
determinant of their ability to earn an income, purchase services and engage in other
dimensions of society.
Therefore, we examine issues such as the income and housing
situation of different groups of refugee-humanitarian migrants.
Wooden (1994b, 219) has identified two key questions in the investigation of the labour
market experience of immigrants, and these are of relevance when we attempt to assess the
economic contribution of refugee-humanitarian settlers:
•
Do immigrants fare as well as the Australia-born in the labour market?
•
How long does it take before the disruptive effects of settlement on labour market
outcomes are worked out, if at all?
The latter question is of particular significance in considering refugee-humanitarian settlers
because for them the migration process has been more disruptive (and often more traumatic)
than is the case for other immigrants. This points to one of the major arguments of this
report, namely that it is important to be cognisant of the specific nature of humanitarian
migration in assessing adjustment to life in Australia and, accordingly, it is necessary to adopt
a longer time reference period in assessing this adjustment.
Wooden (1994b, 220) also points out that there have been two bodies of theory which have
guided research on the labour market performance of migrants in Australia. On the one hand,
human capital theory based on neo-classical economics argues (Wooden, 1994b, 220):
‘differences in pay, occupational status, probability of employment, and so
forth, between immigrants and natives reflect differences in the average
productive co-abilities of the two groups’.
A second approach argues that the labour market position of an individual is not just a
formation of their characteristics and abilities but because they experience discrimination as a
result of the group they belong to. While in Australia there is a comprehensive suite of
antidiscrimination legislation, especially applying to the workplace, it has been demonstrated
that differences in the labour market performance of migrants and non-migrants cannot be
totally explained by differences in their human capital endowments (Chiswick and Miller,
2007). It is important to bear in mind these two perspectives when examining the labour
- 103 -
market engagement of humanitarian groups since both apply to the labour market experience
of humanitarian settlers in Australia. Indeed, in the Australian context, it would appear that
the Segmented Assimilation model of Portes, Fernandez-Kelly and Haller (2005), which
combines both perspectives, is relevant. This approach argues that some migrants experience
structural barriers which limit their access to employment and other opportunities, while
others experience upward mobility.
The approach taken in this chapter is that it is important to examine the labour market
experience of migrant groups over time. In this time context, the neo-classical approach
suggests that over time migrants will experience upward mobility as they accumulate
experience, skills etcetera.
The ethnic disadvantage approach, however, suggests that
immigrants are trapped in low status, low wage, and insecure jobs and are not able to be
upwardly mobile due to discrimination. Again, the evidence in Australia suggests that both
approaches have relevance.
In this chapter a range of primary and secondary data sources are employed to examine the
labour market experience of refugee-humanitarian settlers. We will first address issues of
participation in the labour force and a number of factors which impact on ability to
participate in the workforce such as level of education and language ability. Finally we
assess the incomes received by settlers.
3.2
LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION
3.2.1
The Longitudinal Survey of Immigration in Australia (LSIA)
It is widely accepted in the migration literature that in the search to understand the
immigration and settlement processes a longitudinal approach is the most appropriate method
of research. In Australia the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants in Australia (LSIA) has
been especially significant in providing insights into immigration and settlement and has been
important in policy development (Hugo, 2004). It also has been influential in shaping official
and community perceptions of the economic contribution of refugee-humanitarian migrants
to Australia. Analysis of the three waves of LSIA 1 (VandenHeuvel and Wooden, 1999),
where migrants were interviewed in 1994-96 initially and then again in 1995-97 and 1997-99,
showed that humanitarian migrants fared worse in the labour market than other visa
categories of migrants.
Table 3.1 shows that labour force participation rates were
- 104 -
substantially lower than average although they improved substantially over the three year
period over which the migrants’ experience was traced. It is especially notable that the
unemployment rates were very high. Even after three years in Australia, a third of refugeehumanitarian settlers were unemployed.
Table 3.1:
Source:
Labour Force Participation Rate and Unemployment by Visa Category
(Percent)
VandenHeuvel and Wooden, 1999, 25
Cobb-Clark (2006b) has compared refugee-humanitarian settlers in LSIA 1 and LSIA 2. The
results are shown in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 and a striking pattern is in evidence. In Figure
3.2 it will be noted that not only are humanitarian labour force participation rates lower for
humanitarian settlers than other visa categories in both LSIA 1 and LSIA 2, but there is a
deterioration in second wave labour force participation after 18 months in Australia compared
with the first wave. The latter is in contrast to the experience of other visa categories where
labour force participation rates increased. Figure 3.3 is also striking in showing how much
higher unemployment rates are for humanitarian settlers in both waves. Although there is a
reduction between LSIA 1 and LSIA 2 (as there was for other visa categories),
unemployment rates remained very high after three years of settlement in both waves. CobbClark (2006b, 50) points out that humanitarian migrants were an exception to an overall
positive picture which emerged from comparing LSIA 1 and LSIA 2 which showed improved
labour market outcomes for new migrants:
- 105 -
‘Humanitarian immigrants entering the labour market were simply much less
likely to have entered the labour market 18 months after migration’.
Figure 3.2:
Source:
Figure 3.3:
Source:
Labour Force Participation Rate 18 Months After Migration, by Gender
and Visa Category
Cobb-Clark, 2006b, 33
Unemployment Rate 18 Months After Migration, by Gender and Visa
Category
Cobb-Clark, 2006b, 33
- 106 -
She puts this down to the altered composition of the humanitarian intake between the two
streams. She also notes that the numbers of humanitarian settlers in the second LSIA was
considerably smaller than in LSIA 1. 11
Very similar findings have emerged from the Canadian Longitudinal Survey of Migrants.
Phythian, Walters and Anisef (2009) have analysed data from that survey and showed that
refugees (and Business Class migrants) had the lowest probabilities of being employed.
In an earlier section we have examined some of the limitations of LSIA. Although there is no
doubt that humanitarian migrants do experience greater difficulty entering the Australian
labour market than other visa categories, especially skilled migrants, there are a number of
concerns which suggest that the LSIA data alone should not be relied upon to provide a
comprehensive picture of humanitarian settler labour market performance. These include:
•
The selection bias in LSIA respondents discussed earlier.
•
The fact that the data only follow the settlers for 18 months after they have settled
in Australia so that it is only the labour market performance in the very early period
of settlement that is captured.
In this section we will attempt to overcome these concerns as far as possible. Firstly, 2006
census data are used so that a representative picture can be presented. Secondly, it is possible
to examine the labour market performance of humanitarian settlers at different stages of their
settlement in Australia, not just the initial months. Indeed we not only consider the labour
market engagement of refugee settlers with varying length of residence in Australia but also
the performance of the second generation of humanitarian settlers.
11
She notes that the percentage of the sample made up of humanitarian settlers was only half (eight percent)
that of LSIA 1. However, the actual intake of humanitarian settlers, both in numerical and percentage terms,
varied very little through the 1990s. The smaller sample hence may have had some impact on the results.
- 107 -
3.2.2
Labour Force Participation at the 2006 Census
At the outset we must recognise the limitations of cross-sectional data in examining
engagement in the workforce. In fully assessing the contribution of any population sub-group
to the workforce, one needs to examine the entire working lives of the individuals in that
group and not just their status at a single point in time. Cross-sectional data presents only the
picture at a single point in time. The engagement in the labour force at that point in time can
present quite a different picture to the lifetime engagement in the workforce because it is
influenced by a number of time-specific factors including:
1.
The extent to which the group is made up of very recent arrivals. This will always
inflate the unemployment rate and decrease the participation rate because there is a
consistent pattern of new entrants to the workforce having lower levels of engagement
with the workforce. This, of course, applies not only to newly arrived migrants but
others entering a labour force for the first time like school leavers transitioning to work.
Clearly for many refugees there is a ‘double jeopardy’ situation since they have a larger
young adult proportion of new entrants to the workforce than is the case for other
migrant visa categories. Importantly, then, where recent arrivals are disproportionately
represented in a migrant group we can expect a lower level of engagement with the
workforce.
2.
Secondly, one of the important factors relates to the labour market conditions which
prevailed at the time of arrival of migrant groups. There are wide fluctuations in
Australian labour market conditions over time and these have influenced the ease with
which they have been able to enter the labour market in these crucial early years of
settlement. If greater difficulty is experienced in those early years, this is likely to
influence longer term abilities to succeed in the labour market.
3.
The current age structure of the group is also influential. The extent to which the
groups are concentrated in the prime working ages undoubtedly influences engagement
in the workforce. If a group has a concentration in the oldest ages it is to be expected
that there would be low engagement.
- 108 -
These factors are to be borne in mind when looking at the situation of refugee-humanitarian
groups at the time of the 2006 population census with respect to labour force engagement as
is shown in Table 3.2. First of all, with respect to labour force participation rates, a few of
the major trends that can be identified are:
•
First generation refugee-humanitarian groups have lower levels of participation in
the workforce than the Australia-born population. It will be noted, however, that
there are several groups which have higher levels of participation in the workforce
than is generally the case for all migrant groups who originated from countries
where the main language is a language other than English. Hence relatively high
participation rates can be observed for those born in Vietnam, Iran, Burma,
Cambodia, Sri Lanka, El Salvador, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Bulgaria, Romania,
Chile, East Timor, Eritrea, Laos and Slovakia. It will be noted that a characteristic
of this group of countries is that in most cases the peak of refugee-humanitarian
migration to Australia was a decade or more ago.
•
It is notable that very low levels of labour force participation, however, were
recorded by some of the earliest waves of refugee-humanitarian settlers –
Lithuania, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia and Hungary. This is a function of the very old
age structure of these groups. The bulk of these migrants came to Australia as
young working-age refugees in the early 1940s and 1950s. Accordingly, almost all
are now in the retirement ages. It is not surprising then that there are low levels of
participation for this group.
- 109 -
Table 3.2:
Source:
Australian Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups, First and Second
Generation: Labour Force Participation and Unemployment, 2006
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2006 Census
Country of Birth
Australia
Mainly English Speaking
Language/s Other Than English Group
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Kurdish Ancestry
Tamil Ancestry
Labour Force Participation Rate
First Generation
Second Generation
67.1
66.9
64.5
na
55.6
na
Unemployment Rate
First Generation
Second Generation
4.9
5.0
4.2
na
7.3*
na
60.6
45.9
19.1
39.5
20.0
22.0
58.7
54.8
65.5
39.7
77.0*
79.3*
79.2*
79.6*
82.3*
81.0*
70.6*
74.7*
79.7*
80.9*
7.3*
5.6*
4.4
5.6*
4.7
5.8*
8.1*
8.8*
5.3*
7.0*
5.7*
4.7
5.0
5.3*
4.1
4.9
6.9*
5.2*
4.9
4.4
67.2*
57.3
69.2*
80.1*
6.7*
5.1*
9.1*
4.5
53.9
59.1
64.0
70.4*
66.1
45.5
61.9
71.6*
50.2
65.6
43.9
55.3
66.5
50.4
7.7*
11.4*
7.5*
8.0*
9.2*
12.0*
11.4*
8.7*
15.8*
11.4*
18.4*
14.8*
8.2*
13.2*
46.0
59.3
21.3
51.9
57.9
59.4
60.3
40.7
49.9
64.2
41.5
70.9*
40.3
56.5
40.5
58.4
81.6*
63.4
74.8*
36.2
49.5
54.9
63.1
100.0*
42.9
36.8
72.8*
60.9
na
na
17.7*
5.3*
27.3*
16.8*
16.8*
13.8*
11.6*
22.2*
22.1*
16.1*
30.7*
6.4*
28.2*
14.9*
12.9*
10.1*
4.6
4.9
5.8*
na
24.4*
9.3*
9.1*
na
na
14.3*
4.9
9.4*
na
na
* Above Australia-born figure.
Note: For several recently arrived groups the numbers in the second generation are very small.
•
Low levels of participation are apparent among the most recently arrived groups,
especially those from Africa: Sudan, Congo, Liberia, Burundi and Somalia. This is
also the case for those from Afghanistan and Iraq. It is interesting that although the
Sri Lanka-born have a high level of workforce participation, the people indicating
- 110 -
they had Tamil ancestry had a much lower participation rate. This reflects the fact
that recently arrived Tamil refugee-humanitarian settlers are a small minority of the
Sri Lanka-born.
3.2.3
Labour Force Participation Among the Second Generation
A most striking feature of Table 3.2 is the fact that whereas very few (three) first generation
refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups have a higher level of workforce participation than
the Australia-born, for the second generation of these groups a clear majority have a higher
level of participation than the Australia-born. It is especially noticeable in Table 3.2 that
there are massive increases in labour force participation rates between first and second
generation migrants. For example, for the large Lebanon-born group, the first generation
have a low level of labour force participation but the second generation rate is more than 20
percentage points higher. Clearly there are striking patterns of intergenerational mobility in
terms of labour force participation.
The importance of adopting a generational perspective is apparent in Figure 3.4 which
aggregates all of the refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups to consider participation rates
for three generation sub-groups:
•
Refugee-humanitarian birthplace settlers who arrived in Australia aged 12 years of
age or more.
•
Refugee-humanitarian birthplace settlers who arrived in Australia aged less than 12
years of age and received most of their formal education in Australia.
•
Australia-born people who gave a refugee-humanitarian birthplace group as their
ancestry.
- 111 -
Figure 3.4:
Source:
Australia: Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups, First and Second
Generation and Australia-Born Labour Force Status, 2006
ABS 2006 Census
As was indicated in Chapter 1, for many observers it is the first group that comprises the first
generation and the second two groups that are the second generation. For others the first two
groups are the first generation. It is noticeable in Figure 3.4 that in fact there is quite a
similarity in the labour market experience of the second two groups and this is quite different
to those who were born overseas and came to Australia aged 12 years or more. In fact, if we
compare the labour force participation of the two second generation humanitarian birthplace
groups (Figure 3.4) to that of the Australia-born (Table 3.2) the rates are substantially higher
for the second generation humanitarian settlers. It is clearly important to adopt a longer time
perspective in assessing the labour market experience of refugee-humanitarian settlers than
the usual practice of examining experience within a short period after arrival.
We will now divide those born in refugee-humanitarian countries between those who arrived
aged 12 years or more and those who arrived as children aged less than 12 and received most
of their education in Australia, in order to separate those who were educated in Australia
from those who arrived in Australia as adults.
Table 3.3 compares the labour force
- 112 -
participation levels of the two groups at the 2006 population census. Not all the birthplace
groups are included because among the recent arrivals the number of second generation who
are in the workforce is zero or very small since they have been in Australia only a short
period. Hence most of the African groups are not included. A striking pattern is in evidence
where the labour force participation rates of those who arrive as children are substantially
higher than those who arrive as adults. Indeed, for two thirds of the groups the labour force
participation rates of the overseas-born who arrived aged less than 12 years are higher than
those of the Australia-born.
Table 3.3:
Source:
Australia: Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups – People Who
Arrived Aged 12 Years and Above and Those Aged Less Than 12 Years:
Labour Force Participation and Unemployment, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Australia
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Croatia
Hungary
Romania
Russian Federation
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Labour Force Participation
Rate
More Than
Less Than 12
12
67.1
75.3*
38.5
69.4*
31.9
69.8*
57.2
61.1
54.7
55.3
37.8
80.6*
62.1
53.7
55.6
74.2*
56.7
77.4*
60.5
77.3*
67.7*
83.9*
61.0
65.2
40.7
79.3*
58.9
53.1
60.4
69.6*
59.0
45.6
40.5
* Above Australia-born figure
Unemployment Rate
Less Than 12
4.9
5.6*
4.8
7.9*
8.3*
7.0*
7.0*
7.0*
8.2*
6.6*
9.7*
7.9*
8.8*
7.9*
10.7*
9.0*
19.1*
More Than
12
5.6*
6.0*
8.0*
8.8*
7.0*
6.5*
12.1*
12.1*
7.8*
7.1*
9.7*
40.7*
12.3*
13.9*
12.3*
22.7*
- 113 -
3.2.4
Labour Force Participation According to Length of Residence in Australia
Another way of examining the influence of time on labour force participation is to compare
refugee groups according to their length of residence in Australia. Table 3.4 compares the
labour force participation rates of persons who arrived before 1996 with those who arrived
after 1996 in the refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups. There are quite complex patterns in
evidence here. It will be noted that overall the participation rates of the longer standing
settlers who came to Australia before 2006 are higher than for those who came more recently,
although for both groups it is below the level for the Australia-born. However, closer
examination of the table reveals a more complex pattern. For the European groups who
mostly arrived in Australia in the early post-war years as Displaced Persons the pattern in fact
is for higher participation rates among the more recent arrivals. This reflects the fact that
many of the longer standing migrants in these birthplace groups are in fact aged over 65 years
of age and hence are retired. Hence for groups like those from Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania,
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation, Slovakia and
Ukraine the recent arrivals have a higher participation rate.
A quite different picture emerges if we examine refugee-humanitarian groups who have
arrived in Australia mainly since the 1970s. In all cases except the Lebanon-born, labour
force participation rates are not only substantially higher among longer standing groups but in
most cases the participation rates of those groups are higher than for the Australia-born.
Indicative is the pattern for the large group of Vietnam-born. The participation rate for
longstanding groups is 64 percent compared with 52.3 percent for those arriving since 1996.
The numbers of Africans that arrived before 1996 are small. However, for the Ethiopia- and
Eritrea-born, substantial numbers arrived before 1996 and they show a clear pattern of higher
labour force participation than those who arrived after 1996.
- 114 -
Table 3.4:
Source:
Australia: Country of Birth by Year of Arrival in Australia by Labour
Force Status, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Country of Birth
Australia
Unemployment Rate
4.9
Participation Rate
67.1
Arrived After
1996
Arrived 1996
or Before
Arrived After
1996
Arrived 1996
or Before
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
7.4
8.9
8.3
8.1
12.4
6.5
9.8
12.4
4.5
10.2
7.0
5.0
2.6
5.4
3.5
4.3
7.3
6.0
5.3
5.7
11.5
4.9
6.3
5.3
9.2
15.2
10.6
13.2
14.6
21.3
18.9
* Above Australia-born
68.0*
53.4
50.4
52.9
43.0
57.8
51.3
52.1
52.3
12.3
4.1
0.0
8.3
14.1
11.9
7.6
14.9
10.1
0.0
26.3
4.3
9.2
8.3
55.4
44.3
14.5
38.1
17.9
18.5
56.9
50.2
57.6
34.9
60.8
77.9*
7.0
10.6
7.4
7.8
8.7
10.3
10.3
21.8
9.0
34.3
25.4
22.2
15.4
21.2
30.0
22.6
18.6
35.0
11.1
34.3
17.0
75.0*
57.3
82.6*
69.8*
68.5*
59.5
67.6*
64.9
83.7*
63.5
56.3
61.0
65.1
71.0*
67.5*
44.9
64.0
41.0
56.4
18.9
47.4
47.6
52.3
51.3
34.4
47.9
63.2
38.3
70.8*
37.4
52.2
55.5
61.1
100.0*
69.9*
67.7*
69.9*
65.8
50.1
88.5*
77.2*
49.1
71.4*
58.0
56.7
- 115 -
Where we examined intergenerational differences it is apparent that once one takes a time
perspective beyond the initial years of settlement, for most groups there is a convergence
toward, and even beyond, Australia-born labour participation patterns. One distinct group
which differs from this is the Lebanon-born but for other groups that arrived in significant
numbers since the 1970s, this pattern of increasing participation is strong.
3.2.5
Gender Differentials
Thus far we have considered workforce participation for the total population but there are
important differences between males and females in workforce participation, as is evidenced
by Australia-born males being 73.7 percent compared with 60.9 percent for Australia-born
females.
Table 3.5 shows the labour force participation for first generation refugee-
humanitarian birthplace groups and similar male/female differentials are in evidence. The
average participation levels are lower than for the Australia-born for both males and females.
However, it is notable that for several of the longer established birthplace groups the
participation levels are quite close to the Australia-born (e.g. Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Chile, East
Timor, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia). It is noticeable, however, that the difference from the
Australia-born is substantially greater for females than males. This points to the refugeehumanitarian birthplace first generation group women experiencing greater difficulty than
their male counterparts in penetrating the labour market.
It is also interesting to examine gender differentials in labour force participation among the
second generation. Table 3.6 presents the participation rates for Australia-born males and
females who indicate that their ancestry is from one of the refugee-humanitarian birthplace
countries. The results present a strong contrast to the first generation. Table 3.6 shows that,
on average, both males and females among the second generation have higher participation
rates than is the case for the Australia-born. It is also interesting to note that the difference is
greatest for females than males. This suggests that the intergenerational improvement in
labour force participation benefits females more than males among refugee-humanitarian
groups.
- 116 -
Table 3.5:
Source:
Country of Birth of Person by Sex and Labour Force Status, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Male
Percent
Participation
Unemployed
Rate
5.0
73.7
Country of Birth
Australia
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
5.8
5.7
6.5
5.3
4.0
6.1
8.4
7.2
4.7
6.2
Female
Percent
Participation
Unemployed
Rate
4.8
60.9
62.3
51.7
21.1
42.8
23.2
23.0
65.6
64.5
66.6
46.5
6.4
5.0
78.1*
58.8
7.5
9.3
6.9
8.0
8.2
11.8
9.6
*Above Australia-born average
57.7
56.0
8.1
14.1
8.1
8.1
10.4
12.6
13.6
61.9
68.1
31.4
59.7
75.3*
72.5
68.7
55.0
63.5
72.0
58.8
80.3*
51.9
65.8
59.0
39.8
17.5
36.0
17.4
21.1
52.1
48.9
64.4*
34.8
7.0
5.2
60.4
73.4
75.7*
80.3*
76.3*
62.1
73.6
16.6
5.2
27.7
17.1
13.7
11.6
11.5
21.4
17.7
16.8
26.6
5.1
27.7
9.6
8.8
5.5
1.7
6.1
5.5
5.8
7.5
10.1
5.8
7.8
47.4
46.7
52.6
61.2*
56.6
27.6
51.5
20.7
5.5
20.8
18.1
22.8
17.0
11.9
24.4
28.0
15.6
39.3
8.3
30.4
11.2
27.1
51.2
9.0
41.6
41.0
46.2
51.1
25.0
38.1
55.6
26.1
61.4*
26.2
45.2
- 117 -
Table 3.6:
Source:
Australia-Born, Ancestry Multi-Response by Sex and Labour Force
Status
ABS, 2006 Census
Male
Percent
Unemployed
Ancestry
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgarian
Croatian
Estonian
Hungarian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Romanian
Russian
Slovak
Ukrainian
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chilean
Czech
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnian
Khmer
Timorese
Salvadoran
Lao
Lebanese
Vietnamese
Recent Arrivals
Afghan
Burmese
Southern and East African, nec
Central and West African, nec
Eritrean
Ethiopian
Iranian
Iraqi
Liberian
Sierra Leonean
Somali
Sinhalese
Sudanese
Kurdish
Tamil
Total Ancestry Groups
Australia-Born
Female
Percent
Participation
Unemployed
Rate
Participation
Rate
5.2
5.0
5.1
5.2
4.6
4.7
6.8
5.3
4.6
4.6
80.8*
84.3*
83.7*
84.6*
86.3*
85.3*
73.5
79.8*
82.7*
85.6*
9.5
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.7
5.4
3.8
4.7
6.7
5.1
4.2
4.1
72.7
84.5*
9.5
16.7
11.6
19.8
19.7
8.7
15.8
9.0
4.5
74.8*
49.2
67.0
49.7
55.1
74.5*
48.1
60.3
86.3*
71.4
80.8*
25.9
53.5
52.5
63.9
0.0
100.0*
0.0
23.5
5.3
11.8
13.2
16.1
6.6
5.0
50.0
58.6
75.4*
60.7
63.3
36.4
77.7*
73.7
66.0*
75.8*
7.5
15.4
12.2
26.8
9.9
7.5
10.9
9.0
4.6
5.0
7.6
0.0
13.0
11.6
12.9
72.9*
74.4*
75.3*
74.9*
78.5*
77.0*
67.9*
70.2*
76.6*
76.5*
68.0*
51.3
65.2*
43.6
55.7
58.8
52.7
11.0
5.2
6.4
2.9
0.0
0.0
7.1
6.7
55.9
76.8*
55.3
71.8*
38.9
38.9
57.1
60.7
0.0
4.8
12.7
14.3
13.6
5.8
4.8
*Above Australia-born average.
Note: For several recently arrived groups the numbers in the second generation are very small.
19.5
70.5*
60.4
45.7
41.0
68.5*
60.9
- 118 -
3.2.6
Labour Force Participation – Survey Evidence
In sum, then, 2006 Census data show that refugee-humanitarian settlers experience lower
labour participation rates than both the Australia-born and other types of settlers but these
differences reduce substantially over time and for some long established refugeehumanitarian birthplace groups there is a reversal of these differences in the second
generation. In this section we will examine evidence on labour force participation of refugeehumanitarian groups from a number of surveys including that undertaken for this study.
Table 3.7:
Source:
Australia: Labour Force Participation Rates for Immigrants by Visa
Category, 1970-2007
ABS, Workforce Survey, various issues
Humanitarian
All Settlers
Temporary Migrants
Arrived 1997-2007
50.4
68.8
66.2
Arrived 1984-2004
58.3
67.0
72.7
Arrived before 1999
67.2
71.9
na
Arrived 1970-96
79.1
68.0
na
Arrived 1970-93
76.2
69.8
na
Table 3.7 uses data from the ABS monthly labour force surveys to examine labour force
participation of refugee humanitarian migrants over the period since 1993. It is noticeable
that the early labour force surveys show much higher levels of participation among
humanitarian groups than more recent surveys. On closer examination, however, it will be
noted that the most recent surveys only cover a relatively short period of arrival in Australia,
whereas the earlier ones included people who arrived over a longer period. Clearly, the
longer the period of residence, the higher the level of workforce participation among the
humanitarian origin population. When a longer time perspective is taken than the initial
period of settlement there is a pattern of convergence towards Australia-born patterns of
labour force participation.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) Settlement Outcomes of New
Arrivals (SONA) Study completed a questionnaire soon after arrival in Australia and Table
3.8 shows that indeed the workforce participation rates of refugee-humanitarian settlers are
- 119 -
quite low compared with other visa categories.
However, it will also be noted that a
significantly higher proportion than other groups indicated they were involved in some form
of study. This provides another insight into the labour force participation of this group – the
fact that many arrive without sufficient language and other relevant background experience to
compete in local labour markets.
Table 3.8:
Source:
DIAC Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals Study (SONA) and HSS:
Work Status by Visa Category, 2009
DIAC
Work Status
Work for wage or salary
Run my own business
Study and work
Study full-time
Study and look after my family
Unemployed and looking for work
Unemployed and NOT looking for work
Setting up a business but not yet making money
Look after my family
Retired, no longer working
Voluntary or other unpaid work
N
Humanitarian Settler Survey
Employed
Unemployed and looking for work
Studying
Other – Not in workforce
Total
N
Family
(%)
43.5
4.9
6.3
3.9
6.6
8.4
.6
1.2
24.8
5.4
1.5
1889
Humanitarian
(%)
24.1
1.6
10.1
20.4
16.2
11.3
3.3
.7
18.1
4.4
1.9
5336
Skilled
(%)
77.2
7.4
5.3
1.9
1.8
5.1
.2
1.5
5.5
.3
.8
1309
53.6
8.8
20.0
17.6
100
649
Note: Multiple responses allowed so will not add up to 100 percent
Although data from the Humanitarian Settler Survey (HSS) is not multiple choice, it is also
presented in Table 3.8 and it will be noted that the proportion engaged in the workforce is
substantially higher.
This reflects the fact that unlike the SONA Study, a significant
proportion of the HSS respondents had been in Australia over a longer period which is
evident in Table 3.9. The pattern of increasing engagement in the workforce with increasing
time of settlement among humanitarian settlers is a strong one.
- 120 -
The SONA Study asked a question of those who were in work about satisfaction with
employment and Table 3.10 shows that humanitarian settlers have a lower proportion than
other groups who like their work, perhaps reflecting the fact that many are unable to obtain
work concommitant with their qualifications, especially in the early years of settlement
(Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2007). The HSS survey found that only 48.1 percent of working
respondents said that their job matched their experience and qualifications. The initial period
of settlement is of great significance for all immigrants.
Table 3.9:
Source:
Entering the labour market
Summary Statistics for Humanitarian Program Migrants, by Period of
Residency
ABS, 2010b, 15
Period of Residency
Sex
Median age (years)
Don't speak English well or at
all (%)
Employed (aged 15 and over)
(%)
Has a post-school qualification
(aged 15 and over) (%)
Table 3.10:
Source:
Recent
Residents
(2003-06)
Longer Term
Residents
(2000-02)
All Migrants
All Persons
52% male/
48% female
20
58% male/
42% female
29
48% male/
52% female
31
49% male/
51% female
37
38
25
14
3
22
38
61
57
22
30
63
53
DIAC Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals Study (SONA): Satisfaction
with Job by Visa Category, 2009 (Percent of those working)
DIAC
What Do You Like About Your Main Job
Family
Humanitarian
Skilled
Like my job
56.6
42.3
55.5
Job is ok but could be better
34.5
37.2
37.5
Do not really care – it’s just a job
5.0
9.9
4.3
Do not like my job
2.8
5.8
1.7
No answer
1.2
4.8
1.0
Total N
942
1542
1099
- 121 -
in a totally new context where the settler has little or no knowledge of the labour market
represents a major challenge. It was interesting in the HSS survey that the problems faced by
new humanitarian arrivals meant that only 23.4 percent actually sought work within the first
three months of arrival and 18.9 percent actually obtained a job in that first three months.
After six months the proportion increased to 41 and 33 percent respectively. This reflects the
cultural, information and language barriers that confront the refugee settlers in the early years
in Australia.
3.3
UNEMPLOYMENT
3.3.1
Introduction
In assessing economic contribution through the labour force it is also relevant to consider
patterns of unemployment among humanitarian settlers. There is a consistent pattern in
Australian immigration settlement that:
‘unemployment rates are higher among the overseas-born compared with the
Australia-born, and within immigrant groups are higher amongst those from a
[non-English speaking background] NESB though … (there is a) … large
dispersion of unemployment rates across birthplace groups. Of course
immigrants almost by definition are likely to experience a bout of
unemployment on arrival’ (Wooden, 1994b, 232).
Moreover, he goes on to point out:
‘Refugees do worst of all immigrant groups, but even much of their
disadvantage is the result of poor English language, skills and the relative
recency of their arrival’.
The Australian Government Productivity Commission (2006, 64) Report into Economic
Impacts of Migration and Population Growth also drew attention to the differences between
visa categories in unemployment levels. Table 3.11 shows the data they present and indicates
that unemployment rates are substantially higher for humanitarian groups regardless of age.
The Report also notes (page 63) that there has been a decline in the differential between
Australia-born and overseas-born unemployment rates.
There is a lack of data to
- 122 -
Table 3.11: Unemployment Rates of Immigrants by Year of Arrival, Visa Group and
Age Group, 2004
Source:
Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2006, 64
Table 3.12:
Source:
Australia: Unemployment Rate of Refugee-Humanitarian Migrants,
1993-2007
ABS, 1994b, 1997, 2000, 2005a and 2008
- 123 -
examine whether or not this convergence applied to all migrant visa categories. Table 3.12
brings together data from a range of sources, mainly the ABS monthly labour force survey.
This would indicate there may have been a reduction in unemployment rates of refugeehumanitarian settlers over the 1993-2004 period.
3.3.2
Unemployment of Humanitarian Settlers at the 2006 Census
In the discussion on labour force participation data for the 2006 census (Section 3.2.2), data
from the census enumeration on unemployment among refugee-humanitarian birthplace
groups is presented alongside participation information. The patterns evident in census
unemployment data are similar to those relating to labour force participation, namely:
•
Levels of unemployment are higher among humanitarian migrants than among the
Australia-born or other visa categories of immigrants.
•
Unemployment levels decline with increasing length of residence in Australia and
are lower among the second generation than the first generation.
•
There are differences between groups, with some groups continuing to experience
higher levels of unemployment than the Australia-born with extended residence in
Australia and even into the second generation.
There can be no doubt that humanitarian settlers experience greater unemployment and lower
labour force participation than those arriving on other visa categories. Table 3.13, drawn
from the ABS/DIAC Data Linkage Project, shows that among migrants who arrived between
2001 and 2006, those who were in the humanitarian stream had lower labour force
participation and higher unemployment.
As was pointed out when considering labour force participation, any consideration of migrant
engagement with the labour force needs to take account of the time it takes for them to adjust
to the new context in which they find themselves and that for refugees this may take longer
than for other migrants. Hence we need to include a time dimension in considering patterns
of unemployment. Firstly it is useful to examine in more detail the second generation. We
have already seen that there are substantially lower unemployment rates among the Australiaborn children of refugee-humanitarian settlers but it is also relevant to divide those settlers
who were born overseas between those who arrived aged 12 years or more from those who
arrived as dependent age children. Table 3.3 compares the unemployment rates of the two
- 124 -
groups in the refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups in 2006. Overall the unemployment
rate was substantially lower among those who arrived as children.
This is especially
important since it was established in Chapter 2 that dependent children are a particularly
significant group in the humanitarian intake.
Table 3.13:
Source:
Visa Type of Arrivals 2001-06 by Labour Force Status in 2006:
Proportion (Percent) of All migrants Aged Over 15 Years
ABS/DIAC Data Linkage Project
Labour Force Status
Family
Humanitarian
Employed, worked full-time
35.4
16.6
Employed, worked part-time
16.3
10.5
Employed, away from work
3.8
3.1
Unemployed, looking for full-time work
4.0
5.3
Unemployed, looking for part-time work
2.5
3.5
Not in the labour force
36.2
57.7
Not stated
1.9
3.3
Total
100.0
100.0
%Employed
89.6
77.5
%Unemployed
10.4
22.5
(a) Total migrants does not include temporary migrants.
Skilled
48.6
18.4
3.3
3.1
2.6
23.2
0.9
100.0
92.5
7.5
Other
52.9
16.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.8
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
Total (a)
40.4
16.8
3.5
3.6
2.6
31.5
1.5
100.0
90.7
9.3
Similarly, when we differentiate humanitarian birthplace groups between those who have
been in Australia less than ten years from those who have been in Australia longer, Table 3.4
shows that there are some striking differences especially for those groups whose major intake
has been since 1996. Nevertheless it will be noted that unemployment levels remain higher
than those for the Australia-born even among those who have been in Australia longer. Early
work by Jones and McAllister (1991, 21) found that refugee status remains an explanatory
factor in models of both duration of initial employment and of subsequent point of time of
unemployment.
There thus would appear to be some persistent barriers to refugee-
humanitarian settlers gaining employment. The fact that labour force participation rates are
higher than the Australia-born among those humanitarian settlers arriving as dependent
children but their unemployment rates are also higher suggests this.
There are some differences between males and females in unemployment rates as is evident
in Table 3.5 and Table 3.6. Among first generation settlers female unemployment levels are
generally higher than for males, while the reverse is the case for the second generation. For
- 125 -
both groups unemployment levels are also generally a little higher than that for the Australiaborn.
As is the case with the consideration of labour force participation, it is important to take a
longer term perspective in examining unemployment. Figure 3.4 shows that there is a clear
pattern of reduction in unemployment rates between the first generation who arrived aged 12
years or more (11 percent), those who arrived aged less than 12 years and hence had most of
their schooling in Australia (eight percent) and the children born to humanitarian settlers in
Australia (six percent).
3.3.3
Other Studies of Unemployment Among Humanitarian Settlers
The pattern of refugee-humanitarian settlers having a higher level of unemployment than
other migrant groups has been a consistent finding in Australian labour force surveys over the
last decade, as Table 3.14 shows.Collins (2010, 13) has argued that immigrant unemployment
rates, especially those from refugee-humanitarian settler backgrounds, have been sensitive to
the place where immigrants settle. He argues:
‘In Australia’s two largest immigrant cities, Sydney and Melbourne,
unemployment rates have been highest in the western suburbs where most
immigrants, particularly those from family stream and humanitarian program
and those with lower levels of human capital and English language ability
settle’.
Table 3.14:
Source:
Australia: Unemployment Rates for Immigrants by Visa Category, 19702007
ABS, Workforce Survey, various issues
Humanitarian
All Settlers
Temporary
Migrants
Arrived 1997-2007
na
5.5
6.8
Arrived 1984-2004
11.6
6.6
4.7
Arrived before 1999
15.8
6.2
na
Arrived 1970-96
21.9
9.7
na
Arrived 1970-93
18.3
13.6
na
- 126 -
To demonstrate this point he presents data from one of Sydney’s most multicultural suburbs,
Canterbury, where there were large numbers of Arabic, Vietnamese and Khmer settlers.
Table 3.15 shows the very high rates of unemployment for these groups. These patterns have
continued as is evident from Table 3.2 data from the 2006 census showing the unemployment
rates for the first and second generation refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups. Some of the
interesting points in evidence are:
•
As with participation rates, there is a strong pattern of unemployment levels being
higher for all refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups than is the case for the
Australia-born. Nevertheless it will be noted that the highest levels of
unemployment are among recently arrived refugee-humanitarian groups, especially
those from Africa (Sudan, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Eritrea and
Ethiopia) as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also notable that the rates of
unemployment are still high in the largest, longer standing groups from Vietnam
and Lebanon for whom the rates are more than twice those of the Australia-born. It
needs to be stressed, however, that perhaps for many of the refugee-humanitarian
groups it is not at all appropriate to compare their unemployment rate with that of
the Australia-born. It is more appropriate to compare their unemployment levels
with youth unemployment because they are more similar in terms of being new
entrants to the labour market lacking experience of that market.
Table 3.15:
Source:
Unemployment Rates, Canterbury Local Government Area, 1991 and
1996 by Language and Birthplace
Collins, 2010, 13
1991
1991
1996
1996
Canterbury
Sydney
Sydney
Canterbury
9.0
8.7
7.0
7.2
Middle East
34.0
30.4
21.1
29.2
Middle East
47.1
45.1
31.1
37.1
Chinese
Vietnam
28.4
26.2
18.9
23.1
Chinese
China
14.3
14.6
10.8
11.1
Vietnamese
Vietnam
35.5
41.7
29.4
30.2
Khmer
All origins
40.9
40.2
32.9
32.7
Lao
All origins
34.7
28.3
23.4
27.1
Language
Birthplace
English
Australia
Arabic –
Christian
Arabic –
Islam
- 127 -
•
Again, it is striking that there are generally very large differences in rates of
unemployment between the first and second generations of refugee-humanitarian
birthplace groups. Indeed, in the case of ten groups, the level of unemployment is
lower than for the Australia-born in the second generation. In most of the African
cases the second generation are too young to have any second generation groups
that are of working age. It is apparent then that an intergenerational perspective
provides quite a different picture of engagement with the labour force.
•
It is interesting that the unemployment rates indicated by census data, even among
the recently arrived groups like those from Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone
and Ethiopia, are considerably lower than the rates found in LSIA 1 and LSIA 2
(Figure 3.3) after settlers had been 18 months in Australia. Only the small numbers
from Somalia had an unemployment rate of greater than 30 percent and only
Sudan, Liberia and Burundi had rates greater than 20 percent.
3.4
ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH
3.4.1
Introduction
One of the most consistent findings of research into immigrant settlement in Australia has
been that a lack of proficiency in the English language is a crucial factor explaining low
levels of workforce participation and high levels of unemployment of migrants (Wooden,
1994b, 223).
Undoubtedly, this is an important factor helping explain lower levels of
engagement in the workforce than the Australia-born among humanitarian settlers, especially
in the early years of settlement. It is important to recognise that the level of ability to speak
English is lower among humanitarian settlers than it is among other migrant visa categories.
This is one of the very important findings which emerge from the data linkage project in
which census and DIAC data were combined and allowed us for the first time to identify the
visa category of recent arrivals in census results. Accordingly, Table 3.16 shows that at the
2006 census the proportion of migrants who had arrived since 2001 who could not speak
English well or at all was significantly higher for humanitarian arrivals (36.5 percent) than
for other visa groups, especially skilled migrants.
- 128 -
It is a striking finding that more than a third of humanitarian migrants reported that they
either could not speak English at all or not speak it well. This creates a very significant
barrier to their entry to the labour market. Figure 3.5 shows the lower level of English
proficiency among humanitarian migrants compared with other migrant groups. These data
also show that in 2006 almost three quarters (74 percent) of humanitarian migrants who did
not speak English well or at all were ‘not in the labour force’ and only 16 percent were
employed. Of those who spoke English very well, 40 percent were employed.
Table 3.16:
Source:
Visa Type of Settler Arrivals, 2001-06 by English Proficiency in 2006:
Proportion (Percent) of All Migrants Aged Over 15 Years
ABS/DIAC Data Linkage Project
Family Humanitarian
Very well
Well
Not well
Not at all
Total
Figure 3.5:
Source:
37.3
35.4
22.1
5.3
100.0
25.6
37.8
28.0
8.5
100.0
Skilled
Other
Total
55.6
34.6
8.5
1.3
100.0
37.5
37.5
25.0
0.0
100
44.3
35.2
16.5
3.9
100.0
Migrants’ Proficiency in Spoken English, 2006
ABS, 2010b, 9
- 129 -
The limited data also allows us to examine the impact of length of residency on the ability to
speak English. Table 3.17 shows that recently arrived humanitarian migrants have a much
higher percentage who are not able to speak English well.
Table 3.17:
Source:
Summary Statistics for Humanitarian Program Migrants, by Period of
Residency
ABS, 2010, 15
Period of Residency
Sex
Recent
Longer Term
Residents
Residents
(2003-06)
(2000-02)
52% male/
All Migrants
All Persons
58% male/
48% male/
49% male/
48% female
42% female
52% female
51% female
20
29
31
37
38
25
14
3
22
38
61
57
22
30
63
53
Median age (years)
Don't speak English well or
at all (%)
Employed (aged 15 and
over) (%)
Has a post-school
qualification (aged 15
and over) (%)
Table 3.18:
Humanitarian Settlement Survey: How Settlers Got Their First job in
Australia, 2009
How They Got Their Job
Number
Percent
Government Recruiting Agency
38
10.3
Private Recruiting Agency
19
5.1
131
35.4
Local Community Organisation Referral
36
9.7
Newspaper/Internet Advertisement
59
15.9
Other
87
23.5
Total
370
100.0
Friend/Relative
In this context it is interesting to note from the HSS that a significant proportion of the
respondents indicated that they got their first job through friends or relatives. It is apparent
- 130 -
from Table 3.18 that informal means were very important. This reflects the difficulties that
cultural and language distance can create for humanitarian settlers which make it difficult for
them to access formal means of entering the labour market.
3.4.2
Ability to Speak English at the 2006 Census
If we consider individual refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups, Table 3.19 shows that
almost all first generation humanitarian groups have substantial proportions who are not able
to speak English well or not able to speak it at all. It is understandably higher among recently
arrived groups such as those from Sudan (31.2 percent), Afghanistan (30.3 percent), Burundi
(72.2 percent) and Congo (38.5 percent). However, it is noticeable that there are relatively
high rates among some of the groups who have been resident in Australia much longer. Of
some concern here is the fact that 43.5 percent of the Vietnam-born are not able to speak
English well or are not able to speak it at all, despite the fact that most have been in Australia
for over a decade. This may help explain persistent high levels of unemployment among
Vietnamese who have been resident more than ten years in Australia despite having higher
levels of workforce participation than the Australia-born. It points to the crucial importance
in providing English language training to new humanitarian arrivals if they are to be
successful in the labour market. Even among the second generation Australia-born children
of Vietnamese settlers, almost a fifth (18.9 percent) are not able to speak English well or not
able to speak it at all. Most of the other second generation groups which have low levels of
English proficiency are recently arrived groups.
It is useful to examine the experience of the Vietnamese in a little more detail. Table 3.20
shows the labour market experience of the Vietnam-born according to their length of
residence in Australia. A clear pattern is in evidence with the unemployment rate falling
systematically from 26.2 percent among those who had lived in Australia less than five years
to 8.2 percent for those who had been in Australia longer than 20 years. Again, however,
even among those who had been in Australia more than 20 years the unemployment rate is
higher than for the Australia-born.
The table also shows the pattern of labour force
participation increases with length of residence in Australia.
- 131 -
Table 3.19:
Source:
Australian Refugee-Humanitarian Birthplace Groups, First and Second
Generation: Ability to Speak English, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Percent Not Able to Speak English
Well or At All
Second
First Generation
Generation
10.9
15.9
3.5
20.8*
-
Percent Speaking Language Other
Than English At Home
Second
First Generation
Generation
6.5
1.5
4.0
69.3
-
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Kurdish Ancestry
Tamil Ancestry
Country of Birth
Australia
Mainly English Speaking (MES)
Language/s Other Than English (LOTE)
11.8*
23.4*
7.6
10.6
6.9
11.7*
14.3*
21.3*
5.9
24.9*
8.8
4.5
3.7
4.6
3.2
3.6
11.3
11.1
9.4
5.0
15.6*
5.6
8.5
7.3
26.8*
45.7*
34.8*
17.8*
35.7*
22.9*
43.5*
*Above Australia-born average
46.0
11.5
95.0
94.6
90.6
92.9
92.4
92.6
97.0
28.7*
22.1*
51.6*
25.4*
26.9*
15.7
14.0
37.2*
61.6*
39.6*
31.4*
13.9
60.8*
-
19.4
32.7
6.8
13.2
10.6
8.6
34.6
18.3
25.7
17.5
86.1
61.7
14.5
19.6*
10.8
11.5
11.6
7.3
18.8*
30.3*
21.1*
72.2*
38.5*
22.4*
16.1*
18.3*
28.1*
21.1*
14.2*
17.4*
5.5
31.2*
26.0*
14.6*
79.2
83.2
53.9
62.8
56.9
54.4
81.2
85.7
72.2
85.7
62.1
71.7
47.3
69.0
64.3
63.9
88.1
96.9
66.2
95.9
79.6
95.7
84.7
91.2
96.1
44.9
81.1
95.5
64.8
95.5
82.5
69.9
70.9
11.4
32.5
27.7
62.8
50.6
59.3
76.3
20.0
11.3
78.4
24.8
68.9
-
- 132 -
Table 3.20:
Source:
Vietnam-Born and Year of Arrival in Australia by Labour Force Status,
2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Not in the
Years since arrival
Employed
Unemployed
Percent
Participation
Unemployed
Rate
Total
Labour Force
0-4 years
2,640
939
4,336
7,915
26.2
45.2
5-9 years
4,831
856
4,369
10,056
15.1
56.6
10-14 years
7,843
1,592
7,869
17,304
16.9
54.5
15-19 years
17,686
2,619
15,412
35,717
12.9
56.8
20+ years
47,486
4,263
22,692
74,441
8.2
69.5
Total
80,486
10,269
54,678
145,433
11.3
62.4
It is also interesting to note in Table 3.19 that in almost all of the first generation
humanitarian birthplace groups most households use a language other than English at home.
Indeed in three quarters of the birthplace groups more than 75 percent of households use a
language other than English at home.
There are clearly strong levels of language
maintenance even among groups that have been in Australia over a long period. This is
reflected in the fact that among the second generation, relatively high levels of speaking a
language other than English at home are recorded, though lower than for the first generation.
While many of the second generation will still be living with the first generation for groups
like the Vietnamese, Lebanese, Cambodians and Laotians, many second generation are old
enough to have their own households. Yet the levels of speaking a language other than
English at home are very high even among these second generations. Of course, speaking a
language other than English at home is not necessarily an indication of low ability to speak
English.
Lack of proficiency in the dominant language is clearly, however, a major barrier to
successful labour force participation among humanitarian settlers.
This is strikingly
demonstrated in Table 3.21 which cross-tabulates the labour force experience of first
generation humanitarian groups against their ability to speak English. A striking pattern is in
evidence. Firstly, with respect to participation rates, it is apparent that there is a consistent
relationship between ability to speak English and level of labour force participation. Those
who are able to speak English very well have a 70.2 percent labour force participation rate
compared with only 12.1 percent for those who cannot speak English at all and 36.3 percent
- 133 -
for those who cannot speak the language well. Indeed, for those who speak English very
well, participation rates are substantially higher than for the Australia-born. Similar striking
patterns are apparent for the unemployment rate, with 7.7 percent of those who speak English
well being unemployed compared with almost a third (31.5 percent) among those who cannot
speak English at all. However, even for those that speak English well unemployment is
higher than for the Australia-born. This reflects the phenomenon of the ‘refugee gap’ which
has been identified in North America as well as Australia, whereby even when other factors
are controlled, refugees have lower levels of workforce performance compared with other
migrant groups and the native-born.
Table 3.21:
Source:
First Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Groups: Proficiency in Spoken
English by Labour Force Status, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Not in the
Proficiency in
Employed
Labour Force
English
Very Well
Percent
Participation
Unemployed
Rate
Total
Unemployed
126,667
10,614
58,196
195,477
7.7
70.2
Well
92,233
11,162
77,989
181,384
10.8
57.0
Not Well
35,281
8,819
77,420
121,520
20.0
36.3
Not At All
2,170
999
23,060
26,229
31.5
12.1
256,351
31,594
236,665
524,610
11.0
54.9
6,646,009
342,760
3,427,464
10,416,233
4.9
67.1
Total
Australia-Born
Turning to the second generation of Australia-born who have an ancestry in a humanitarian
migrant source country, the relationship between English proficiency and labour market
engagement is shown in Table 3.22. It is evident that the numbers who have little or no
English in this group are quite small so the patterns are not as strong as for the first
generation. Nevertheless, it is apparent that those who have better English have lower levels
of unemployment and higher levels of workforce participation.
- 134 -
Table 3.22:
Source:
Proficiency in
Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Groups: Proficiency in
Spoken English by Labour Force Status, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Percent
Participation
Unemployed
Rate
83,668
8.7
65.9
2,065
4,513
12.3
54.2
62
624
1,219
10.4
48.8
33
0
172
205
0.0
16.1
53,030
5,146
31,429
89,605
8.8
64.9
Not in the
Employed
Unemployed
50,318
4,782
28,568
2146
302
Not well
533
Not at all
English
Very well
Well
Total
Labour Force
Total
The improvement in English ability and its impact on labour market outcomes is evident from
when we compare unemployment levels and labour market participation for the three
generations of humanitarian settlers. Figure 3.6 shows this strong relationship in data from
the 2006 Australian population census. The key issue is then that if there are programs to
assist refugee-humanitarian groups in developing their ability to speak English, the result will
be higher levels of engagement in the workforce. There is a great deal of evidence that
enhancing English language is a crucial element in assisting adjustment of humanitarian
settlers in the labour market and in Australian society more generally (Ryan, 2008).
While a low level of English proficiency clearly is an important explanation for humanitarian
arrivals having lower levels of engagement with the workforce than the Australia-born, it is
apparent that this alone does not provide a total explanation. It is significant that even when
English language proficiency is high, both first and second generations of humanitarian
settlers still have higher levels of unemployment than the Australia-born, even though their
labour force participation rates are higher. This suggests that there are other barriers which
are confronting them. One of these relates to education and this is considered in the next
section.
- 135 -
Figure 3.6:
Source:
Australia: Speaks English Well or Very Well by Employment Type,
Unemployed and Participation Rate for First, Second Generation and
Australia-Born, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
3.5
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
3.5.1
Introduction
Another significant barrier to engagement with the labour force among migrant groups relates
to education and training. The relationship between education and success in the labour
market is a strong one, not only among the humanitarian settler population but also among
the Australian population generally. Table 3.23 shows results from the DIAC/ABS Data
Linkage of Settlement Data Base and 2006 Census data.
It clearly indicates that
humanitarian settlers have much higher percentages with no post-school qualification than
other visa categories.
- 136 -
Table 3.23:
Source:
Visa Type of Settler Arrivals, 2001-06 by Post-School Qualification in
2006: Proportion (Percent) of All Migrants Aged Over 15 Years
ABS/DIAC Data Linkage Project
Family
Postgraduate degree
Humanitarian
Skilled
Other
Total
7.6
1.1
18.4
0.0
12.4
Bachelor degree
24.2
6.2
35.4
16.1
28.3
Advanced diploma / diploma / Grad Dip.
13.0
9.6
13.3
16.6
12.9
Certificate
11.4
12.4
9.8
12.6
10.7
No Qualification
43.9
70.7
23.0
54.7
35.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Further analysis of the linked data set by the ABS (2010, 11) showed that:
‘the proportion of Humanitarian Program migrants who had completed year 12
or equivalent (47 percent) was lower than the proportion in the general
migrant population (75 percent) (Figure 3.7). There was a higher proportion
of Humanitarian Program migrants (13 percent) with an educational level of
year 8 or below when compared to the general population of all migrants (3
percent). The rate of persons who never attended school was higher for
Humanitarian Program migrants (7 percent) than it was for the total migrant
group (2 percent)’.
Figure 3.7:
Source:
Highest Year of School Completed by Migrants, 15 Years and Over, 2006
ABS, 2010b, 11
- 137 -
The ABS (2010b, 11) also found that:
‘In 2006, a higher proportion of skilled and family migrants had completed a
postgraduate degree (18 percent and 7 percent respectively), when compared
with their humanitarian counterparts (1 percent). This was also the case for
those migrants who had completed bachelor degrees. A third of skilled
migrants had completed a bachelor degree (34 percent), compared with 22
percent of family migrants and 5 percent of Humanitarian Program migrants’.
Figure 3.8:
Source:
Non-School Qualifications of Migrants by Visa Type, 15 Years and Over,
2006
ABS, 2010b, 11
- 138 -
3.5.2
2006 Census Data on Educational Achievement of Humanitarian Settlers
Table 3.24 shows the labour force participation and unemployment rates for first and second
generation humanitarian settlers according to their level of education and compares them to
the situation for the Australia-born. For all three groups there are clearly higher levels of
workforce engagement with higher levels of education and training.
Nevertheless first
generation humanitarian settlers have higher unemployment and lower labour force
participation than the Australia-born regardless of their level of education. Turning to the
experience of the second generation, their labour force participation rates are strongly related
to education level and for all levels are above those for the Australia-born. It is interesting,
however, that their unemployment levels are a little higher than those of the Australia-born.
Again, as was the case when holding English proficiency constant, there is a pattern of higher
labour force participation but also higher unemployment than for the Australia-born. This
would strongly indicate the existence of other barriers to engagement in the workforce such
as some form of discrimination, again pointing to the ‘refugee gap’ phenomenon.
Table 3.24:
Source:
Australia:
First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian
Birthplace Groups and Australia-Born Unemployment Rate and Labour
Force Participation Rate by Level of Education, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Australia-Born
Level of Education
First Generation
Second Generation
Unemployment
Participation
Unemployment
Participation
Unemployment
Participation
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate
Degree or Higher
1.8
85.3
5.7
80.9
2.3
89.6
Diploma/Certificate
3.6
79.1
7.9
68.9
4.8
84.8
No Qualification
7.0
58.6
14.0
44.7
9.6
61.2
Total
4.9
68.7
10.3
56.3
6.2
73.9
Table 3.25 depicts the proportion of the first and second generation humanitarian settlers
aged 20 years and over who have no post-school education. Clearly, for most groups first
generation humanitarian settlers have a higher proportion who do not have any post-school
education than is the case for the Australia-born. This clearly is a barrier to engagement in
the workforce. However, it is important to recognise that for almost all groups a significant
- 139 -
proportion of adults do have post-school qualifications and stereotyping refugeehumanitarian settlers as unskilled is totally inappropriate.
It is especially interesting,
however, in Table 3.25 that there is strong evidence of cross-generational upward mobility
with respect to education. The proportion of persons with post-school education increases
across the generations for two thirds of the groups. Moreover, while almost all of the first
generation has a higher percentage with no qualifications than the Australia-born, the
opposite is the case for the second generation. Indeed, although there is some variation
between refugee-humanitarian groups, in-depth discussions with key informants show
education is highly valued by some birthplace groups. This is reflected in the high incidence
of post-school education in the second generation.
- 140 -
Table 3.25:
Source:
First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Groups:
School Qualification, Age 20+ Population, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
First Generation
Post-School
Qualification
No Qualification
51.4
48.6
Country of Birth
Australia
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
34.4
61.8*
52.9*
43.2
54.5*
58.8*
40.7
29.3
26.6
44.9
Second Generation
Post-School
Qualification
No Qualification
52.4
47.6
65.6*
38.2
47.1
56.8*
45.5
41.2
59.3*
70.7*
73.4*
55.1*
45.2
29.1
54.8*
70.9*
50.9
78.6*
76.1*
47.8
70.0*
74.4*
69.6*
29.1
50.2*
22.2
59.2*
39.8
43.8
58.2*
32.5
Liberia
56.0*
44.0
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
44.7
66.7*
36.1
67.5*
59.5*
55.3*
33.3
63.9*
32.5
40.5
61.2*
66.1*
43.1
61.1*
57.1*
58.7*
55.2*
47.0
55.0*
70.9*
49.8
77.8*
40.8
60.2*
56.2*
41.8
67.5*
56.4*
61.3*
64.9*
61.5*
65.2*
63.0*
60.6*
60.8*
65.0*
60.8*
38.8
33.9
49.1*
21.4
23.9
52.2*
30.0
25.6
30.4
* Above Australian average
43.6
38.7
35.1
38.5
34.8
37.0
39.4
39.2
35.0
39.2
Post-
56.9*
38.9
42.9
41.3
44.8
53.0*
45.0
61.1*
42.6
59.3*
54.9*
57.1*
67.7*
47.5
40.8
38.9
57.4*
40.7
45.1
42.9
32.3
52.5*
59.2*
62.5*
38.6
45.1*
41.1
37.5
61.4*
54.9*
58.9*
- 141 -
In Table 3.25 it will also be noted that there are a few groups in which there is a decline
between the first and second generation in the proportion with post-school qualifications.
These are generally two groups of countries. For some of the longer established groups the
original refugee-humanitarian migrants were the intelligentsia who fled countries like
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Russian Federation, Slovakia and El Salvador. Hence they had
disproportionately high levels of post-school education among the first generation. A second
category includes recently arrived groups like those from the Congo, Ethiopia and Iran where
there were very few second generation people of an age to have completed post-school
education.
The overwhelmingly strong pattern is of the second generation having
significantly higher levels of education compared with the first generation.
Education clearly impacts upon unemployment among refugee-humanitarian groups. Figure
3.9 shows a clear pattern for the first and second generation as well as for the Australia-born,
with unemployment decreasing with education. However, even when education is controlled
there are still higher levels of unemployment among the refugee groups, especially the first
generation, suggesting that other factors, including discrimination, are influential. Similar
impacts of education are in evidence when we consider labour force participation in Figure
3.10.
- 142 -
Figure 3.9:
Source:
Australia: Percent Unemployed by First, Second Generation and
Australia-Born and Qualifications, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Figure 3.10: Australia: Participation Rate by First, Second Generation and AustraliaBorn and Qualifications, 2006
Source:
ABS, 2006 Census
- 143 -
3.5.3
Current Education Attendance
Given that first generation humanitarian settlers generally have lower levels of educational
attainment than the Australia-born, it is interesting to examine the extent to which they are
currently attending educational institutions. Table 3.26 shows the proportion of first and
second generation humanitarian settlers who are currently aged 15-19 and 20-24 years who
are still attending some form of educational institution.
Some striking patterns are in
evidence. For most first generation settler groups the proportions who are still attending an
educational institution is greater than for the Australia-born. Only two groups in fact have
lower percentages – those from Estonia and those from Lebanon. The numbers from Estonia
are extremely small but those from Lebanon are quite large and the lower participation in
education is a concern. Nevertheless, the overwhelmingly dominant pattern is for high
participation in education at the young adult ages.
Indeed, the averages for all of the
refugee-humanitarian groups (77.6 percent for those 15-19 and 44.2 percent for those 20-24)
are quite a bit higher than those for the Australia-born (70.1 and 28.5 percent). This points to
the well documented pattern of many refugee-humanitarian groups placing considerable
emphasis on their children’s education. Most of the first generation people represented in
Table 3.26 would have arrived in Australia as dependent age children. This has been noted,
for example, for the large Vietnamese group and this is reflected in the high proportion aged
15-19 and 20-24 who are still attending some form of educational institution (77.2 and 41.2
percent).
There is then a strong pattern among refugee-humanitarian groups being heavily involved in
post-school education which adds another dimension to the picture which is emerging of
considerable upward cross-generational mobility. When refugee-humanitarian settlers are
given the opportunity they participate in post-school education to a greater degree than the
Australia-born.
- 144 -
Table 3.26:
Source:
First and Second Generations Still Attending Education by Age, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
First Generation
Country of Birth
15-19
Australia
20-24
70.1
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Second Generation
15-19
28.5
90.9*
78.7*
68.0
80.7*
95.7*
72.7*
74.8*
84.2*
79.0*
83.6*
57.1*
38.6*
24.0
41.0*
59.3*
52.5*
37.0*
54.0*
54.5*
50.7*
72.5*
82.5*
36.1*
38.8*
72.7*
75.1*
75.6*
81.6*
81.5*
73.6
86.3*
32.1*
33.9*
34.8*
44.4*
38.6*
27.6*
48.2*
75.6*
82.8*
87.2*
73.8*
79.8*
73.5*
79.6*
73.8*
42.4*
56.9*
80.8*
44.2*
51.8*
48.0*
58.1*
35.6*
Liberia
72.3*
52.4*
Sierra Leone
73.0*
50.7*
60.0
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
75.6*
89.5*
74.1*
77.6*
48.3*
63.5*
58.3*
44.2*
89.5*
86.5*
73.8*
78.2*
* Above Australia-born average
38.7*
31.6*
41.8*
34.2*
40.3*
39.4*
34.2*
39.1*
42.4*
39.2*
78.1*
77.6*
43.6*
31.2*
25.4
36.4*
40.0*
26.1
41.2*
28.6
72.7*
75.8*
81.4*
75.3*
82.1*
78.9*
75.5*
74.8*
76.2*
79.4*
39.5*
55.3*
81.6*
75.4*
74.8*
70.6*
75.9*
64.9
77.2*
20-24
71.0
82.3*
68.0
67.6
48.1
91.7*
84.3*
88.4*
74.2*
60.5*
32.7*
30.8*
30.4*
42.9*
50.0*
54.5*
34.1*
45.0*
64.7*
35.7*
- 145 -
3.6
OCCUPATION AND INDUSTRY
3.6.1
Introduction
One of the ways in which the refugee-humanitarian groups are distinctive in their
involvement in the labour market is in the specific sectors of the economy they are engaged
in and the type of work that they do. A recent study of Refugees and Employment in
Australia (Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2007, 12) involved substantial primary data collection
among first generation settlers in three refugee-humanitarian groups – ex-Yugoslavs, people
from Middle East backgrounds and Africans.
Their key findings are of considerable
relevance to the present discussion:
•
High levels of unemployment in each group.
•
Massive loss of occupational status among skilled refugees.
•
Persistence of a segmented labour market with refugees disproportionately being
allocated unattractive jobs.
•
Loss of human capital benefits to Australia and a waste of skills in short supply.
•
Refugees face structural disadvantage in the labour market.
•
Discrimination on the basis of race, religion and ethnic origin plays a role in
creating unsatisfactory employment outcomes.
•
‘Everyday’ street racism does not affect levels of life satisfaction among refugees
as much as perceived racism in the labour market.
These case study findings make it important to examine where in the labour market refugeehumanitarian settlers are concentrated on a national scale.
3.6.2
Findings from the 2006 Population Census
It is apparent that recently arrived humanitarian settlers are concentrated in different types of
occupations than other immigrants. Table 3.27 shows that at the 2006 census one third of
recent humanitarian settlers who were employed worked as labourers – three times the rate
for other recently arrived settlers.
There is an overwhelming concentration in manual
occupations and very low proportions who were managers and professionals (10.3 percent)
- 146 -
compared with all migrants (39.3 percent). This concentration in unskilled occupations is
especially evident among recently arrived humanitarian migrants but is also apparent in
longer standing groups.
Table 3.27:
Source:
Visa Type of Settler Arrivals, 2001-06 by Occupation in 2006: Proportion
(Percent) of All Migrants Aged Over 15 Years
ABS/DIAC Data Linkage Project
Clerical and Administrative Workers
Community and Personal Service
Workers
Labourers
Machinery Operators and Drivers
Managers
Professionals
Sales Workers
Technicians and Trades Workers
Total
Family
Humanitarian
14.2
4.1
Skilled
12.9
0.0
Total (a)
13.0
Other
11.0
16.8
6.1
9.9
21.0
8.0
13.0
13.5
33.0
13.7
3.7
6.4
6.8
18.9
7.6
7.8
3.1
11.2
36.0
8.0
13.5
0.0
17.0
16.3
11.3
11.3
12.8
31.2
9.1
12.4
4.8
10.4
28.7
8.0
13.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
(a) Total migrants does not include temporary migrants.
Table 3.28 shows the proportions of first and second generation humanitarian settlers who are
employed that work in high status managerial and professional jobs and the proportion that
work in lower status low skilled and unskilled jobs. An interesting pattern is in evidence.
Only a small proportion of first generation humanitarian settlers have proportions of workers
in higher status jobs higher than for the Australia-born. These are predominantly among the
birthplace groups that have been in Australia a long time and many undoubtedly came to
Australia as children and were educated in Australia. They include predominantly European
groups (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation, Slovakia
and the Ukraine). It is well below the Australian average for the more recently arrived
groups. The proportion of groups in the second generation in higher status occupations is
greater but again it is mainly longstanding groups that are represented. There is a general
pattern of an increase in the proportion in higher status occupations increasing across the
generations.
- 147 -
Table 3.28:
Source:
Australia: First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Groups –
Percent of Labour Force in Professional and Unskilled Occupations, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Percent Professionals
Second
First Generation
Generation
40.3
39.1
Percent Unskilled
Second
First Generation
Generation
18.2
18.8
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Kurdish Ancestry
Tamil Ancestry
Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
Birthplace
Australia
53.5*
26.2
49.6*
45.6*
52.0*
47.6*
40.1
52.4*
41.7*
48.0*
47.5*
41.7*
53.7*
54.9*
51.7*
51.3*
46.2*
49.2*
46.0*
45.9*
31.5
43.9*
35.8
52.3*
23.0
25.2
23.4
27.4
24.7
32.7
32.0
14.1
29.1*
35.8*
34.3*
29.3*
31.0*
20.7*
26.0*
30.2
40.5*
29.7
35.4
42.9*
20.0
35.9
42.7*
10.7
54.9*
34.5
24.5
43.7*
21.2
15.2
12.0
15.8
13.6
13.9
18.1
13.4
15.6
14.3
22.0*
15.5
37.7
23.8
24.9
22.8
25.3
39.4*
32.1
21.0
37.1
37.5
46.6*
25.6
24.9
47.7*
26.7
16.0
21.6
20.2
48.3*
25.8
41.8*
39.0
34.6
22.4*
25.4*
18.0
14.1
15.0
16.9
17.0*
15.1
17.7
17.0
18.6
37.8*
45.3*
33.7*
19.5*
31.8*
34.1*
24.7*
34.1*
25.8*
30.9*
30.7*
15.0
29.0*
41.1*
32.3*
22.6*
16.7
39.1*
33.7*
23.7*
* Above Australia-born average.
Note: The number of second generation persons in recently arrived groups are very small
so the rates should be interpreted with care.
34.1*
20.3*
18.4
33.8*
18.7
20.8*
34.4*
17.2
- 148 -
Turning to the populations who work in lower status occupations, Table 3.28 shows that for
almost all recently arrived refugee groups the proportions are higher than for the Australiaborn while for many longstanding groups the percentages are smaller.
There is some
reduction among the second generation but for recently arrived groups the numbers of second
generation workers are very small and their rates need to be interpreted with care. Again,
however, there is some evidence of upward mobility across the generations although
overrepresentation in lower skilled occupations is still in evidence.
The pattern of occupational structure then is of first generation refugee-humanitarian settlers
being underrepresented in higher status managerial and professional occupations and
overrepresented in low skilled occupations. This is especially true of more recently arrived
groups, especially those from Sub-Saharan Africa. Because the second generation is very
young it is difficult for several groups to have sufficient numbers in workforce ages to make a
valid comparison between generations. Nevertheless, there appears to be an improvement in
occupational status between the generations with generally higher proportions of second
generation being in the higher status occupations.
3.6.3
Evidence of Occupational Skidding
A significant issue in examining the occupations of the refugee-humanitarian origin
population is the extent to which their skills and training are fully utilised in the labour force.
There has been evidence of ‘occupational skidding’ among some migrant groups whereby
significant proportions are not able to obtain work commensurate with their qualifications. In
order to investigate this issue here we have examined the extent to which refugeehumanitarian birthplace groups with ‘degree or higher’ occupations and who are working, are
employed in professional or managerial, higher status occupations. Table 3.29 shows a clear
pattern of the proportion of first generation humanitarian settlers with graduate qualifications
who are in managerial or professional occupations – which was considerably lower than was
the case for the Australia-born. This is particularly the case for recently arrived groups from
- 149 -
Table 3.29:
Source:
Australia:
First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian
Birthplace Groups Percent of Workers with Bachelor or Higher
Qualifications in Managerial or Professional Occupations, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
First
Generation
85.9
Second
Generation
86.2
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
Birthplace
Australia
71.7
77.1
72.9
81.0
77.7
68.9
76.5
73.1
66.5
68.2
83.8
83.1
86.1
84.5
86.4*
87.5*
85.5
85.6
81.3
84.1
76.6
76.2
75.0
86.2
65.7
71.7
72.9
66.3
72.1
76.6
74.2
81.8
72.3
61.0
100.0*
66.0
82.6
72.0
52.8
63.6
77.7
77.6
61.8
69.9
75.7
62.6
70.4
60.3
46.6
77.9
61.3
73.6
* Above Australia-born average.
71.6
79.1
74.5
78.7
82.7
84.6
83.4
- 150 -
Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq. Table 3.29 also compares the first and second generations of
refugee-humanitarian settlers in the proportion with degree or higher education qualifications
who are in professional and managerial occupations. This shows a clear pattern of higher
levels of qualified members of the second generation having jobs in higher status
occupations. Indeed, on average the proportion is ten percent higher. The differences are
especially high in the longest standing humanitarian birthplace groups from Europe.
The examination of occupations produces a number of conclusions. Firstly, it is apparent that
a significant proportion of workers among humanitarian settlers have skills belying the
stereotype of this group as being overwhelmingly a low skill population. However, it is
apparent that these skills are not being fully utilised in the labour market with a significant
mismatch between skills and occupation being apparent.
There is evidence that this
mismatch is significantly reduced in the second generation of settlers.
3.6.4
Industry
Turning to the types of industry that first and second generation humanitarian settlers are
engaged in, Table 3.30 shows the percentage of workers who are employed in manufacturing
and some striking patterns are in evidence. First of all it will be noted that almost all groups
have significantly higher proportions of their workers employed in the manufacturing sector
than is the case for the Australia-born. Indeed for some first generation groups (Vietnamese,
Cambodians, Laotians and East Timorese) the proportion is three times or more that of the
Australia-born (10.3 percent). It is also noticeable that recently arrived groups from African
countries, Afghanistan and Iraq also have relatively high proportions of workers in
manufacturing. Another noticeable trend in Table 3.30 is the contrast between the first and
second generations. For almost all groups there is a substantial reduction in the proportion of
- 151 -
Table 3.30:
Source:
Australia:
First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian
Birthplace Groups Percent of Workers Employed in Manufacturing, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
First
Generation
10.3
Second
Generation
10.2
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Birthplace
Australia
10.5*
20.4*
10.8*
14.4*
7.9
11.4*
20.9*
9.1
13.9*
10.8*
9.2
10.9*
8.3
10.8*
9.9
9.5
9.7
9.6
8.6
11.2*
18.0*
14.3*
8.7
9.2
18.1*
33.5*
32.8*
17.2*
36.9*
11.3*
30.5*
9.9
11.5*
7.5
7.8
9.8
7.4
8.5
18.1*
18.3*
17.9*
13.2*
22.8*
20.4*
9.5
17.6*
22.9*
19.2*
15.7*
14.2*
25.5*
7.9
9.1
7.9
11.6*
18.8*
5.9
7.7
12.0*
8.1
20.5*
* Above Australia-born average.
workers employed in manufacturing.
Indeed for most second generation groups the
proportion working in manufacturing is less than that for the Australia-born.
- 152 -
In research into post-World War II migrants’ labour market experience, a strong theme has
been the clustering of migrants in lower end occupations. Indeed, some have argued that
there has been a segmentation of the labour market along ethnic lines (Wooden, 1994b, 247).
This effect has been diluted by the shift in immigration policy which has focused more on
skill (Hugo, 1999). Nevertheless, it is apparent from the data presented here that first
generation refugee-humanitarian settlers have concentrated in lower status occupations.
Indeed it is refugee-humanitarian migrants who are the main migrant group that is
contributing to meeting strategies in low skilled jobs in the Australian labour market. ColicPeisker and Tilbury (2006) have suggested that this concentration in low status occupations
means that humanitarian settlers could be forming an emerging segmented second tier labour
force in Australia.
3.7
INCOME
3.7.1
Introduction
The skill orientation of Australia’s migration program since the mid 1990s has led to an
increase in the average earnings of migrants. Wooden (1994b, 239) summarises the literature
up to that time by indicating that overall immigrants had a slightly higher average income
than the Australia-born.
However, there were significant variations between individual
birthplace groups although those from mainly English speaking countries had earnings above
the Australia-born and those from other countries on average had lower incomes. Moreover,
there are significant differences between different visa categories of settler arrivals. Collins
(2010, 24) has found:
‘The greatest disadvantaged group of immigrants is those who arrive under the
humanitarian program as refugees. They experience the highest rates of
unemployment and earn the lowest incomes. They are more likely to be in
poverty than other immigrants’.
- 153 -
Table 3.31:
Source:
Visa Type of Settler Arrivals, 2001-06 by Individual Income (Weekly) in
2006: Proportion (Percent) of All Migrants Aged Over 15 Years
ABS/DIAC Data Linkage Project
Negative or nil income
$1 - $149
$150 - $249
$250 - $399
$400 - $599
$600 - $799
$800 - $999
$1,000 to $1,299
$1,300 or more
Total
Family
22.8
9.6
10.7
9.5
14.8
11.4
7.5
6.3
7.4
100.0
Humanitarian
8.4
16.5
33.2
12.9
15.4
7.0
2.8
2.1
1.7
100.0
Skilled
19.3
7.8
5.4
7.4
11.9
12.7
9.7
10.3
15.6
100.0
Other
11.9
11.0
16.4
14.2
26.5
11.9
8.2
0.0
0.0
100.0
Total
19.9
9.2
9.8
8.8
13.5
11.7
8.3
7.9
11.0
100.0
This is certainly the case for recently arrived settlers. Table 3.31 and Figure 3.11 show the
individual incomes of different visa categories of recently arrived settlers at the 2006 census.
It is notable that humanitarian settlers had the smallest percentage of all groups who had zero
or negative incomes. This was partly because, unlike other visa categories of settlers, they
have immediate access to unemployment benefits. However, it is noticeable in Table 3.31
that almost a half of humanitarian settlers were earning less than $250 per week compared
with 19 percent of all recent arrivals. Recent humanitarian settlers are strongly concentrated
in the low income groups.
Figure 3.11: Occupation of Employed Migrants, 15 Years and Over, 2006
Source:
ABS, 2010b, 13-14
- 154 -
The pattern of income for individual refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups is shown in
Table 3.32. A strong pattern is in evidence. Almost all first generation refugee-humanitarian
settler groups have higher proportions earning less than $250 per week in 2006 than the
Australia-born. Among recently arrived groups the proportions with low incomes were quite
high – Burundi (61.9 percent), Somalia (49.5 percent), Sudan (47.7 percent), Iraq (48
percent), Afghanistan (43.3 percent) and Congo (39.2 percent). This contrasts with the fact
that Burundi migrants had a high proportion with Bachelor or higher qualifications (Table
3.8).
This reflects the fact that some recent arrivals have difficulty getting work
commensurate with their qualifications.
- 155 -
Table 3.32:
Source:
Australia:
First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian
Birthplace Groups Gross Weekly Individual Income, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Percent Earning More Than
$1,000
First
Second
Generation
Generation
20.1
19.3
Percent Earning $1-$250
First
Second
Generation
Generation
22.1
22.9
Birthplace
Australia
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Kurdish Ancestry
Tamil Ancestry
27.8*
37.8*
36.2*
34.0*
37.3*
38.2*
27.6*
30.0*
21.5
39.6*
15.4
16.3
16.5
18.2
16.0
15.7
21.4
18.0
18.0
16.6
24.2*
24.9*
24.7*
17.1
37.6*
32.2*
28.8*
25.7*
26.2*
39.3*
32.1*
12.2
29.4*
10.2
8.2
10.0
9.5
11.5
8.9
11.7
36.5*
19.4
19.5
23.1*
44.0*
23.9*
32.9*
28.1*
37.5*
21.3
29.2*
-
27.5*
26.6*
31.8*
26.5*
31.4*
30.1*
25.2*
27.3*
26.4*
28.3*
18.9
16.6
21.2
39.0*
24.7*
36.7*
31.0*
25.0*
38.5*
43.3*
26.0*
61.9*
39.2*
35.2*
31.8*
30.6*
48.0*
35.8*
25.4*
49.5*
18.8
47.7*
30.3*
20.8
20.8*
12.0
8.0
14.5
8.3
7.7
18.0
16.3
18.1
11.2
16.9
2.7
7.0
3.3
4.5
16.2
5.0
4.5
14.6
2.0
12.0
7.1
8.2
16.6
5.9
4.4
7.3
3.3
22.3*
5.0
12.0
9.4
8.7
22.1*
16.8
13.9
7.0
4.5
9.4
16.4
20.7*
16.1
-
* Above Australia-born average.
Table 3.32 also shows the proportions of the second generation in the low income category
and it is noticeable that only half of the groups have a proportion above the Australia-born
average. It is noticeable that those for which the proportion is lower are mainly long
- 156 -
established European groups but it must be remembered that the numbers of second
generation are very small among recently arrived groups. It is interesting in Table 3.32,
however, that the two largest refugee-humanitarian groups – the Vietnamese and Lebanese –
not only had high proportions who had a low income among the first generation but also
among their second generation.
The table also indicates the proportion of the humanitarian birthplace groups having a higher
income (more than $1,000 per week). Again, a striking pattern is apparent with only two first
generation groups having a higher percentage than the Australia-born having such an income.
It is noticeable, however, that a larger number of second generation humanitarian settlers had
higher incomes compared with the Australia-born. It is noticeable again that the longstanding
European humanitarian settlers are prominent among those second generation groups that
have a high proportion earning a high income.
3.8
HOUSING
Another strong indicator of the extent of incorporation as well as of the economic situation of
migrants is the extent to which they have been able to enter the housing market (Hassell and
Hugo, 1996).
Table 3.33 indicates that at the 2006 census the proportion of humanitarian settlers who had
arrived since 2001 and were able to begin to purchase their home was significantly lower
than for other visa categories. Some 70 percent of humanitarian settlers were still renting.
Turning to individual birthplace groups, Table 3.34 shows the proportion of first and second
generation humanitarian settlers who either own or are purchasing their own home. These
data have to be interpreted with some care because the Australia-born population are
considerably older than the refugee-humanitarian population and hence are more likely to
own their own home because home ownership generally is greatest in older age groups.
Nevertheless it is apparent that most refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups’ first generation
have lower proportions who own, or are purchasing, their home than the Australia-born. It is
noticeable that those with above average levels of home ownership are the longer standing
groups. It is interesting that high rates were recorded by the Vietnamese, Laotians and
Cambodians who had low incomes, reproducing a pattern of earlier generations of low skilled
- 157 -
migrants who placed a high priority on property purchase. Understandably there are quite
low rates of home ownership among recently arrived humanitarian groups.
Table 3.33:
Source:
Visa Type of Settler Arrivals, 2001-06 by Tenure of House in 2006:
Proportion (Percent) of All Migrants Aged Over 15 Years
ABS/DIAC Data Linkage Project
Family Humanitarian
Skilled
Other
Total
Fully owned
13.1
2.5
8.9
15.7
10.1
Being purchased
38.4
17.7
35.3
51.4
35.1
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.5
42.5
70.0
51.0
25.4
49.1
Being occupied rent-free
1.1
0.7
0.8
0.0
0.9
Being occupied under a life tenure sch
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
Not applicable /not stated/'other tenure
type'
4.2
8.1
3.7
6.1
4.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Being purchased under a rent/buy sch
Rented
Total
As was the case with income, there is clear evidence of intergenerational mobility with more
second generation groups having home ownership rates above the Australian average. The
problem of the age structures of this group being younger than the Australia-born is an issue
but there are some clear patterns with several groups having higher proportions owning their
own home than the Australian second generation.
Moreover, for many groups the
proportions owing their own home are significantly higher than for the first generation.
- 158 -
Table 3.34:
Source:
Australia:
Percentage of First and Second Generation RefugeeHumanitarian Birthplace Groups Who Own Or Are Purchasing Their
Own Home, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Birthplace
Australia
First
Generation
73.1
Second
Generation
73.6
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Romania
Lithuania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
65.3
85.2*
80.3*
76.9*
83.4*
67.7
83.6*
60.3
60.5
70.0
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czechoslavakia
62.0
71.3
71.5
78.5*
70.8
50.7
76.0*
70.4
78.5*
74.3*
75.8*
65.9
56.4
75.2*
74.2*
79.0*
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Kurdish Ancestry
65.2
73.5
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
77.1*
80.4*
74.1*
71.3
73.5
72.1
71.0
72.4
77.9*
77.8*
31.7
67.2
4.9
24.0
29.9
40.0
54.2
44.2
6.5
11.1
9.2
70.4
13.8
56.7
* Above Australia-born average.
54.7
71.8
53.1
58.6
48.1
52.6
71.8
56.0
31.0
16.2
78.9*
23.8
-
- 159 -
3.9
THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS (GFC)
The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has been the deepest global economic downturn since the
1930s Great Depression. It is inevitable that this has impacted considerably on international
migration and migrants (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD],
2009).
In assessing its effects on migration, Fix et al. (2009, 1) make three basic
propositions, the third of which is of relevance to the present study. This was that ‘the
recession has hit migrants and their financial wellbeing particularly hard’. While it is true
that the impact of the GFC has been somewhat less in Australia than in other OECD nations
(Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and DIAC, 2009, 16) it is
important to briefly consider the economic impact of the GFC on humanitarian settlers in
Australia.
Figure 3.12: Australia: Unemployment Rate of the Population by Birthplace, April
2001 to March 2010
Source:
ABS Australian Labour Force Surveys
- 160 -
Hugo (2010b) has shown that while the effects of the GFC in Australia have been less than in
other OECD countries, there have been some significant impacts on the scale and
composition of migration to and from Australia. However the focus here is on the effects on
migrants settled in Australia. Figure 3.12 shows that there was an upturn in unemployment
of both the Australia- and overseas-born. While there is a long history of migrants having a
higher level of unemployment than the Australia-born (Wooden, 1994b, 222) it is evident
from Figure 3.12 that the difference widened during the GFC.
Figure 3.13: Australia: Unemployment Rate of the Overseas-Born by Region of Birth,
April 2001 to March 2010
Source:
ABS Australian Labour Force Surveys
The data from Figure 3.12 were drawn from the ABS monthly labour force survey. While
these data do not indicate under which visa category migrants settled in Australia, it does
have some data on countries of origin. Figure 3.13 shows the breakdown of unemployment
- 161 -
rates according to the region of birth and it is striking that the upturn in unemployment with
the GFC has been greatest for those migrants from North Africa and the Middle East, the
bulk of whom are from refugee-humanitarian backgrounds. It is apparent that while the
impact of the GFC in Australia has been less than in other OECD countries, the effects have
been greater among migrants than the Australia-born. Among migrants it has been people
from non-English speaking and refugee backgrounds who have been especially vulnerable,
and females more so than males (Hugo, 2010b).
3.10
DISCUSSION OF HUMANITARIAN PARTICIPATION IN THE LABOUR
MARKET
In this section the results of secondary data analysis are combined with information derived
from key informant interviews to assess the participation of humanitarian settlers in the
Australian labour market. Engaging with the labour market is pivotal to successful settlement
and one of the most visible and important contributions that refugees and humanitarian
entrants make in Australia. While refugees pursue employment as a means of acquiring
economic security for their own families, they also actively view this as a way of giving back
and contributing to the community and new country that has provided them with another
chance. Safe and satisfying employment is also a pathway to community participation and
new arrivals’ learning about the country and the culture they have settled in. Being so wide,
the humanitarian program captures migrants with a wide range of skills and qualifications,
many of whom have experienced post-secondary education prior to migration. However
most refugees and humanitarian migrants need extensive support to enter the workforce in
Australia, and more specifically to access jobs that recognise their skills and education.
New migrants and refugees who have been in the country for less than five years are often at
a disadvantage when it comes to finding work. Key informants from the employment and
refugee sectors highlighted however that refugees and humanitarian entrants face
unemployment at greater levels than their counterparts coming in through other migration
streams. When they do gain employment, it is often more precarious and less upwardly
mobile. For those who engage in vocational training, it is often at low levels with limited
progression to employment. Because of these factors some refugees may never have the
opportunity to maximise their social and economic participation as citizens.
- 162 -
Barraket (2007) maintains that despite a historically tight labour market in Australia, some
groups of new migrants and most refugees are disproportionately at risk of full labour market
exclusion, or exclusionary transitions into the labour force. Forty three percent of working
age refugees remain unemployed 18 months after arrival in Australia (DIAC, 2006).
The impacts of unemployment and underemployment spill into other spheres. For example,
different cultural expectations about the role of work and its place in the family have
important implications in terms of undermining family dynamics and power structures. One
key informant noted that amongst many of her clients from specific African communities, the
male has traditionally played the head of household and men’s worth has been judged on
their ability to support their family. Unemployment and under-employment generates
different and often adverse family dynamics and conflict. When the breadwinner role is lost,
this creates a social imbalance within the household and can often generate conflict.
While unemployment remains high for many people coming through the humanitarian
channel, contribution to the labour market in this early phase must be acknowledged given
that many refugees and humanitarian entrants are allocated ‘unattractive jobs’ or low skilled
employment, despite high levels of skills and education (Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2007).
As observed by DIAC (2006) where new arrivals entering Australia on humanitarian grounds
or through family sponsorship do gain access to employment, the positions they hold in
Australia tend to be less skilled than those they held in their countries of origin (DIAC,
2006). Refugees and humanitarian entrants are often ‘funnelled’ into low paying and
casualised sectors of the labour market.
To some degree the barriers to employment for refugees and humanitarian migrants are
similar to those facing migrants within other categories. Dr Farida Tilbury from Murdoch
University, a specialist in refugee integration into the labour force, noted for example that
like migrants who have come in under the skilled or family streams, refugees who have
arrived in Australia with skills and post-school qualifications must seek skills recognition
(discussed in more detail below) in order to work. All migrants therefore face the same
licensing and skills upgrading issues in pursuing their occupation.
At the same time there are a series of inter-related barriers to employment that are unique to
refugees and humanitarian entrants. Key barriers identified by key informants to refugees’
- 163 -
employment are identified in Table 3.35. These barriers are located in refugees’ pre- and
post-migration experiences.
Refugees’ country of origin and pre-settlement experiences play a key role in influencing the
likelihood of employment outcomes in Australia.
More recent waves of humanitarian
migrants have fewer life skills, little health awareness, basic budgeting or marketing skills
and find it extremely difficult to go on with day-to-day living. Many individuals from African
communities have been de-skilled through the process of being a refugee. Extensive periods
in camps and violent or unstable situations have limited or prevented individuals’ schooling,
further education and employment experiences, resulting in a lack of confidence and more
generally a lack of preparedness to enter the labour market. While these factors make
accessing employment in the first instance extremely difficult, they also contribute to
problems with regards to retaining employment.
- 164 -
Table 3.35:
Barriers to Employment for Refugees as Identified by Key Informants
Pre-Migration
Australia
Exposure to violence, instability and
Mental health issues due to pre- and post-
persecution
migration experiences
Physical disability/health problems
Lack of /limited education
Illiteracy/low levels of literacy
Disrupted education due to long periods in
Low English proficiency/ communication and
camps/exposure to violence and instability
language barriers
Limited qualifications/skills (particularly
amongst older age groups)
Lack of knowledge about the Australian
Lack of opportunities/finances to have skills
labour market
recognised
Lack of knowledge/awareness about skills
recognition processes
Lack of driver’s licence/difficulty accessing
transport
No opportunity to scope/research the
Lack of established networks
Australian labour market
Limited capacity/capability of job network
providers
Lack of work experience in Australia
Experiences of racism and discrimination
Lack of documentation prior to migration
Lack of/limited knowledge about Australian
workplace culture
Lack of documentation on arrival
Misinformation about employment
Difficulty accessing/sustaining employment and
opportunities
training opportunities
Unrealistic expectations around employment
opportunities
Unlike business and family migrants, refugees’ pre-migration experience prevents them from
doing research into Australia’s labour market before they arrive. Many refugees have lived in
camps for prolonged periods, while others have had little or limited time to plan their
journey. Consequently they are at a disadvantage from other migrants because they have not
had the resources or opportunity to scope the labour market or prepare for transitioning into
it.
- 165 -
On arrival in Australia, the reality for many humanitarian entrants is a scenario where they
must deal with finding employment at the same time that they are securing long-term
accommodation, gaining their driver’s licence, finding adequate and affordable childcare and
pursuing education – all factors that contribute to refugees finding satisfying and sustainable
employment in the first instance.
Finding the first job is critical to accessing the labour market and it is often the first job that is
most difficult to find because refugees have little or no local work experience prior to
arriving and in Australia. Without work experience and a lack of local references, refugees
have a limited understanding of Australian workplace culture and find it difficult to access
the employment market in the first place.
Work experience is the main need identified by refugees according to key informants
specialising in the refugee employment sector.
Employers do not want to take on the
perceived risks associated with employing refugees and humanitarian arrivals who have not
had work experience in Australia. Unpaid work experience attracts occupational health and
safety costs. A key consequence of the factors cited above is that humanitarian entrants
engage with low skilled and low paying jobs that usually involve hard labour and long hours
in the first instance. Thereafter accessing satisfying and suitable employment and career
progression is difficult due to a range of factors discussed below.
Employer discrimination was cited as a key obstacle to accessing employment in the first
instance. Employers are often unaware of (a) the distinction between refugees and other
migrant streams and related to this, the specific needs that the former may require with
regards to maintaining employment and (b) the skills and knowledge refugees may have
acquired outside Australia. For some employers, there is a common perception that refugees
lack awareness about workplace culture and practices and are therefore more difficult to
employ.
Mature age refugees face a double disadvantage. Key informants working in the
refugee sector and specialising in employment pointed out that there needs to be more
emphasis on educating employers rather than skilling migrants in many cases. Australian
employers need awareness-raising that migrants and refugees bring in skills, but also that
they bring in a diverse and valuable range of skills that can generate innovative practices and
knowledge within the workplace.
- 166 -
Under the Howard Government, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration (2006)
emphasised that humanitarian entrants may face some skills recognition difficulties not faced
by entrants under other migration schemes due to a range of complex personal circumstances.
For example, humanitarian entrants are more likely to arrive without documentary evidence
of their qualifications. While refugees’ qualifications may be recorded in the humanitarian
interview, this data can get lost in the system and currently there is no way of documenting
refugees’ skills and qualifications once they arrive in Australia.
Key informants from
Migrant Resource Centres and settlement agencies similarly observed that clients identified
the skills recognition process in Australia to be too time consuming and complex to navigate,
therefore cementing their decision not to engage with this pathway. Most significantly they
noted that more so than other migrants, refugees and humanitarian migrants often do not have
the financial resources to have their qualifications/skills recognised.
In 2006, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration released its Negotiating the Maze report
which examined the structural barriers that hamper the efficient recognition of skills of those
trained overseas. With regards to refugees the Committee was advised that ‘the cost of
getting qualifications recognised is a significant impost for all of these groups but for refugee
and humanitarian entrants, these costs can constitute a major barrier’. In addition, they were
informed that:
‘Recognition of qualifications is only the first step for many migrants and
refugees with trades’ qualifications. The next step for many trades is to satisfy
the appropriate licensing and registration to practice their trade in Australia.
Meeting licensing and registration requirement also incurs significant costs.
For example, the cost of recognition of qualifications and meeting licensing
and registration requirements for electricians is over $1000’ (Joint Standing
Committee on Migration, 2006, 259).
Even if they did have access to financial resources, many key informants noted that the
system and procedures for skills recognition is particularly complex and difficult to
negotiate. Consequently many humanitarian entrants who enter Australia with skills or high
levels of education take a step back within their careers or find work that is very different to
what they have been trained in within their country of origin.
- 167 -
Compounding this trend are two other major barriers to refugees finding safe, secure and
satisfying employment. First and most critical, according to key observers from various
sectors, is the problematic structure of employment assistance:
•
Community representatives for example noted that most mainstream Job Network
Providers dealing with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities
and refugees in particular, are often not trained in cultural sensitivity and had little
or no understanding of the unique barriers faced by humanitarian entrants. For
example, several key informants mentioned that many newly arrived refugees
currently find themselves working in abattoirs – a highly unpopular work location
for locals due to poor working conditions and low pay. While this work may be a
useful starting point for refugees, informants noted that there have been situations
where the abattoir environment has generated the resurfacing of trauma amongst
some individuals relating back to violent and bloody situations they may have
experienced prior to arriving in Australia. It is pivotal that employment agencies
are sensitive to the specific needs and circumstances that many of these migrants
have experienced. Key informants pointed out that many had little motivation to
acquire this knowledge.
•
This is largely because Job Network Providers are given financial incentives to
place people into jobs. The key objective is access into employment. Consequently
providers are often uninterested in the suitability of employment for their clients
and accordingly job seekers from a refugee background are less likely to sustain
employment. Key informants also noted that Job Network Australia is also not
focused on training, re-training or up-skilling refugees in a sustained manner.
•
These problems associated with the current Job Network Provider scheme have
been identified as long standing. In its submission to the Joint Standing Committee
on Migration (2006: 261-262), the Refugee Council of Australia noted that:
‘Job Network providers … are not financially remunerated for placing
long term job seekers in skill recognition procedures, as a client needs
to be placed in employment before this remuneration is received from
[Department of Employment and Workplace Relations] DEWR. This
leads to Job Network Providers being encouraged to place difficult job
seekers in employment that is not necessarily commensurate with their
- 168 -
skills and qualifications as the process of assisting them with skills
recognition is not financially lucrative.’
•
For all of these reasons, settlement agencies and community representatives
reported extensive dissatisfaction amongst refugees with Job Network Providers.
•
The current structure of Centrelink assistance was also identified as a factor
discouraging individuals from finding formal employment. Through
misinformation and lack of awareness, key informants noted that many of their
clients feared that loss of welfare benefits would actually reduce the household
income and accordingly would seek out cash for work employment or fear gaining
employment altogether. This fear of losing Centrelink assistance is compounded
because much of the work available for newly arrived refugees is often casualised
and therefore often short term and insecure. It also limits Australia’s ability to
harness refugees’ skills and labour within the formal economic sphere.
Job Network Providers who were interviewed provided an interesting alternative perspective
to these views. Several observed that in many instances, refugees’ high and often unrealistic
expectations, particularly amongst younger age groups, about job opportunities and the pace
of professional mobility was problematic in terms of their ability to sustain employment.
Some called for a need to engage in career counselling and education around career pathways
but qualified, however, that any forms of education and counselling must acknowledge the
tension between career expectations, heavy family pressures and expectations within the
context of employment.
Secondly, many refugees have little or no access to social or family networks, resulting in
limited support and assistance, compared to other migrants. Existing community networks
play a critical role in facilitating first jobs. Several key informants observed that refugee
communities are often concentrated in specific sectors. In New South Wales for example,
some African communities are increasingly engaged in the security industry; Iraqis and
Afghans are more likely to move into trade; and Nepalese and Burmese move into taxi
driving. In most scenarios once a refugee/humanitarian entrant is accepted for work within
factories etcetera, if they prove themselves within the first few weeks as reliable and hard
working, this is an opening for others within the community to access employment at that
- 169 -
site. Networking through word of mouth within the refugee community is a key source of
employment opportunities but is also welcomed by employers keen to meet labour shortages.
At the same time, Colic-Peisker and Tilbury (2006) have identified that lack of mainstream
networks and the influence of ‘ethnic path integration’, or reliance on bonding networks
within ethnic communities, can contribute to directing new arrivals into undesirable
employment within secondary labour-market niches. Many of these jobs are characterised
by unhealthy work environments, including long hours, relatively high occupational health
and safety risks, and limited job security.
The transition from education to employment for refugees was described as problematic for
similar reasons to those underpinning high unemployment and underemployment. TAFE
courses such as aged care, child care and community development are popular amongst
newly arrived communities but employment prospects remain limited due to a number of
factors including employers’ misperceptions/discrimination about selecting refugees, lack of
work experience and refugees’ lack of awareness about workplace culture and practices.
Career pathways need to be goal-oriented and individually-tailored in order to maximise
employment outcomes.
The post-schools pathway is also problematic. Research by Joyce et al. (2009) illustrates that
the vast majority of refugees arriving in Australia are between the ages of 16 and 35 years,
and some refugee youth are embarking on university education. They argue that most refugee
youth have experienced a range of traumatic experiences that compound the difficulties in
adjusting to a new country. Many of these youth have experienced disrupted schooling in the
past and have to take on household duties that make secondary education difficult in their
resettled countries. In addition as noted by several key informants, young people from a
refugee background feel a strong need to financially support their families. Consequently
many feel the need to enter the workforce immediately rather than go onto the post-school
education.
Aggravating this problem, key informants from several states noted that children who have
been in Australia for short or even more significant periods have little understanding of the
post-school pathways that are available to them and the importance of post-school education
for employment opportunities. Secondary schools have a responsibility to develop clear and
effective post-school pathways but are often not resourced enough to implement this.
- 170 -
Schools should have in place careers and transitions programs that provide every young
person with careers advice to support them to make informed and effective course and career
decisions. This will mean that students can have every opportunity to succeed, and lead
fulfilling and productive lives.
Tailored assistance to young adults is dispersed within
schools amongst career counsellors, teachers and specialised English as a Second Language
(ESL) staff and extra funding is based on the size of the CALD population within the school.
Consequently schools with small but significant numbers of refugees often miss out on extra
funding and any specialised assistance depends on the goodwill and ability of individual
school staff.
It is clear then that new humanitarian arrivals in Australia face considerable challenges in
gaining access to the labour market, even at times of prosperity and low unemployment. The
barriers that all migrants face are exacerbated by the background of refugees. Hence this
chapter has shown that humanitarian settlers in the early stages of settlement had significantly
higher unemployment, lower labour force participation, lower incomes and concentration in
lower status occupations than either the Australia-born or the other types of migrant settlers.
What is also shown here, however, is that there is a clear pattern of upward mobility over the
lifecycle of humanitarian settlers.
This was also evidenced in the discussion with key
informants. Over time there is a pattern of convergence toward the Australia-born population
and for many humanitarian groups their second generation outperform the Australia-born in
the labour market.
A common theme among key informants from both government and non-government sectors
was the notion of ‘sacrifice’. This referred to the process where new humanitarian migrants
would work hard in menial and low skilled jobs in order to ensure their children received
tertiary education. It is often through second generation refugees and humanitarian entrants
that the extent of economic contribution becomes most marked. Due to the hard work and
determination of their parents, the second generation experience higher levels of post-school
education and experience greater success in the labour force. Having been socialised in the
Australian context, and where provided opportunities, this generation also engages more with
the mainstream community, so enabling a higher degree of social and civic contribution.
The process of upward mobility in the labour market is by no means a universal one among
humanitarian settlers. This is apparent among studies of Vietnamese settlers in the 1980s and
1990s (Lewins and Ly, 1985; Tran and Holton, 1991). For many humanitarian settlers initial
- 171 -
penetration of the labour market involves downward mobility or deskilling in relation to their
skills and post-work experience. There have, however, been many who have been able to
achieve upward mobility. In the early years of Vietnamese settlement, Tran and Holton
(1991, 172) found:
‘For every successful Vietnamese professional and business person, there are
at least a dozen others who are employed as factory workers, labourers and
domestic outworkers or who remain unemployed. The limited success
achieved by the Vietnamese in a comparatively short space of time has been
the result of much hard working, adaptability and flexibility in seeking out and
working within available niches in the labour market’.
Two decades on it has been shown in this chapter that the Vietnamese labour market situation
has improved.
Yet levels of unemployment remain above the national average and a
disproportionately high number of workers are in unskilled occupations. This points to the
complexity of refugee (and all migrant) settlement.
There is evidence too, though, of
significant numbers in some groups (especially the Vietnamese and Lebanese) who have
experienced little upward mobility. However, the overwhelming evidence presented here is
of substantial upward mobility.
Tran and Holton (1991) found that in a sample of
Vietnamese refugees who had been in Australia only a few years, a fifth had already
experienced upward mobility. For almost all refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups there
are improved labour market outcomes with time in Australia and especially across
generations.
3.11
CONCLUSION
One of the consistent themes in Australian research on adjustment of migrants to the labour
market is that, even after key factors such as ability to speak English and level of education
are controlled, migrants often have lower levels of labour market achievement than the
Australia-born. It is apparent that there are lingering discrimination and institutional barriers
to participation in the labour market. This chapter has shown that this is certainly the case for
refugee-humanitarian settlers.
- 172 -
The labour market experience of migrants is a key element in assessing their contribution to
Australia, especially the economic contribution. It is apparent from the analysis that a quite
negative picture of humanitarian settler labour force engagement is obtained if one examines
only the initial years of settlement. However, if a longer term perspective is applied it is
apparent that humanitarian settlers converge toward the total population in their involvement
in the labour force. Moreover, there is also strong evidence of upward mobility between
generations in terms of labour participation.
While this chapter has presented evidence that refugee-humanitarian settlers’ labour market
experience converges toward that of the Australia-born over time, it has also been
demonstrated conclusively that refugee-humanitarian settlers in Australia have experienced
greater difficulty than other migrant groups in adjusting economically, socially and culturally.
This applies not only in Australia but in other countries with substantial immigrant intakes
that include refugees, especially in the United States, Canada and European countries. A
ubiquitous phenomenon which has been identified in these countries is the ‘Refugee Gap’
(Connor, 2010, 377). Refugee-humanitarian settlers in all these countries on average have
less English language ability, less educational experience, different and less access to family
support, and poorer mental and physical health, with a high proportion living in
disadvantaged areas. However, one of the most perplexing issues relates to the fact that once
key determinants of disadvantage for all immigrants, such as English language ability,
education, work experience etcetera, are controlled for, refugee-humanitarian settlers still
have lower occupational, employment and earnings as well as other outcomes than other
migrant and non-migrant groups. A gap remains. An understanding of this is a major gap in
our knowledge of migrant adjustment, not only in Australia but elsewhere as well. This is of
importance not only to maximise the economic benefits which humanitarian settlers deliver to
the country but also to give those settlers the same opportunities that other Australians enjoy.
The international literature makes clear that refugee-humanitarian settlers face larger
obstacles to their economic integration than other immigrant groups (Connor, 2010; Kibria,
1994; Portes and Stepick, 1985; Takeda, 2000; Waxman, 2001; Potocky-Tripodi, 2001, 2003,
2004). Richmond (1988) points out that refugees are conceptually different from other
migrants and that they need to be considered differently when examining their economic
adaptation. When it comes to analysing the economic adaptation of refugees, we need to treat
them differently from skilled entrants, on a conceptual basis. Family stream entrants may
also display different economic involvement indicators.
- 173 -
CHAPTER 4.
REFUGEE-HUMANITARIAN SETTLERS’
ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION BEYOND LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION
4.1
INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter has focused on humanitarian settler engagement with the formal labour
market. The overwhelming trend is for these settlers to experience greater difficulty than
other migrants in the initial years of seeking to be incorporated in the labour market, that
there is convergence toward the Australian average over time and that they are an important
element in meeting Australia’s workforce needs. This chapter turns to examining some other
dimensions of the economic contribution of humanitarian settlers. In particular it examines
the questions:
•
To what extent are humanitarian settlers setting up new businesses which
contribute to enhanced employment and productivity?
•
To what extent are humanitarian settlers filling particular niches in the Australian
labour market?
•
To what extent are humanitarian settlers developing economic linkages with their
countries of origin?
In all of these areas there are potential economic contributions that humanitarian settlers can
make beyond being engaged in the workforce.
4.2
HUMANITARIAN SETTLERS AS ENTREPRENEURS
One of the most striking images of the economic impact of refugee settlers in Australia has
come from Stevenson’s (2005) analysis of the origins of the 2000 Business Review Weekly
annual Richest 200 People in Australia list.
This found that five of Australia’s eight
billionaires were people who had themselves, as their families had, come to Australia as post-
- 174 -
war refugees. 12 Refugees and their descendants accounted for perhaps five percent of the
national population but in 2000 they made up almost two thirds of the nation’s billionaires!
This raises the important question of the extent to which refugee-humanitarian settlers in
Australia are selectively more entrepreneurial than the Australia-born or other types of
migrants. Do these types of migrants have a greater propensity for risk taking? Are they
more likely than other groups to identify emerging opportunities and set up new businesses?
Do they have more entrepreneurial flair than others which allows them to identify, and take
advantage of, business and economic opportunities?
There is a substantial body of literature on the relationship between migration and
entrepreneurship (e.g. Cassis and Minoglou [eds.], 2005). It is apparent that there are a
number of personal attributes which are associated with both processes – a propensity to take
risks, to not accept the status quo, to take advantage of opportunities when they arise,
etcetera. It is certainly the case that many refugees have these characteristics.
There is also substantial literature investigating the role of immigrant entrepreneurs in
Australia (Lampugnani and Holton, 1991; Lever-Tracy, Ip, Kitay, Phillips and Tracy, 1991;
Collins, 1996; Castles, Collins, Gibson, Tait and Alcorso, 1991). However, these studies
have either focused on individual birthplace groups or have considered migrants as a single
group or divided into Non-English Speaking Background (NESB) and Mainly English
Speaking (MES) categories. There has been little work which has focused on the specific
migration stream of migrants in relation to their propensity to establish new businesses. One
of the most substantial of these studies was that of Strahan and Williams (1988) which
examined the success or failure history of 13,449 small businesses with 22,034
owners/managers, of which 15.8 and 18.6 percent respectively were run by immigrants.
They found that migrants had on average less education but more experience than their
Australia-born counterparts. Immigrant businesses involved the family more than those of
the Australia-born. Immigrants made less use of credit to finance their businesses and
although they started off smaller than the Australia-born owned businesses, they grew faster
and were more profitable. They also had a lower failure rate. Strahan and Williams conclude
that immigrants are generally more successful in small business than the Australia-born and
that immigrant entrepreneurs make an important economic contribution.
12
In 2010, four of the top ten were of first or second generation refugee background.
- 175 -
While the most high profile success stories among refugee entrepreneurs have been those
who have started from nothing but have built up substantial business enterprises (Refugee
Council of Australia [RCOA], 2010), the bulk of settlers have small or, to a lesser extent,
medium sized businesses. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2002, 1) defines small
businesses as those employing less than 20 people. Table 4.1 is drawn from the ABS (2005b)
and shows that 20 percent of small businesses in Australia are owned by immigrants –
significantly higher than their representation in both the total population and in the
workforce.
Table 4.1:
Source:
Australia: Small Business Operators by Birthplace, 2004
ABS, 2005b, 23
Number of Operators
(‘000)
Percent
Males
Australia-Born
779.4
68.9
Overseas-Born
361.5
31.1
Australia-Born
379.6
71.8
Overseas-Born
149.4
28.2
Australia-Born
1159.0
69.8
Overseas-Born
500.9
30.0
Females
Total
There have been studies in Australia which have found that former refugee-humanitarian
entrants have had a greater tendency to be self employed than either the Australia-born or
other migrant groups. Stevens (1997) found that wages and salary were the main source of
income of only 32 percent of refugees and more than a fifth (21 percent) received their main
income from their own business. This proportion was significantly higher than for any other
migrant category. Table 4.2 presents data from the 2006 population census which shows the
proportion of first and second generation refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups that are
owner/managers.
- 176 -
Table 4.2:
Source:
Australia: Australia-Born and First and Second Generation RefugeeHumanitarian Birthplace Groups, Percent Owner/Managers, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
First
Generation
Birthplace
Australia
15.9
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
Second
Generation
17.6*
22.1*
23.7*
30.8*
28.4*
29.9*
20.1*
18.5
17.7*
21.1*
18.3*
15.4
15.7
15.3
14.5
15.4
19.0*
18.3*
15.1
13.2
13.0
22.1*
5.8
15.7
16.4*
18.0*
14.2
6.4
11.3
36.7*
18.4*
10.7
3.3
3.6
2.4
1.7
18.8*
3.6
14.8
10.8
7.0
11.5
11.6
13.8
23.9*
21.9*
6.1
3.9
25.5*
9.6
7.7
18.8
5.1
8.7
14.1
17.4*
0.0
0.0
8.6
14.7
0.0
0.0
10.7
8.9
16.7*
15.1
* Above the Australia-born figure
It will be noticed that 18 of the 32 groups had a higher percentage than the Australia-born
who were owners/managers. There are some clear patterns, however, in the proportions who
are owners/managers. It is apparent that the ratios are highest in the longest and most well
established groups. The lowest levels are among the most recently arrived groups, especially
- 177 -
those from Africa.
These include those born in Burundi (seven percent), Liberia (6.1
percent), Sierra Leone (3.9 percent) and Sudan (7.7 percent). However, there are exceptions
to this. It will be noted that a quarter (25.5 percent) of Somalis who are in the workforce are
owner/managers. This points to the fact that some ethnic groups have developed cultures
which are especially encouraging of entrepreneurialism.
They have the traditional
institutions, experiences and motivations to create new businesses and take particular
advantage of employment opportunities. Gujeratis among Indians and Minangkabau from
Indonesia are just two examples of ethnic groups who have, over centuries, been highly
engaged in trading and business activity across a range of countries that they have migrated
to. It is apparent that Somalis fall into this category.
Despite the Somali example, it is apparent that most of the humanitarian birthplace groups
with high proportions of their working population who are owner/managers are those of long
standing in Australia, especially those from Eastern Europe (Estonia, Hungary, Croatia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation and the Ukraine). While there were few studies of
these groups during their early days of settlement, it is apparent from the available studies
that among these groups the overwhelming majority started their careers as employees, often
working at a number of jobs to accumulate the capital to establish a business of their own
(Martin, 1965; Zubrzycki, 1964; Kunz, 1969, 1975, 1988). The Vietnamese also have an
above average proportion of their workers who are owner/managers, yet all of the studies of
early Vietnamese settlement in Australia indicate that most new arrivals went in to work as
employees for others. A major study by Stromback, Chapman, Dawkins and Bush-Jones
(1992, 15) found:
‘The Vietnamese, like other recent arrivals, are not self employed to any great
extent’.
One of the defining characteristics of refugee-humanitarian settlers, which sets them apart
from other immigrants, is the fact that they are rarely able to bring with them any capital or
assets that they have accumulated in their origin country because of the forced circumstances
of their migration.
Many case studies have demonstrated that migrants often work at a number of waged jobs in
their initial settlement years in order to be able to finance their own business and this
certainly applies to refugee-humanitarian settlers. Box 4.1 provides a case study of the typical
- 178 -
situation where a humanitarian migrant works initially as an employee to build up capital in
order to establish their own business. The ABS Labour Force Survey of 1990 (ABS, 1990)
found that only 11 percent of Vietnamese workers were self employed or employers but by
2006 that figure had become 18.4 percent.
Box 4.1:
Case Study: Development of a Vietnamese Entrepreneur
Nguyen (not his real name) arrived in Darwin on a boat. He was one of 42 refugees who
escaped by boat from Vietnam, went initially to Pulau Tengah in Malaysia and eventually
arrived in Darwin on 27 November 1977. He had his mother, wife and three children with him
and was greeted by two fishermen in shorts and singlets who raised their stubbies and yelled
‘Welcome to Australia’. Their asylum claims were processed, after which they moved to
Adelaide to the Pennington Hostel. Nguyen and his wife got jobs at General Motors Holden
and quickly raised enough money to get a deposit on a house. The front and back gardens of
the house were converted into market gardens to grow Asian vegetables for the expanding local
market, with Nguyen’s mother doing the bulk of the work. Three to four years later he saw that
a local pizza parlour was doing good business so decided to set up Adelaide’s first Vietnamese
restaurant. He knew nothing about running a restaurant but read books and gathered recipes
from the Vietnamese community. The restaurant quickly became popular, not only with the
Vietnamese community but the wider community including prominent politicians.
After three or four years Nguyen sold the restaurant and his house to buy land north of
Adelaide to set up a piggery. His children stayed in the house of friends in Adelaide while he
and his wife lived in a caravan on the property and worked day and night to develop the wild
unused land as a piggery. This was successful and he developed a cooperative relationship
with local farmers.
After successfully establishing and running the piggery, Nguyen sold the business and bought
400 glasshouses where he grew tomatoes, cucumbers and capsicums. He developed the
business and imported a machine for wrapping cucumbers for export. He currently employs
over 40 people in the business which now not only supplies local markets but has a substantial
export market. He has developed family contacts in Vietnam to begin exporting produce to
Vietnam. His three children have also established their own businesses with some assistance
from their father.
Nguyen was only one of several Vietnamese refugees on the boat that arrived in November
1977 who started with no assets but who went on to be millionaires after starting their own
businesses. In all cases they were initially employed in a low status labouring job in order to
raise the capital to set up their own business. Similarly, they were not initially successful but
by hard work, often involving the whole family working, they have gone on to be highly
successful.
- 179 -
The fact that in most of the case studies, both in the literature and those carried out for this
project, the humanitarian settlers did not initially try and set up their own business but instead
worked for wages, is important. This pattern is in opposition to the argument which is
sometimes raised that newly arrived migrants go into self employment because of the barriers
to them entering the paid workforce as an employee (Tait and Gibson, 1987). While such
strategies undoubtedly occur, it was not encountered in our discussions with humanitarianorigin business people; instead it appeared that their focus was more on identifying
opportunities and on taking up the chance to really establish themselves and their families in
Australia. The SONA Study conducted in 2009 interviewed recently arrived settlers and
Table 4.3 shows the proportion of settlers under different migration streams that were
running, or in the process of setting up, their own business.
It indicates that among
humanitarian migrants the proportions are quite low (2.1 percent) compared to family, skilled
and regional (sponsored) migrants. This tends to underline the fact that the usual pattern for
humanitarian migrants is to work for someone else initially and build up sufficient capital to
set up their own business.
The ABS (1990) has shown that the propensity for self-
employment or employer status increases with the length of time migrants have been in
Australia.
Table 4.3:
Source:
Recently Arrived Settlers: Percent Who Are Running Their Own
Business or Setting up a Business, 2009
SONA Study, 2009
Number
Percent Running Their
Own Business
Family
112
6.0
Skilled
119
6.4
Regional
29
10.9
Humanitarian
86
2.1
346
4.1
Total
Certainly, however, it would appear that the non-recognition of qualifications was a factor for
some of those with higher educational qualifications and/or professional backgrounds in
deciding to set up their own business. Many humanitarian settlers are restricted in the types
- 180 -
of work they can go into because of the lack of recognition of qualifications and accordingly
work initially in low skill, low status, low paid, often manual, types of jobs. Box 4.2 and Box
4.3 present case studies where recent African migrants have not been able to practise their
profession in Australia and have turned to setting up their own business.
Box 4.2:
Case Study: Eritrean Business Owner, Male Aged 51
Michael has been living in Australia for more than 20 years. His wife also came to Australia as
a refugee migrant from Africa. Michael and his wife have two children, both born in Australia.
In Africa Michael had been trained and was working as a chemical analyst, but the only work
he could get when he first arrived in Australia was in a factory. Once he had established
himself and created some networks, he was able to find work in a scientific field where he was
successful for a number of years before starting his travel agency business in 2001. Michael
has been heavily involved in the African community in Australia and came up with the idea for
starting a travel agency because he saw the need for this service within his ethnic community.
He undertook intense training and study to learn about business ownership and the tourism
industry. Michael said he had never felt so out of his depth since he had no knowledge or
previous experience in business ownership, nor the travel industry, but he saw it as a challenge
to learn as much as he could and become successful.
Michael faced many challenges in establishing his business but had fantastic support from his
ethnic community and eventually grew to be very successful, based on his travel agency’s
reputation for providing exceptional service. Michael is very insistent on the fact that although
originally the business was established with a focus on travel to and from Africa, the mission of
his business is to provide outstanding travel service to Australians and migrants of any
background. Michael’s travel business has expanded in the past few months to include a
branch of the same name based in Sudan. Additionally, Michael has established partnerships
with many travel agencies around the world who provide services to his clients abroad when
required. The travel agency Michael owns employs three part-time staff members. Michael
also very recently started an import/export business that is aimed at strengthening business
linkages and trade between Australia and Africa. He believes that in Australia it is possible for
anyone to achieve anything if they set their mind to it.
A study in Lever-Tracy et al. (1991) found that many qualified Asian migrants in Queensland
had established their small businesses when they were unable to get their overseas
qualifications recognised. However, the overwhelming impression gained was that their
motivations, and the factors which are leading to a significant number of humanitarian
settlers going into business, are more complex. These factors have been categorised as
cultural, structural and situational (Bonacich and Modell, 1980; Castles et al., 1991). In most
cases it is a mix of all three types of drivers which explain why individual humanitarian
settlers often set up their own businesses.
- 181 -
Box 4.3:
Case Study: Rwandan Business Owner, Male Aged 34
Eric is a 34 year old Rwandan. As a 19 year old, Eric and his family escaped war and genocide
in Rwanda and fled to Zambia. Here, Eric achieved a diploma of Journalism in Rwanda and
then lived in Zambia where he worked as a journalist and as a supervisor and accountant in his
family-run internet café business located in Lusaka. The business was important in teaching
Eric finance and business skills.
Eric arrived in Australia in 2001 on a short stay business visa and sought protection on-shore.
Settlement was difficult and posed a number of difficulties including finding housing, applying
for study and accessing services. While Eric had an advantage in terms of having a high level
of English proficiency, moving into a country where he lacked social networks and family was
challenging. Another key challenge was the search for employment. Countless applications to
find work in the field of journalism were unsuccessful, despite initial hopes that he would be
able to make use of his skills. Eric managed to find work in a factory where he did night shift
for five years while also completing his degree in accounting at Griffith University.
Today Eric works part time as an accountant in the Brisbane City Council and co-manages a
not-for-profit social enterprise through the Rwandan Association of Queensland. People Power
Cleaning was established in 2009 with the long-term aim to match recently arrived and
unemployed arrivals from countries including Sudan, Rwanda and Burundi to jobs that will
match their current skills and develop future skills. Some members of the Rwandan community
in Brisbane have been keen to develop a housing co-operative and have viewed the
establishment of a not-for-profit business venture as a way of achieving this. The business uses
the Rwandan Association of Queensland for office space and also relies on administrative
assistance from the Acacia Ridge and District Community Centre.
At present the business employs five people and focuses solely on providing cleaning services.
People Power Cleaning advertises itself on providing fast and quality domestic and commercial
cleaning services. In order to address the issue of poor English skills amongst some employees,
the venture has established a system whereby cleaners go out in groups where at least one has
good English skills and this is important in training others. While cleaning is a highly
competitive industry, Eric has noted that the venture is finding some success in terms of finding
new clients and is slowly growing. A key factor promoting People Power Cleaning’s success
has been the provision of subsidised training through the Red Cross for workers in Certificate II
of asset maintenance. Currently the venture is in the process of becoming a not-for-profit
company and is seeking further funding for expansion from Social Venture Australia.
Nevertheless like other new small businesses, issues relating to time, commitment and lack of
experience are proving difficult to negotiate.
For Eric, the decision to devote so much time and commitment into this venture was not solely
about developing the housing co-operative idea. Eric is passionate about starting his own
business in the longer term but saw this as a way that he could apply his business and finance
skills to an entrepreneurial venture and an important community initiative which needed them.
- 182 -
•
Cultural Factors: While one must be careful to avoid ethnic stereotyping, it is
apparent that some groups are equipped with the ‘cultural resources and
predispositions’ (Castles et al., 1991, 27) which are favourable to business success.
There is a number of different aspects to this cultural element which can be
involved. For example, some argue that an individualism ethic is conducive to
entrepreneurialism while others suggest that a more collectivist orientation is
relevant. Castles et al. (1991, 28) suggest that the former is more relevant among
groups with skills and qualifications while the latter is found among those lacking
those assets. However, it would seem that for some groups there is also a
cumulative causation – network factor which operates. Setting up a business is
normal for some groups because it is what earlier generations have done and there
are cultural norms, attitudes and institutions which have developed among the
group to support and approve of entrepreneurialism.
•
Structural Factors: This refers to the structural situation which operates at
particular times creating economic opportunities. The migrant group can be ‘in the
right place at the right time’ to take advantage of those opportunities. There is
much discussion around the role of ‘ethnic enclaves’, for example, as creating the
circumstances for settlers to establish businesses which cater, at least initially, for
co-ethnics and provide work opportunities for other co-ethnics (Waldinger, 1986;
Evans,1989; Lampugnani and Holton, 1989). There is also discussion on the extent
to which these ethnic enclaves can be the incubators for enabling settlers to set up
businesses which initially have co-ethnics as their main customers but which over
time can grow and expand to encompass the wider community. Box 4.1 presented
such a case where a Vietnamese entrepreneur began by growing Asian vegetables
on his house allotment and sold them to other Asians but now has a substantial
market garden enterprise which not only sells to all of Adelaide but has a
substantial overseas export market.
•
Situational Factors: These emphasise the ‘relationship between cultural and social
characteristics of groups and the circumstances of their arrival and settlement’
(Castles et al., 1991, 29). Arrivals may be channelled into particular jobs by the
situation which prevails upon their arrival.
- 183 -
Returning to Table 4.2, it is interesting that there are several Middle Eastern groups which
have very high proportions of their workforces who are owner/managers. Most striking here
are the Lebanese of whom more than one third (36.7 percent) are owner/managers. This has
been a longstanding feature of Lebanese settlement in Australia as Box 4.4 shows. There are
clearly strong cultural factors involved with Lebanese in many countries being engaged in
business (Tabar, 2005). It is also noticeable in Table 4.1 that humanitarian settlers from Iraq
and Iran also have above average proportions of their workers who are self employed or
employers.
Table 4.1 also shows the proportion of second generation humanitarian settlers who are
owner/managers and it is interesting that only six groups have proportions above those for the
Australia-born. There are a number of factors involved here. Partly it is because for most
groups the second generation is extremely young and have had little opportunity to set up
their own businesses. However, in the in-depth interviews it became apparent that many first
generation humanitarian settlers had deliberate strategies to give their children the best
possible education which could lead them to a professional occupation that did not usually
involve them setting up and running their own business. For example, Collins (2009, 34)
notes that:
‘For second generation Lebanese men and women the rate of professional
employment is about 50 percent higher than their parents’.
- 184 -
Box 4.4:
Case Study: Lebanese Entrepreneurship in Sydney
The Lebanese have formed one of the great global diasporas with communities in many
countries (Tabar, 2005). Their migration to Australia was in two main waves, an early
Maronite Christian intake and a later mostly Muslim intake. They are among the most spatially
concentrated birthplace groups with 72.8 percent of Australia’s Lebanon-born living in Sydney.
The Lebanese, especially Christian Lebanese, provide a good example of the ‘cultural’
explanation for high rates of establishing their own businesses. Their entrepreneurs go back to
the Phoenicians who dominated trade in the Eastern Mediterranean in 1000BC. This focus on
trade has continued with Lebanon’s strategic position at the fulcrum of three continents. The
focus on business, most of a small trade kind, has become embedded in norms, attitudes and
institutions as is reflected, for example, in many Christian Lebanese names (Haddad –
blacksmith, Najjar – carpenter, etcetera).
Lebanese settlement in Australia dates back to the late nineteenth century. From the start, their
settlement was concentrated in Sydney and they were overwhelmingly engaged in small
business. As Burnley (1982, 105) points out:
‘The dominance of Sydney in the settlement of Lebanese in Australia dates from the
1880s when Lebanese hawkers and traders plied their wares, at first in the street, and
then at small stalls and shops’.
While later generations of migrants have found a wider range of occupational pathways
(Collins et al., 1995; McKay and Batrouney, 2001), for the Lebanese the strong focus on small
business has remained:
‘Successful entrepreneurship, big and small, is a persistent characteristic of Sydney’s
Lebanese community’ (Monsour and Convy, 2008, 72).
Cultural traditions have undoubtedly been crucial in the maintenance of this strong involvement
in small business but chain migration has also played a considerable role. A typical pattern is
for a new arrival to work in an established Lebanese enterprise (e.g. a drycleaner) and then gain
enough experience and capital to set up such an enterprise themselves. There is a strong pattern
of establishing the types of enterprise where, at least initially, all family members who migrate
to Australia can be involved to reduce the labour costs. Restaurants and shops of various kinds
are especially popular. In Sydney, some Lebanese small businesses in the clothing industry
grew into major commercial activities and they have become major leaders in the importing
and manufacturing of clothing, drapery, manchester, leather apparel and associated goods,
employing many hundreds of people (Convy and Monsour, 2008, 14).
The issue of gender differences in the propensity to set up new businesses has been discussed
in the Australian literature (Iredale and D’Arcy, 1992). Table 4.4 shows the proportion of
first and second generation humanitarian birthplace groups that are owner/managers by
gender. For both generations the proportions are significantly greater for males than females.
- 185 -
However, it is noticeable in the first generation the number of birthplace groups in which
owner/managership is above that for the Australia-born is actually greater for females than
males. In fact for almost all of the longer established refugee groups the proportions who are
owner/managers are greater than for the Australia-born for females. As with men, the highest
rates are among the Lebanon-born. Monsour and Convy (2008, 18) stress that women have
Table 4.4:
Source:
Australia: Australia-Born and First and Second Generation RefugeeHumanitarian Birthplace Groups, Percent Owner/Managers by Sex, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
Birthplace
Males
Australia
Females
20.4
10.7
First Generation
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups
23.0*
28.7*
33.3*
38.1*
37.1*
37.7*
27.0*
24.9*
23.7*
27.2*
Males
Second Generation
* Above the Australia-born figure
3.7
11.3*
16.3
4.5
5.6
0.0
2.9
26.4*
4.3
6.7
7.7
14.3*
11.5*
3.2
6.5
13.4*
12.1*
3.3
3.2
12.5*
8.2
6.1
13.5
13.1*
9.1
11.2*
11.0*
10.0
9.6
13.1*
12.7*
8.4
8.6
8.6
19.9
8.0
17.5*
13.1*
5.0
10.3
23.2*
16.4*
17.7
13.3
6.2
12.5
15.7
18.4
30.9*
25.7*
7.5
5.0
30.6*
10.6
8.4
22.5
23.8*
21.1*
20.4*
19.5
18.8
21.1*
24.6*
23.9*
21.0*
17.6
8.4
15.1*
23.1*
18.4
15.0
7.7
11.9
42.2*
19.9
11.5*
13.0*
14.5*
21.6*
17.9*
22.6*
11.8*
13.2*
11.6*
15.1*
16.8
29.0*
Females
4.7
2.3
2.6
5.7
0.9
9.7
3.0
5.9
11.4
23.2*
18.8
0.0
0.0
10.3
19.4
0.0
0.0
27.3*
11.6
21.1*
20.4
5.6
5.6
0.0
13.4*
0.0
0.0
6.6
9.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
9.4
- 186 -
played a significant economic role in Lebanese settlement in Australia ever since the earliest
years.
They operated business both together with their husbands and independently.
Monsour and Convy (2008, 19) argued that Lebanese businesses:
‘… were on the edge of surviving financially and needed to be partnership
between married couples to remain viable. The women of the family not only
had to take a full share of the responsibility for running and staffing the
business but they were also responsible for all the tasks associated with
running the household’.
It is apparent that while men substantially outnumber women among humanitarian settlers
who run their own businesses, women still play an important role in this area as is indicated
in Box 4.5.
Box 4.5:
Case Study: African Small Businesswomen in Adelaide
An ongoing study of African women in Adelaide (Njuki, forthcoming) has found that a number have
established small businesses. Several have particularly focused, at least in the early stages, on businesses
which provide goods and services to other recently arrived humanitarian settlers. A Somali woman owns
and runs a supermarket located in the western suburbs where there is a concentration of recently arrived
African humanitarian settlers. It sells a huge range of food and other goods as well as offering credit and
providing a service to send remittances overseas. Hair salons have been established by women from
Liberia, Ghana, Sierra Leone and the Sudan. Women have set up three Ethiopian and one Sudanese
restaurant. In each case the family provides most of the labour in the business. The businesses are small
and set up initially with savings and loans. One businesswoman received the capital she needed
($A8,000) from the women’s group of which she is a member. Almost every African ethnic group in
Adelaide has its own women’s group which meet each week for informal activities but also formal talks
from relevant government agencies. These groups often have a revolving fund function where they raise
money to loan members for various needs.
Among the African communities much of the economic leadership seems to be taken by women, both
through the women’s groups but also through mentoring and other support. To some extent males are
becoming more isolated and many in fact have returned to Africa to work. Several of the
businesswomen work at other jobs as well as their business in order to pay off the loans they have raised
to start up the business. While the businesses initially catered for other Africans, over time their clientele
is widening. An African market was set up by 10 African women to operate in summer on Friday
evenings. It not only serves other Africans but has increasingly served the wider community.
- 187 -
A recent study of Muslim women in Australia (McCue, 2008, 69) found that 21.6 percent of
Muslim women in the workforce were involved in a business enterprise at the 2006 census.
In detailed qualitative interviews with Muslim women leaders, it was found that 40 percent
owned or had previously owned their own business.
These businesses ranged across
professional enterprises (e.g. in accounting, psychology, medicine, law, education) to services
(child care centres, real estate) and retailing (clothing, small food shops, supermarkets, beauty
salons, bookshops). Half of these were established with the help of the family with the
remainder being funded through a bank loan. It was apparent that several businesses are
targeted at niche markets. It was also found that there is a great deal of mentoring by
established businesswomen to help newcomers. The study concludes that (McCue, 2008,
73):
‘… Muslim women are active in the business community, being principally
engaged in their own business enterprises. The main driver for this
involvement is the desire for independence and in some cases the availability
of a niche market … Some new arrivals, among them African Muslim women,
are also becoming involved in their own small businesses’.
Iredale and D’Arcy (1992, 19) found that refugee women were more likely to be self
employed than non-refugee women. Lever-Tracy et al. (1991, 85) found that women play a
prominent role in businesses run by Asian immigrants.
It will be noted in Table 4.4 that for some humanitarian birthplace groups, the proportion of
first generation males that are self employed is quite large. Indeed, for 13 birthplace groups a
quarter or more men are self employed. The largest proportions were for Lebanese (42.2
percent), Lithuanian (37.7), Latvian (37.1) and Hungarian (38.1) and for Somalis it is almost
a third (30.6 percent).
One important element is that although there is a lack of research on the working
backgrounds of humanitarian settlers, it is apparent that many were self-employed business
people before they were forced to move. Table 4.5 shows that 12 percent of all respondents
had owned a business prior to their migration. If this is taken as a percentage of those in the
workforce the percentage rises to 19.6 percent. Moreover, a further 5.2 percent (8.7 percent
of the labour force) had worked in the family business prior to migration. The key message
here is that humanitarian settlers often have been entrepreneurs and businesspeople before
- 188 -
migration and bring those experiences and skills with them. Box 4.6 presents a case study of
a Sudanese migrant who has drawn on skills developed by his family over centuries to
establish a successful business.
Table 4.5:
Source:
South Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Labour Force Status of
Settlers Before Migration, 2009 (N=252)
Njuki, 2009
Labour Force Status Before Migration
Employed
Unemployed
Owned a Business
Percent
41.4
2.4
12.0
Worked in Family Business
5.2
Volunteer/Community Work
5.6
Student
7.2
Not in Labour Force
Total
26.1
100.0
One of the key elements in the substantial involvement of refugee-humanitarian settlers in
business is the key role that the use of family labour plays. Table 4.6 shows that contributing
family workers are important among several of the refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups.
- 189 -
Box 4.6:
Case Study: Sudanese Business Owner, Male Aged 55
David owns a jewellery shop where he sells the jewellery that he himself designs and makes,
along with other clothing, music and decorative items from Africa. Jewellery-making has been
the trade in David’s family for thousands of years and family members still living in Africa also
continue this tradition. David arrived in Australia in 2003 with his wife and three children.
They have recently had another child born in Australia. David and his family are from Sudan
but lived in Cairo for the three years prior to moving to Australia. Originally they had planned
to move to the US as a refugees since David had support from other family members already
living there, but after the events of September 11th their migration was delayed. Eventually
David and his family ended up in Australia instead of the United States.
When David first arrived in Australia he worked two jobs in order to earn an income and
provide for his family, as a cleaner and in a meat factory. After a couple of years he decided to
start his own business and continue his family’s traditional trade. David has owned and
operated his jewellery shop since December 2005. He received financial help from the
Australian government to establish the business, but all funding support ceased after one year.
It has taken David some time to establish himself in his business; he has had to improvise with
the jewellery making tools available in Australia that are different to what he is used to using.
This machinery is also expensive so he has had to slowly build up his stock over time and has
made a couple of return visits to Africa since arriving in Australia where he has brought back
traditional tools and materials. David works more than full-time hours in his business. Most of
the time he is the only employee but occasionally his wife helps out in the shop. David’s
business is located in a very multicultural suburb in Victoria. He comments on the growth of
the African community and African businesses in the area over the years and how this area of
concentration has contributed to the growth of his business – if people are looking for African
goods or community this is the area they come. David and his wife are both good cooks and
they hope to open another business, a restaurant selling African food, in the future. They plan
to live in Australia permanently.
The development of ethnic businesses by humanitarian settlers can play a positive role in
providing an avenue for new arrivals to enter the labour market (Collins, 1996; Castles et al.,
1991). However, others (Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2006, 219) have argued that:
‘Ethnic entrepreneurs often consciously employ newly arrived compatriots
expecting them to be cheap, flexible and pliable labour’.
There is evidence of co-ethnic exploitation in some such areas (Velayutham and Wise, 2010).
- 190 -
Table 4.6:
Source:
Australia: First and Second Generation by Percent Employment Type,
2006
ABS, 2006 Census
First Generation
Country of Birth/Ancestry
Percent
Employee
Not
Owning
Business
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Percent
Owner/
Manager
Percent
Contributing
Family
Workers
80.3
75.8
70.6
66.6
69.4
67.3
78.0
79.4
80.9
77.2
17.6*
22.1*
24.1*
30.8*
28.3*
29.9*
20.1*
18.5*
17.7*
21.1*
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
86.1*
Czech Republic
76.7
13.0
22.1*
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
82.4
Cambodia
79.2
East Timor
84.8*
El Salvador
93.1*
Laos
86.8*
Lebanon
59.4
Vietnam
78.7
16.5*
18.0*
14.2
6.4
11.3
36.7*
18.4*
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Second Generation
Percent
Employee
Not
Owning
Business
2.0*
2.1*
5.4*
2.6*
2.3*
2.8*
1.8
2.1*
1.4
1.7*
18.3*
15.4*
15.7*
15.3*
14.5
15.4*
19.1*
18.3*
15.1*
13.2
93.4*
83.1
88.5*
95.2*
95.7*
97.6*
97.5*
79.1
94.2*
14.9
10.8
7.1
11.5
11.5
13.8
23.9*
21.9*
6.3
3.9
25.5*
9.6
7.7
1.9*
1.1
0.0
1.9*
0.5
1.1
2.5*
2.5*
1.3
0.4
2.2*
0.9
1.0
93.4*
90.8*
82.4
80.8
100.0*
100.0*
89.6*
82.7
100.0*
100.0*
79.3
90.5*
83.3
Total Population
Australia
81.8
82.4
16.5
15.9
1.7
1.7
83.5
Mainly English Speaking
Mainly Non-English
Speaking
80.6
18.1
1.3
79.5
18.4
2.1
0.7
1.2
10.7
3.3
3.6
2.4
1.7
18.8*
3.6
83.2*
88.1*
92.9*
86.6*
88.0*
85.1*
73.6
75.6
92.4*
95.7*
72.3
89.5*
91.3*
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.9
5.8
15.7*
1.1
2.8*
1.0
0.4
1.9
3.9*
2.9*
Percent
Contributing
Family
Workers
80.2
83.5
83.3
83.6*
84.5*
83.6*
79.7
80.3
83.6*
85.9*
0.8
1.3
Percent
Owner/
Manager
0.9
1.4
0.7
0.0
0.8
2.0*
2.2*
5.2
8.7
14.3
17.8*
0.0
0.0
8.6
14.7
0.0
0.0
10.3
8.9
16.7*
1.4
0.5
3.3*
1.4
0.0
0.0
1.8*
2.7*
0.0
0.0
10.3*
0.6
0.0
14.9
1.6
* Above the Australia-born figure
- 191 -
While all humanitarian settlers are not spatially concentrated in ethnic enclaves (Chapter 2)
some do tend to cluster in particular areas. Across metropolitan Australia, first generation
humanitarian migrants from some groups have clustered in specific areas: In Perth for
example the City of Stirling hosts large numbers of humanitarian entrants from a range of
African countries; in Victoria, Middle Eastern groups as well as Croatian and Bosnian
refugees concentrate within the Dandenong area; Maroondah is also now home to the largest
Burmese community in Melbourne’s east (Maroondah City Council, date unknown). In New
South Wales, Cabramatta hosts larger numbers of Vietnamese and Cambodian humanitarian
migrants, while the city of Fairfield itself is the home of Iraqis and other Middle Eastern
communities. Within these geographic locales, small businesses run by first and increasingly
second generation humanitarian migrants are prevalent. In Box 4.7 the City of Cabramatta
provides a unique case study highlighting the entrepreneurial contribution of Vietnamese,
Cambodian and Laotian communities. It illustrates not only the resilience and determination
many past and current refugee communities have possessed and applied in order to establish
and maintain successful businesses, but also the real and significant ways in which migrants
from this background can transform aspects of the Australian commercial landscape.
In summary, there is a strong case to be made that humanitarian settlers have made, and
continue to make, a distinct economic contribution to Australia through their role as
entrepreneurs. Migration never involves a representative cross-section of the population at
either the place of origin or the destination. It is always selective of particular groups. One
of the most universal of the ways in which migration selects out such groups is that risk
takers, entrepreneurs and people who identify and capitalise on opportunities are more likely
to move (Wadhwa et al., 2007).
This is reflected in the fact that migrants tend to be
overrepresented among those setting up new business initiatives in destinations. However,
the measurement of such characteristics as risk taking, business acumen and
entrepreneurialism is very difficult so that it cannot be included in immigration programs
such as the Australian Points Assessment System. Business migration programs seek to
identify and attract immigrants with these characteristics. However, the Business Migration
Program selects potential immigrants on the basis that they have a substantial amount of
- 192 -
Box 4.7:
Cabramatta, NSW:
Refugees
Banking on the Business Boom of Indochinese
Cabramatta is a thriving example of a community where refugees’ economic, social and civic contribution plays out.
Today the Fairfield City Council can command significant rates from its residents and areas such as Cabramatta,
Fairfield and are internationally renowned as significant commercial centres.
Throughout the 1970s however Cabramatta was seen largely as a sleepy but growing town populated largely by Italians
and Yugoslavs who were emerging as key land and business owners. The arrival of refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia
and Laos in the late 1970s and early 1980s changed both the demographic and economic landscape of the area.
Assistance to refugees during this period was limited to English language classes and initial hostel accommodation in the
area such as Villawood. Open and hostile racism was not uncommon. Refugees were labelled as ‘rich’, as ‘invaders’ and
discriminated against on the basis of their physical appearance.
Many took up employment opportunities in local factories while others sought to establish small farmers markets, which
subsequently became an important source of employment for newer arrivals who came through on the family re-union
scheme throughout the 1980s.
It has been the establishment of small family businesses amongst the Vietnamese and Cambodians however, that has
provided Cabramatta with its vibrant cultural landscape and strong economic foundations for which it is currently
renowned. Many of these enterprises have sustained themselves and some have developed into major franchises such as
the retailing company Bing Lee. The entrepreneurial success of the Indo Chinese refugees in the 1980s can be attributed
in part to opportunities and openings unique to that period: cheaper accommodation and land prices, greater employment
opportunities in factories and market gardens, a more generous family re-union scheme as well as new and untapped
markets based upon the needs of their own communities. At the same time, refugees understood the market potential of
their new community and harnessed available employment opportunities which allowed them to take greater business
risks, given that they often worked while starting the business.
While some locals exhibited discrimination towards South East Asian refugees, many also recognised that these migrants
were focused, hard working and determined. As recollected by Ms Ricci Bartels, who is currently the Director of the
Fairfield MRC and has lived and worked in the Cabramatta area since the late 1970s, many of the new arrivals in the late
1970s and thereafter were highly focused and determined to use the new opportunities they were presented with in
Australia. Many viewed establishing businesses or entering tertiary education as the predominant means through which
they could re-build their lives and contribute to the country that had taken them in.
The Southeast Asian refugee communities in the Fairfield area have placed great emphasis on their children’s education.
A significant number of second generation Vietnamese refugees have completed tertiary education and ended up in
professional careers. Second generation Laotian and Cambodian refugees have also entered the university system but
have also had a marked presence in the trades. A growing trend has been observed whereby second-generation
Vietnamese refugees in the Cabramatta area are returning to the businesses their parents have established. While many
have gone on to tertiary studies and acquired professional careers, a range of factors including ageing parents, family
pressure, job losses generated by the Global Financial Crisis and in many instances the second generation’s tertiary
studies, have pulled many back into the family business. Interesting dynamics are coming into play however, whereby
the younger generation is placing pressure upon their families to expand and develop their businesses in line with current
business practices. The Fairfield City Council has been active in trying to attract this generation back to the Cabramatta
area in a bid to boost employment opportunities and foster business growth.
capital to invest in Australia. This means that it selects established businesspeople rather
than those who are yet to establish themselves but are likely to identify new business
opportunities. The considerable literature on Australian immigrant entrepreneurship focuses
almost exclusively on migrants who arrived in Australia outside of the Skilled Migration
Program and immigrants who are selected by the Points Assessment Scheme. The Skilled
- 193 -
Migration Program, with its strong stress on formal post-school qualifications, does not
necessarily identify potential migrants with entrepreneurial skills. To some extent, such
potential migrants self-identify by wishing to break away from the status quo and taking the
risk of moving to a new country. There would seem to be a strong case that the refugeehumanitarian migration program is more selective of risk-taking entrepreneurial populations
than any of the other major streams of the Australian migration program (family, skill and
New Zealand streams). In this sense then the humanitarian program is contributing an
important added economic dimension to the total migration intake of Australia.
4.3
DO HUMANITARIAN SETTLERS FILL PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENT
NICHES?
One of the arguments that has been used in relation to the economic contribution of refugeehumanitarian settlers is that they fill particular niches in the Australian labour market that are
being eschewed by Australia-born and other migrant workers. This segmentation of the
labour market is often constructed in a negative way because it traps them in ‘the ‘secondary
labour market’ comprising low status and low paid jobs that locals avoid’ (Colic-Peisker and
Tilbury, 2006, 203).
In Australia the prevailing discourse on labour shortage is almost always couched in terms of
skill shortages, yet it is apparent that there are also shortages in a number of low skilled
occupational areas (e.g. National Farmers’ Federation, 2008).
However, the Australian
migration program has become increasingly focused on recruitment of settlers who are skilled
as the government seeks to add to Australia’s bank of human capital.
migration program is even more focused on skill.
The temporary
Australia is piloting an agricultural
workers’ scheme which brings in seasonal workers from the Pacific to meet agricultural
labour shortages at times of peak activity (Bedford and Hugo, 2008) but there are very
limited opportunities in the Australian immigration program for bringing in migrants to fill
low skilled jobs. It is apparent that humanitarian settlers are currently meeting many of these
labour shortages in low skill, low status and low paid occupations (Chapter 3) which in other
countries are met by inflows of unskilled workers. These are often undocumented flows as in
the case with much Mexican migration to the United States and African migration to Europe.
While there are issues of lack of recognition of skills forcing some humanitarian settlers into
- 194 -
working in these low skill areas, this should not divert attention from the fact that these
settlers are currently filling important labour shortages in the Australian economy. It is very
important that humanitarian settlers be accorded protection of all of their rights in these jobs,
that they be given every opportunity to achieve social mobility and that they not be exposed
to exploitation. However, it also needs to be recognised that they are taking up jobs that are
not being taken up by Australians and that this is another way in which humanitarian settlers
are making a distinctive and important contribution.
Having said this, however, it is
important also to recognise that humanitarian settlers must be given every chance to get work
commensurate with their skills, education and aptitude, if not initially then in the short to
medium term.
There is a need to recognise that many refugee-humanitarian settlers are arriving in Australia
with skills and that they often suffer from those skills not being recognised by Australian
employers. It is important for both the migrants and the Australian economy that this human
capital is not only recognised but deployed. Notwithstanding this, there are significant
numbers of humanitarian settlers who arrive with low levels of education and the low skill
labour market offers the only avenue for upward mobility.
There is concern that
humanitarian settlers get locked into particular niches in the economy. For example, ColicPeisker and Tilbury (2006, 221) argue:
‘The most vulnerable migrants – refugees and asylum seekers – are especially
likely to end up locked in disadvantaged low status and low paying jobs …
most mainstream employers outside the identified migrant employment
‘niches’ have little experience with employing ‘visibly different’ recent
refugees’.
Similar sentiments are voiced by Stevens (1997) and it may be that the underutilisation of
human capital characteristics of all migrants is one marked for humanitarian settlers. It is
argued here that it is crucial to develop better means of allowing humanitarian settlers to fully
use their skills in the labour market and to break down the barriers which are preventing that
at the moment. However, it is also argued that the participants of this group in low skill jobs
are making an important contribution.
One of the particular niches of the labour market that humanitarian settlers have in recent
years been absorbed in is in labour markets outside of the capital cities (as was introduced in
- 195 -
Chapter 3). As yet there is very limited research into the experiences of humanitarian
entrants living in regional and rural Australia, although as settlement occurs in those areas
more research is emerging (Taylor-Neumann and Balasingam, 2009).
Newly arrived
migrants tend to settle in metropolitan centres, near family and other supports, but
increasingly federal government policy has focused on settling newly arrived refugees in
regional areas (Sypek et al., 2008).
A key message amongst key informants across Australia was that regional centres offered
refugees – both newly arrived, and more established communities – key opportunities and
benefits that were more difficult to find in large urban centres. These included affordable
housing; employment opportunities – albeit in low skilled and unpopular jobs; smaller
community settings and a farming context which remains appealing for many who have come
from rural areas prior to migration.
At the same time, however, regional areas are often lacking key infrastructure, support
networks and settlement services which are pivotal for refugee resettlement. While there are
significant refugee communities in regional centres across Australia including Toowoomba,
Townsville, Cairns (Queensland), and Katanning and Albany (Western Australia), several
key informants noted that the issues identified above made it extremely difficult to convince
new arrivals to move to such areas.
There is concern about regional settlement of
humanitarian entrants, since regional areas do not have ready access to intensive services
such as torture and trauma counselling and specialised health and education services (TaylorNeumann and Balasingam, 2009).
There needs to be investment in the support services that will keep people there. This is true
more broadly as Australia examines the need to facilitate regional development. Several
positive examples do exist: the Albany community has provided a very positive response to
new migrants and community members have welcomed them as workers wanting jobs that
no-one else did! Hazara refugees from Afghanistan were in 2004 the first wave to live and
work in Albany, a town of approximately 25,000 people in the south west of Western
Australia, about 400 kilometres from Perth. Employment was the magnet that initially
attracted them and since then employers at the local abattoir have come to respect this group
as valued employees. They have also become tenants of choice in the local housing market.
As Hazaras moved from the Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) to permanent Protection
Visas (PVs), they have moved away from Albany and into regional centres such as Perth and
- 196 -
Adelaide. With a more secure future, many have taken up educational opportunities in
metropolitan centres. One example of humanitarian settlement in regional areas and their
engagement in regional work sectors experiencing labour shortages is given in Box 4.8.
Box 4.8:
Katanning, Western Australia: A Case Study of Sustainable and
Satisfying Employment in Regional Australia
Katanning is a town located 277 km southeast of Perth, Western Australia on the Great Southern Highway. It has a population of
around four and half thousand people, many of whom are employed in the towns surrounding wheat and sheep country. While the
area is essentially agricultural, the town is a regional centre with access to a range of recreation and leisure facilities, government,
health and education services, as well as a diverse retail and business district.
Diversity has been central to Katanning’s landscape for decades. In 1973 Malays from the Cocos Islands migrated to Katanning and
their participation in the Halal meat industry has increased the town's economic prosperity. More recently however, Western
Australia’s mining boom has attracted many potential workers away from towns like Katanning, leaving massive labour shortages
and knock-on effects impacting on the town’s businesses, schools and services.
In addressing this labour shortage, the Western Australian Meat Marketing Corporation (WAMMCO) has developed innovative and
important strategies to attract workers and sustain its labour supply. WAMMCO is a Western Australian farmer-owned co-operative
with over 2,000 participating premium lamb producers. In 2007 WAMMCO worked with the Department of Immigration to employ
humanitarian entrants from the Horn of Africa and has also attracted Temporary Protection Visa Holders from Afghanistan.
Today WAMMCO employs 47 men and 11 women from the Burmese community. Since 2008, WAMMCO management have
worked with the Baptist church and the Multicultural Services Centre of WA to actively resettle Karen refugees from Burma as a
means of addressing the co-op’s chronic labour shortages. WAMMCO provide pre-employment training for people with little or no
recent work history, as well as a six-week induction ‘buddy’ system and bus transport for employees. They also cater for the special
needs of employees by giving single parents the option of working during school hours (known as the ‘Mother’s Shift’), providing
the option of a 6 hour Friday shift for those who need to pray at Mosques, paying junior workers an adult wage, and offering
employees who seek further qualifications paid on-the-job Meat Industry Training, to Diploma level.
They also provide initial communal style accommodation in the form of a large house where new arrivals can stay until they can rent
something more permanent. For Burmese refugees whose English is limited and accommodation often problematic this has proved a
strong magnet, and many of the more longer term residents are now aspiring to buy houses within the town. Real estate services are
also pleased with the increase in business.
WAMMCO has been recognised as one of the three best employers in the country for their dedication to providing employment to
people having difficulty obtaining full-time work.
Beyond their employment contribution, the current wave of Burmese refugees has proved a critical consumer base for Katanning’s
business and service sectors. The starting salary for all unskilled full time employees is $32,760pa, with the opportunity to add
approximately $4,500 in rewards payments (based on throughput numbers ) and $1,500 in additional overtime per annum. The highly
multicultural community has a range of religious institutions including a Baptist church, which has been central in establishing links
between the Karen people into the broader community. The town also hosts a TAFE college which has been crucial in delivering
English language training.
For the Karen refugees from Burma, Katanning offers a peaceful, safe rural setting where they can bring up their children, plus
affordable accommodation and sustainable and satisfying employment, which promotes career pathways and upward mobility. For
the community of Katanning, the Burmese are well known for their humbleness, the sense of sacrifice that they make for the
education of their children and their hard work ethic.
- 197 -
Increasing settlement of refugees and other immigrants outside of gateway cities is an
increasing trend not only in Australia but elsewhere as well. There have been a number of
special issues of key migration journals in recent years which have been devoted to analysing
this trend: International Journal of Multicultural Societies, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2007; Population,
Space and Place, Vol. 14, No. 6, 2008; Journal of International Migration and Integration,
Vol. 9, No. 2, 2008. In the United States context, Massey (2008) has shown that the last
decade has seen an unprecedented settlement of new migrants outside of traditional ‘gateway’
cities.
These important studies have documented a significant change in immigrant
settlement away from the pattern which dominated the first five decades after World War II
whereby migrants tended to settle in the largest metropolitan areas. This pattern existed not
only in Australia but elsewhere as well.
Non-metropolitan areas in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) countries are not only experiencing low or declining population growth due to low
fertility and population ageing, but this is being exacerbated by youth out-migration to cities.
This has meant that there have been significant shortages of labour in those areas and
mounting concerns of declining population, resulting in a loss of key services in regional
communities. As a result, many countries have initiated policies and programs to encourage
immigrants to settle outside of major cities. In Australia this has included the State Specific
and Regional Migration (SSRM) initiatives which began in 1986 and which are restricted to
the skilled component of the national migration program (Hugo, 2008b).
The 2003
Australian Government Report of the Review of Settlement Services for Migrants and
Humanitarian Entrants (Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs, 2003) resulted in initiatives in 2004 being introduced for settling humanitarian
entrants in rural and regional Australia (McDonald, Gifford, Webster, Wiseman and Case,
2008). This initiative was extended in 2004-05 when $12.4 million was allocated to double
the number of humanitarian settlers outside regional centres (Taylor and Stanovic, 2005).
The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) (2010, 16) has explained that ‘regional dispersal’
policies for refugees and asylum seekers are now common in resettlement countries. Table
4.7 shows some such policies and programs introduced in other major refugee resettlement
nations.
- 198 -
Table 4.7:
Source:
National Policies for Regional Dispersal of Asylum Seekers and Refugees
Refugee Council of Australia, 2010, 17
There is an increasing body of research available which relates to the experience of
humanitarian settlers in regional Australia. Much of this has been summarised by the RCOA
(2010, 17-21) and some of the major locations of settlers are listed in Table 4.7. While there
have been a number of problems and issues which have arisen, it is apparent that there has
been a measure of success. This success has been in terms, not only of the filling of labour
shortages and much appreciated demographic impact through humanitarian families helping
to meet the threshold population needed for maintaining schools and other services, but also
in the successful adjustment of the settlers. A key issue of concern has been the fact that in
the past, efforts to settle humanitarian migrants in regional areas have resulted in many
- 199 -
eventually moving to capital cities. An example is the Vietnamese in the 1980s who were
initially settled in regional centres like Whyalla and subsequently gravitated to large cities
like Sydney (Burnley, 1989). Regional development is a salient and important issue in
Australia and the lack of population and resources is seen as a major constraint on regional
development (Withers and Powell, 2003).
There are clearly major challenges in providing support to humanitarian settlers in regional
areas which lack not only formal specific services but also the informal support of large
existing humanitarian communities. Similarly, housing shortages in regional Australia is an
important difficulty especially for some of the large African families. Language problems
and lack of interpreter services are important barriers.
Gaining the support of local
communities is especially crucial and there have been many instances where there has been a
very positive experience. Traditional stereotypes of non-metropolitan communities being
conservative, overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic in both composition and focus, even racist, have
been challenged in many contexts where communities have been welcoming.
Schools
especially are an important medium for incorporation of humanitarian families. It is apparent
that these positive responses are influenced by regional communities appreciating the
potential role of immigrants in meeting local labour shortages and preventing the loss of
services. Nevertheless, it is evident that the social capital of regional communities has been
and, potentially in the future can be, important in the adjustment process of humanitarian
settlers.
There is a new interest in Australia on regional development and the shortage of workers is
seen as a major constraint on the development of regional areas. Moreover, mining, tourism,
agriculture and agricultural processing are increasingly significant parts of the Australian
economy, are predominantly based in regional areas and the development of their potential is
threatened by labour shortage. It is apparent that refugee-humanitarian settlers are currently
helping meet this demand and that this role could be more important in the future.
- 200 -
4.4
ECONOMIC LINKAGES WITH ORIGIN COUNTRIES
4.4.1
Development Effects on Origin Countries
There has been a substantial shift in international migration in the last 15 years which has
seen a paradigm shift away from a model of migration or permanent displacement from one
country to another toward transnationalism.
The latter moves the focus in policy and
research away from a preoccupation purely with integration and adjustment at the destination
to considering the development and maintenance of linkages between origin and destination
countries and the effects of migration on those origin countries. The RCOA (2010, 7-12)
study of Benefits of Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program identified three areas of
potential economic contribution that could develop from linkages that humanitarian settlers
develop and maintain with their origin countries – development impacts in origin countries
through the sending of remittances, the fostering of trade linkages and involvement in the
planning, and the targeting and delivering of foreign development assistance. There is little
research regarding these relationships globally, let alone in Australia, although there is an
increasingly strong discussion of the impacts of migration on development in low income
countries (Global Commission on Migration, 2005; United Nations, 2006; World Bank, 2006;
Department for International Development (DFID), 2007).
The discussion has centred
around the capacity of migration to deliver development dividends, not only to migrants
themselves and in destinations but also in low income origin countries and communities.
One of the major ways in which this development dividend is delivered is through migrants
sending remittances from their destination to origin communities. There is a burgeoning
literature on the significance of the flow of remittances from OECD nations to less developed
countries and their role in poverty reduction (Adams, 1968; Hugo, 2003b; Asian
Development Bank, 2004; Johnson and Sedaca, 2004; Terry and Wilson [eds.], 2005). It is
stressed that remittances have particular value as a transfer from more developed to less
developed countries since they flow directly to families and hence can have an immediate
impact in improvement of well-being at the grass roots level. The role of the destination
countries here is in the realm of facilitating these flows; reducing the degree of rent taking
exacted on remittance flows by intermediaries and ensuring that there are safe, quick and
reliable channels for migrants to make remittances to their families in less developed
countries (DFID, 2007). Efforts to reduce the transfer costs imposed by intermediaries are
needed if the full benefits of remittances are to be realised.
- 201 -
It is increasingly being appreciated that remittances can have an important impact on
economic development in origin areas. It is estimated (Migration Population Institute (MPI),
2010) that two percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of developing countries is
currently made up by remittances. Figure 4.1 shows that global remittances have increased
substantially in recent years, doubling between 2004 and 2008. There was a small decline to
US$413.6 billion in 2009 as a result of the Global Financial Crisis.
Australia has some 5,485,864 persons who are foreign-born, with 1,666,879 born in Asia,
108,938 born in Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) and 130,447 born in Oceania
(excluding New Zealand and Australia). This represents, potentially at least, a significant
opportunity for the development of diasporic communities within Australia which are
connected to less developed countries and provide conduits for flows of remittances,
investment, technology and knowledge to them. With the important exception of the Pacific,
there has been little research in Australia on the relationship between communities from less
developed countries who are resident in Australia and their home countries and on the flow of
remittances they send.
Figure 4.1:
Source:
Global Formal Remittance Flows, 1990-2009
MPI, 2010
The official outflow of remittances from Australia in 2008 was US$3.05 billion (or 0.03
percent of GDP) and Figure 4.2 shows that outward remittances have grown substantially in
recent years. Moreover, the World Bank has suggested that formal remittance data capture
- 202 -
only around a half of the actual flows (Ratha and Xu, 2008). The increasing emphasis on
skill in the Australian migration program means that the families from which many migrants
come are among the better off groups in their home countries so there will not be a pressing
need for migrants to remit funds. Indeed for some the opposite is the case. Moreover, the
inflow of funding from less developed countries to Australia from families supporting foreign
higher education students studying in Australia is substantial (137,000 in 2003, 85 percent
from Asia). It is estimated that student migration generates A$4 billion 13 annually to the
Australian economy (Migrant News, January 2005).
Figure 4.2:
Source:
Australia: Outflows of Remittances in US$ Millions, 1970-2008
World Bank Remittances Database
Remittance flows appear to be greater among some groups of migrants than others.
Unfortunately there are little data available relating to this in Australia but the Longitudinal
Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA) involved two groups of migrants arriving in
13
One $A = US$0.78, 4 May 2005.
- 203 -
1993-95 and 1999-2000 who were re-interviewed twice in the first case and once in the
second (Hugo, 2004). Table 4.8 shows that when the first survey migrants were interviewed
within a few months after arrival in Australia, less than eight percent sent remittances back to
relatives. This of course is understandable given that it takes time for immigrants to become
established. When interviewed for a third time (1998-99), a larger proportion had sent
remittances home to relatives.
It will be noted that the largest proportions sending
remittances were the refugee-humanitarian migrants who also are the poorest group with the
Table 4.8:
Source:
Family
1st Interview
3rd Interview
Skill
1st Interview
3rd Interview
Humanitarian
1st Interview
3rd Interview
Total
1st Interview
3rd Interview
Australia: Remittances Sent to Relatives by Immigrants According to
Visa Category of Arrival
Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia, unpublished data
None
Less Than
$1,000
$1,000$5,000
$5,001$10,000
97.6
72.1
6.2
12.7
1.0
11.9
0.1
1.9
0.1
1.3
92.0
69.6
5.1
6.0
2.4
14.4
0.2
4.6
0.1
4.5
90.5
55.4
8.8
21.1
0.7
18.1
3.0
2.5
92.1
68.9
6.3
12.3
1.3
13.6
0.2
2.8
0.1
2.3
$10,001+
highest level of unemployment and greatest reliance on benefits (Richardson, Robertson and
Ilsley, 2001). The highest proportions of birthplace groups sending back remittances were
drawn from regions which were made up of mostly Less Developed Countries – Pacific (41.4
percent), South Asia (47.5 percent), Southeast Asia (42.3 percent), Middle East (33.1 percent)
and Africa (31.8 percent). It is interesting to note that by the time of the third interview
meeting, a half of refugee-humanitarian settlers were sending back money. These large scale
surveys are notoriously poor in detecting remittances and it is in detailed fieldwork that it is
evident that among some groups there are substantial flows of remittances.
- 204 -
Table 4.9:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey:
Remittances Sent
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey, 2010
$600
How Often Send Money
and
More
$100-
$1-99
599
Frequency and Amount of
No Set
Don’t
Amount
Know
Total
Percent
Other
1
1
1
0
1
4
1.4
Fortnightly
2
11
3
1
2
19
6.6
Monthly
6
55
2
11
2
76
26.2
10
52
12
9
1
84
29.0
Annually
3
10
2
4
0
19
6.6
Irregularly
8
40
4
31
5
88
30.3
30
169
24
56
11
290
100.0
10.3
58.3
8.3
19.3
3.8
100.0
Approx 3-6 months
Total
Percent
Table 4.10:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Monthly Household Income
According to Whether They Provide Financial Assistance to Others
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey, 2010
Provided Financial Assistance to Others
Percent
Monthly Household Income
After Tax
Yes
No
Total
Who
Answer
Yes
$2000 or more
14
4
18
77.8
$1600-1999
11
2
13
84.6
$1300-1599
20
1
21
95.2
$1000-1299
21
3
24
87.5
$700-999
51
12
63
81.0
$400-699
40
17
57
70.2
$250-399
19
17
36
52.8
$150-249
68
18
86
79.1
$1-149
12
10
22
54.5
2
11
13
15.4
258
95
353
73.1
Nil income
Total
In the survey undertaken for the current study, 69.7 percent of those surveyed had at some
time sent money to their homeland. Table 4.9 shows the amounts and frequency of remitting
- 205 -
among the respondents. It is evident that even households with low income send substantial
sums home as Table 4.10 indicates. Key informant interviews indicated that among recent
African migrants it was not unusual to send 10 or 20 percent of their weekly income to their
families in the homeland or in a refugee camp. Box 4.9 describes a case study of Horn of
African humanitarian migrants in Melbourne and Adelaide who send remittances to their
home communities. Another study in Adelaide (Njuki, 2009) found that 61 percent of the
252 respondents regularly send money to family and friends living outside
Box 4.9:
A Case Study of Horn of Africa Humanitarian Settlers in Adelaide and
Melbourne Sending Remittances to Their Home Country
A forthcoming study of 411 Ethiopian and Somali humanitarian settlers in Melbourne and Adelaide
(Zwedu, forthcoming) has investigated their remittance-sending behaviours and their impacts on the
country of origin. Although 18.3 percent of respondents were unemployed and reliant on unemployment
benefits and 42.5 earned less than A$20,000 per annum, the majority (82.5 percent) indicated they sent
money regularly and only 0.32 percent indicated they did not send any money. The overwhelming
majority of remittances go to family in the origin country and half use one of the many Somali-operated
Money Transfer companies in Melbourne and Adelaide. Although most are now compliant with
Australian financial regulations, all began as informal operations. In 2006 six of the larger companies
formed the Somali Money Transferring Association (SOMTA). The costs of sending money through one
of the Somali companies can be substantially less than those charged by the large multinational
companies (in one case $5 for sending $100 compared with $20). The Somali moneylenders have
payment outlets in most African countries and in many cases they are part of family based networks.
Most companies are family owned and operated businesses.
The remittance flows are part of the extensive and strong social networks maintained by Horn of Africa
settlers in Australia with their family, and to a lesser extent, friends, in Africa. The reasons respondents
gave for sending money were mainly based on a strong sense of respondents for the maintenance of their
family’s wellbeing (57.5 percent) but a significant number (22.4 percent) felt they would lose social
respect if they didn’t send money home. Some 46.2 percent of respondents indicated the main use to
which the remittances were put in Africa were to cover living expenses (food, housing, clothing etcetera.)
of their families. However, for more than a quarter (27.8 percent), the main use was for meeting the
educational costs of children and 14 percent was used for investment or business start-ups. It is apparent
that the remittances have positive impacts on the receiving communities.
of Australia. The average amount of money remitted was around A$200 per month – a
substantial figure given the low incomes of respondents.
Most of the migrants were
immediate family members and 41 percent of remittances were sent to parents. The study
estimated that each humanitarian migrant was supporting around five people at home through
their remittances. Some 57 percent used Western Union while 26 percent used Somali
Money Transfer companies.
- 206 -
Remittances have become an increasingly significant factor in the wellbeing of people in
many low income countries (de Haas, 2005). They are used to improve the day-to-day lives
of not only those receiving remittances but also, through substantial multiplier effects, others
living in their communities. There is evidence also that increasingly remittances can have
positive effects through being invested in productive activity.
Social networks developed by settlers with their origins are fundamental elements not only in
channelling remittances but also in other impacts that diaspora have on origin communities.
Stigler and Monsutti (2005) have shown how Afghan refugees in Iran have social networks
which operate as sources of solidarity, credit, information on culture and practice, provide
contacts with the labour market at the destination, and provide initial accommodation and
social and emotional support. The networks are based on family connections, ethnic identity
or acquaintances from the area of origin. Similar network effects are evident in the Afghan
humanitarian settlers in Australia.
Remittances by humanitarian settlers from high income countries to their low income origins
are not the only way in which a humanitarian diaspora can have a positive impact on
development in the home country. Newland and Patrick (2004) have canvassed the range of
other impacts:
‘… the volume of remittances to developing countries by emigrants and their
descendants … are far from being the only vehicle for diaspora influence on
the incidence of poverty in their home countries. For many countries, the
diaspora are a major source of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), market
development (including outsourcing of production), technology transfer,
philanthropy, tourism, political contributions and more intangible flows of
knowledge, new attitudes and cultural influence’.
Many migrant source countries are initiating diaspora policies to encourage their diaspora to
have those positive impacts of development at home (Agunias, 2009; Johnson and Sedaca,
2004). Many of the countries of origin of humanitarian settlers in Australia are extremely
poor. This especially relates to the recent humanitarian settlers from Africa so the potential
role that settlers can play in the economic development of their homeland assumes greater
significance. It is not, however, only the sending countries that have begun to devote
attention to the significance of diaspora in development, with receiving countries also
- 207 -
beginning to consider that their immigrant communities can assist development in their
origins and that destination country policies may facilitate this process. The involvement of
development assistance agencies in the assessment of, and response to, voluntary migration is
a new phenomenon (DFID, 2007, 1). However, the growing evidence of the positive role that
migration can and does play in the reduction of poverty and facilitation of economic and
social development (World Bank, 2006) has meant that multilateral and national development
agencies are now seriously considering how they can direct resources to ‘increase the benefits
and reduce the risks of migration for poor people’ (DFID, 2007, 1) for people in low income
countries.
Among the high income countries which have done most to facilitate the use of diaspora to
assist development in home countries is the United Kingdom. For example, its development
assistance agency, the Department for International Development (DFID), engaged diaspora
groups to develop a number of National Development Action Plans, and sought the advice of
diaspora in promoting poverty reduction and development in their home countries (DFID,
2007, 23).
Hugo (2008d, 56) has argued in the Australian context that:
•
The weight of empirical evidence is that this mobility can be harnessed to facilitate
poverty reduction and positive developmental outcomes.
•
Australia is better placed than almost any other high income nation to provide
development assistance relating to migration because of its long experience with
migration and the highly developed knowledge of migration, migration policy and
management and its impacts.
Among the suggestions he makes (Hugo, 2008d, 56-66) for the potential role that Australian
development assistance can play in facilitating the development role of migration are the
following:
•
Recommendation 2: Remittances. The World Bank (2006; Terry and Wilson,
2005) is placing considerable emphasis on the development of policies to maximise
the amount of money remitted by migrants to their home area and the effective
capturing of these resources to facilitate poverty reduction and development. There
would seem to be potential for the Australian Agency for International
- 208 -
Development (AusAID) to play a role in this effort in the East Asian region,
perhaps with some assistance and co-operation from the Treasury.
(a)
Firstly in co-operation with other multilateral agencies and partner
governments to:
−
improve access to safe, fair, transparent remittance service providers;
−
reduce the excessive rent taking in remittances and maximise the amount
which is received by the recipient;
−
link remittances to other mainstream financial services (banks etcetera)
so that senders and receivers gain access to a wider range of such
services.
(b)
Secondly
to
work
with
partner
governments
and
non-government
organisations to develop ways of increasing the effectiveness of remittances in
poverty reduction and development.
•
Recommendation 3: Diasporas. There is growing evidence that diasporas often
continue to have strong family and professional linkages with their homelands and
that these can have beneficial development impacts (Newland and Patrick, 2004).
It should be noted, however, that not all diasporas have such effects. In the UK,
DFID undertook in 1997 to ‘build on the skills and talents of migrants and other
ethnic minorities within the UK to promote the development of their countries of
origin’ (DFID, 1997; DFID, 2007, 23). These activities need to be considered with
a view to the possibility of some such initiatives being undertaken in the Australian
context.
•
Recommendation 10: A Development-Sensitive Australian Immigration Policy?
Australia has been a world leader in the development and management of migration
policies which are not discriminatory on religious, ethnic, national or racial lines
and which have a mix of humanitarian, economic and family elements. While
these policies have had an important humanitarian component and recognised
national responsibilities to the international refugee problem, the policies have,
understandably, been developed with Australian national interests being the
overwhelming consideration (Ryan, 2005; Hugo, 2005). The new thinking on
- 209 -
international migration and development, however, suggests that it is possible to
develop immigration policies in migration destinations which have win-win-win
outcomes not only for the destination but also the migrants themselves and the
origin communities. Injecting an element of development sensitivity into
destination country policies need not mean the sacrifice of any gains or autonomy
of that country. This presents a major challenge to the international community in
an area which already is a highly sensitive area.
The elements of a development-sensitive migration policy include:
•
Fundamentally it involves examining and considering the benefits and impacts of a
particular migration policy, not only from the perspective of the destination country
but also that of the origin countries.
•
One consideration relates to issues of ‘brain drain’, especially that of medical
workers. The potential for such elements as Codes of Practice or providing
medical training development assistance to origin areas needs to be considered in a
pragmatic and realistic way. It needs to be considered that not all skilled
emigration is negative in its effects on low income countries but it is true that some
is and where this is the case, effective, workable ways of counterbalancing its effect
need to be considered.
•
Facilitating movement of migrants (both permanent and temporary) to Australia
and their home country.
•
Consideration needs to be given to ways in which, at the Australia end, positive
diaspora linkages with home nations can be facilitated. This would involve
examination of dual citizenship, portability of entitlements, facilitating joint
activities in business (through AUSTRADE), research (through the Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations), etcetera.
Diasporas can also impact on development through return migration. Humanitarian settlers
to Australia can return to their homeland taking with them the resources, skills and ways of
doing things they have acquired in Australia. It was shown in Chapter 3 that there is a
smaller rate of return among humanitarian settlers than other visa groups mostly because their
origin countries often are still experiencing the conflict that made them leave. Nevertheless,
- 210 -
Box 4.10 provides a case study of one such returnee who is making a significant
developmental impact on his homeland, Sudan.
Box 4.10:
Source:
A Case Study of a Humanitarian Settler Returning to His Homeland
Gibson, 2008, 16-17
Ben Yengi OAM was born in Kajokeji in the Southern Sudan, an area of protracted civil war and bloodshed. In
1989 he fled initially to Uganda and then to Adelaide. He established himself initially as a high school teacher
and then occupied several positions at the University of Adelaide between 1974 and 2007 while studying for a
higher degree. In 2007 he made the momentous decision at 60 years of age to return to his homeland. In 2005 a
peace agreement was signed between the government in the North of the Sudan and the Sudan Republic
Liberation Army of the South and it may be that the South becomes a separate nation. The agreement has
restored law and order and made it possible for him to return to make a contribution. He has returned to his
village Lijo and intends to use the management capacities he developed in Adelaide to help rebuild the lives of
people in that village. He has been able to mobilise the local community and lobby international organisations
for funding.
A major priority is the building of a combined hospital and health centre which is badly needed to combat high
infant and maternal mortality and HIV/AIDS infection. A major environmental program he has developed is a
sanctuary for orphaned chimpanzees and he has enlisted the help of the Adelaide Zoo Director and the professor
of Zoology at the University of Adelaide to support the development of the project. Similarly, an animal
science academic at the University of Adelaide has been recruited to help relocate cattle to make way for the
sanctuary. He also has set about attempting to develop a multipurpose education centre. He has another
program aimed at making the village self sufficient in food production, developing a two acre property to grow
maize, sesame, sorghum, sweet potatoes, beans, mango trees, orange and guava trees and ground nuts.
Ben Yengi OAM intends returning to Australia once his work in Lijo is complete. His family remains in
Australia.
4.4.2
Fostering Trade
Another way in which linkages maintained by migrants with their homelands can have
beneficial economic outcomes is through the generation of trade between their origin and
destination. Recent research in New Zealand has found a positive relationship between trade
and immigration (Bryant et al., 2004; White, 2007; Qian, 2008). Moreover, this research has
indicated that newly arrived immigrants from low income countries and from different
cultural backgrounds tend to create more trade than other groups. A recent study by Law,
Genç and Bryant (2009) found through statistical analysis that for every 10 percent increase
in migration from a particular country, New Zealand’s merchandise exports to that country
grew by 0.6 percent and merchandise imports from that country grew by 1.9 percent. The
impact was even greater for tourism. They make two sets of policy recommendations:
- 211 -
•
Initiatives to facilitate the diaspora of particular countries resident in New Zealand
developing trade with their homeland.
•
Broadening the skill selection category of migration to include characteristics that
are useful in international trade.
In the United States, Gould (1994) shows that immigrant links have historically been
important in increasing bilateral trade flows with immigrants’ home countries. He argues that
although many factors have contributed to coincident movements in trade and immigration,
there are strong suggestions that immigrants themselves play a role in encouraging bilateral
trade flows. His study shows that in the US immigrant links have a strong positive impact on
exports and imports with the greatest impacts being on consumer manufactured exports.
Gould (1994, 314) concludes that there has been a neglect of:
‘… the foreign market knowledge that migrants naturally embody.
Immigrants convey knowledge spill-overs that can reduce information costs to
economic agents who do not migrate. These spill-overs reveal value-creating
production and trade opportunities and utility-increasing consumption
opportunities for the non migrants in both countries’.
There are very limited studies in Australia which have investigated the relationship between
trade and migration, let alone the specific impact of humanitarian settlers on trade. White
and Tadesse (2007) examine data for Australia and 101 trading partners over the 1989-2000
period to investigate the impact on trade. They divide the countries into ‘White Australia
Policy’ (WAP) 14 countries and Non-White Australia Policy (NWAP) countries and found
that the ‘WAP’ nations exert greater proportional influences on Australian imports to their
home countries. The authors conclude:
‘… immigration which leads to increased cultural pluralism and a
corresponding change in a host nation’s cultural identity may have positive
repercussions on the nation’s trade’.
14
Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom.
- 212 -
Box 4.11:
The African Chamber of Commerce in Adelaide: A Nascent Influence on
Trade
The South Australian government has facilitated the formation of a Council for International Trade and
Commerce SA Inc. (CITSA). It is a consortium of Chambers of Commerce of individual countries who, with
state government support, can provide assistance to South Australian small and medium sized companies to
trade with the countries represented in the Chamber. It harnesses the expertise of multicultural entrepreneurs
that live in South Australia to develop trade. A relatively recent member of CITSA is the African Chamber of
Commerce that has been formed by businesspeople from a range of African countries, most of whom came to
Australia as humanitarian settlers. Although it was initially formed in 1993, it has only been in the last decade
that it has become more active.
A number of humanitarian settlers have followed the typical pattern of initially setting up businesses which
mainly cater for co-ethnic populations. These have particularly involved food shops, restaurants, hair stylists
and money sending enterprises. They have initiated trade in both directions. Some have started businesses
exporting Australian-made machinery, consumer, electronic and mechanical goods to their home country. On
the other hand, they have begun importing specialised food goods, clothing and handicrafts from their home
countries. Thus far Adelaide’s small African communities have engaged in trade of a relatively small scale –
usually involving only two or three containers each time. Nevertheless they are growing rapidly.
The key to the success of this trade is the strong ethnic networks which are maintained between the communities
in Australia and friends, families and business partners in Africa. Bakalis and Joiner (2006) have shown how
ethnic networks can facilitate trade in Australia. They have demonstrated how these networks can extend
beyond providing immediate consumer needs for the small communities at origin and destination to becoming
bridgeheads for the wider penetration of export markets.
One barrier which the African Chamber of Commerce is facing in South Australia is a lack of support from
either federal or state governments. The Department of Trade and Industry (in the state case) and Australia
(federal) do not see trade with Africa as being of strategic importance in the contemporary world. Clearly, the
distance between Africa and Australia is an important factor. However, the growing demographic and economic
significance of Africa which will see its share of the global population increasing from 27.4 percent at present to
34.1 percent in 2030 together with the growing African communities in Australia open up some significant
possibilities.
The Australia Africa Business Council (AABC) in Adelaide has as its aim to unite business communities on
both continents. The Council promotes business networks, social contacts and increased trade and investment
between Africa and Australia.
Members of the AABC enjoy:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Support from leading corporations, banks and statutory bodies as well as many individuals and their
networks.
Regular functions with high profile and VIP guest speakers.
Participation in trade missions, joint ministerial commissions, trade delegations and business briefings.
A free subscription to the magazine Boab Connection.
Contacts with government and diplomatic representatives.
Trade and investment enquiries.
Promotion of businesses at events and in publications.
Corporate sponsorship opportunities available.
Potential for lobbying and business research.
- 213 -
While there is a lack of specific studies of the impact of humanitarian settlers on trade, it is
interesting that there are similar findings in both the Australian and New Zealand studies
which are of relevance. In both studies it was noted that it was groups from the non-English
speaking, culturally diverse backgrounds which create more trade than other immigrant
groups. This relationship, however, is little exploited in Australian trade and export policy
(Bakalis and Joiner, 2006).
Box 4.11 provides an example of how a newly settled
humanitarian group has quickly established small but significant trade flows between South
Australia and their home countries. From a policy perspective it is interesting that the
immigrant effect on trade is strongest for export although it has an effect on imports as well.
It is apparent the Australian Vietnamese community has been very active in using doi moi
(the economic renovation) and the associated rapid economic growth to develop trade
linkages with Australia. Box 4.1 provided the example of a market gardener entrepreneur
who used his family and business networks with Vietnam to expand his exports of cucumbers
to Vietnam. A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) (2008) study indicates a
number of Vietnamese Australians have begun to develop commercial opportunities with
contemporary Vietnam.
4.5
CONCLUSION
This chapter has demonstrated that the humanitarian settler community has made a
substantial economic contribution beyond that of participation in the national workforce.
This contribution is toward enhancing Australian ‘productivity’ among the Intergenerational
Report’s Three Ps of Population, Participation and Productivity (Swan, 2010). A number of
components of this contribution have been addressed and it is fair to say that almost all of
these have been neglected in assessments of the economic contribution of the humanitarian
settler population and by policy makers. In each case there is the potential for effective and
targeted policy intervention to enhance their beneficial impacts. It is apparent from the
evidence presented here that humanitarian settlers are:
•
Setting up their own businesses to a greater extent than other migrant groups.
•
Engaging disproportionately in the labour force in some regional areas.
•
Having important developmental impacts in their origin communities.
- 214 -
•
Developing trade between their home country and Australia.
While these activities of humanitarian settlers are already contributing to the Australian
economy, there is ample scope for building on these contributions through careful and wellformulated policy interventions such as:
•
Providing training for refugee-humanitarian settlers in establishing businesses in
Australia.
•
Developing programs to assist some refugee settlers to develop their own
businesses.
•
Identifying humanitarian settlers who have lived previously in regional areas who
may have a preference for living in non-metropolitan areas.
•
Developing new models of regional settlement of humanitarian settlers as part of
the new initiative for regional development in Australia.
•
Identifying non-metropolitan communities where there is potential for successful
settlement of humanitarian settlers.
•
Developing effective mechanisms to support humanitarian settlement in regional
areas.
•
As part of development assistance policy, facilitating the flow of remittances from
humanitarian groups to their homelands in the way that AusAID is assisting Pacific
Islanders to maximise their remittances.
•
Facilitating refugee-humanitarian settlers to develop trade with their home country.
- 215 -
CHAPTER 5. THE SOCIAL AND CIVIC CONTRIBUTION OF
AUSTRALIA’S HUMANITARIAN SETTLERS
5.1
INTRODUCTION
Refugee-humanitarian settlers face a number of barriers as they seek to participate in
Australian social and civic life. The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) (2010, 54) has
argued that:
‘social capital provided by refugees represents a significant portion of their
contribution to Australia … The social capital and connections that refugees
bring to the community are powerful.’
This chapter seeks to capture some of this contribution. Too often it is overlooked in
assessments made of the impact and contribution of migrant groups because such assessments
often focus on more measurable economic contributions.
5.2
VOLUNTEERING
Volunteering is a diverse activity that delivers significant economic and social benefits.
Various estimates (using different methodologies) measure the economic value of
volunteering in the tens of billions of dollars. Ironmonger (2000) estimated that Australian
volunteers perform $42 billion worth of unpaid labour each year. The Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS) has estimated the value of Australians’ volunteer activity at up to $31 billion
per annum.
Many refugees volunteer within mainstream organisations as a pathway to employment but
also view volunteering as a way of participating in the broader community. Volunteering
Australia (2005) points out that Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) volunteers are
often seeking ways to connect with the wider community and to access pathways to
employment. Volunteering is viewed as a way of obtaining skills, as well as providing a
- 216 -
local referee for future employment opportunities.
In the in-depth interviews many
participants viewed volunteering as a stepping-stone to employment, but volunteering was
not seen solely as a means of obtaining new skills and knowledge but also as a means of
gaining confidence and learning more about their new communities.
Few mainstream volunteering agencies collect refugee-specific data which has made
assessing the quantitative contribution of volunteering among this group of migrants difficult.
Nevertheless, key informants cited a range of barriers facing humanitarian entrants in this
sector:
•
Limited language ability.
•
Literacy and numeracy skills vary markedly within and between CALD
communities and should not be overlooked as a barrier to formal volunteering.
•
Limited time given family commitments and issues relating to searching for secure
employment, housing and education etcetera.
•
Poor knowledge of governance and workplace systems; many refugees reported
navigating new systems within different organisations to be intimidating and
difficult and therefore are more keen to volunteer for and within their own
communities.
However, it is apparent that many refugees and humanitarian entrants may be unaware that
their activities are considered to be volunteering so that they understate their involvement in
surveys.
Ironmonger (2000) has distinguished between organised and unorganised
volunteering. Organised or formal volunteering is defined as unpaid help in the form of time,
service or skills, willingly given by an individual through an organisation or group such as
the Red Cross, a school or a nursing home. Unorganised or informal volunteering is defined
as the informal unpaid help and care that occurs within the personal networks of family,
friends, neighbours or acquaintances. It differs from formal volunteering because it is not
mediated through an organisation or group. For instance, a family member who provides
care to an elderly person or someone who is a member of a sports club committee may not
consider themselves ‘volunteers’. Volunteering itself can mean different things to different
people.
- 217 -
This last point has particular resonance for people from CALD backgrounds – including
refugees and humanitarian entrants – whose understanding of volunteering is informed by
cultural norms within any given community. Several key informants observed that for many
refugees and humanitarian entrants that they worked with, volunteering is a western concept
and had little meaning to communities which hold collective as opposed to individualistic
values.
Volunteers from CALD backgrounds make an enormous contribution to the
Australian community and to the development of their own communities. However, this
tends to go largely unnoticed and unquantified due to the informal nature of much ‘CALD’
volunteering (Volunteering Australia, 2005).
Some of the most extensive types of informal volunteer work conducted by refugees and
humanitarian entrants are directed into assisting new arrivals from their own communities to
settle. Informal assistance such as providing transport, housing, child care, aged care, service
referral and English translation are key areas where refugees contribute in a voluntary
capacity, but do not recognise this as such.
Research to date has suggested that in many CALD communities, such instances of
(informal) volunteering is not identified as ‘volunteering’ in the European/American tradition
but as ‘helping out’, which may or may not be culturally inherent. Because informal
volunteering practices are inherent in many CALD communities, many people from CALD
backgrounds are likely to volunteer in ethnic specific organisations from an early stage
(Volunteering Australia, 2005).
Put simply, often humanitarian migrants do not see the work that they are doing for their
community as ‘voluntary work’ but are more likely to see it as community obligation. Often
this is because many humanitarian migrants come from collective based societies rather than
individual societies, and accordingly the idea of volunteering has little resonance. Many
humanitarian migrants have different lenses through which to view the world and their role in
the community It influences the way in which they understand Australia and how they settle.
Consequently, much of the work humanitarian migrants do within their own communities is
not recognised as voluntary work by state and commonwealth governments, which largely
underestimate the huge psychological difference between individual and communal societies.
This is particularly so for humanitarian entrants from the first generation. Second generation
migrants are less likely to operate in this communal paradigm, and are more likely to take on
- 218 -
individualistic perspectives of society, thereby also generating inter-generational conflicts
and miscommunication.
Strongly related to the previous point, a key ingredient to the success of settlement for many
refugee communities is the existence of already established communities of the same ethnic
origin within a state/locality. Existing migrant communities are critical in providing support
networks to new arrivals and a source of knowledge about the way things work. People
move to communities where existing support networks are already established. In this context
the idea of social capital must been emphasised as key in enabling pathways that help refugee
and humanitarian migrants to contribute. There is consequently a deep underestimation of
the civic contribution individual refugees make with regards to supporting new arrivals
within their own communities. This takes place across all communities (Colic-Peisker and
Tilbury, 2003).
In recognition of the substantial significance of volunteer work in Australia, the 2006
population census included a question (ABS, 2006):
‘In the last twelve months did the person spend any time doing voluntary work
through an organisation or group’.
This question presents some interesting results for the humanitarian settler group. Figure 5.1
presents the age-specific rates of volunteering for humanitarian settlers, their second
generation and the Australia-born. Table 5.1 provides the actual rates.
Some very striking patterns are in evidence. Clearly for all ages the rate of volunteering is
significantly lower for humanitarian settlers than it is for the Australia-born. Moreover, for
the Australia-born there is a peaking around the 40s and 60s respectively, the major stages of
the lifecycle that volunteering takes place (Hugo, 2007).
However, if we examine the
Australia-born children of first generation humanitarian settlers it will be noted that the
pattern is almost the same as for the Australia-born as a whole. Clearly this is another
example of where there is a convergence in behaviour as the time humanitarian settlers are
living in Australia increases, toward the behaviour of the Australia-born. By the time we get
to the second generation there is little difference.
- 219 -
Figure 5.1:
Source:
Australia-Born, Total Refugee-Humanitarian Groups First and Second
Generation: Percent Who Are Volunteers, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
- 220 -
Table 5.1:
Source:
Percent of Australia-Born, First and Second Generation Humanitarian
Settlers Who Are Volunteers by Age
ABS, 2006 Census
Australia-Born
First
Second
Generation
Generation
15-19
18.0
9.4
13.8
20-24
16.1
10.6
13.8
25-29
15.1
9.2
12.7
30-34
16.8
8.9
13.7
35-39
22.6
10.1
19.5
40-44
27.2
10.8
25.1
45-49
26.6
10.9
26.0
50-54
24.1
10.4
23.0
55-59
24.2
10.5
22.6
60-64
26.6
10.8
28.1
65-69
28.8
9.9
28.1
70-74
27.4
8.6
25.5
75-79
23.3
7.4
24.0
80-84
16.4
5.9
16.7
7.6
3.6
10.4
85+
Nevertheless, the low level of volunteering reported in the census by humanitarian settlers
needs closer investigation.
The question as it is worded in the 2006 enumeration
questionnaire places the emphasis on carrying out voluntary work through an organisation or
group. The interviews and in-depth discussion with humanitarian settlers and people who
work with them indicated that for many of the settlers, the volunteering they do with their
ethnic and local communities would not be seen to be as formal as being through a particular
group. It is apparent that the census data substantially underestimate the amount of volunteer
work undertaken by humanitarian settlers. Table 5.2 shows that in the data linkage of 2006
Census and Settlement Data Base information all migrant groups had a lower propensity than
the Australia-born to volunteer. This conforms with a commonly held assumption that people
from CALD non-English speaking backgrounds are underrepresented in the volunteering
sector or less likely to volunteer than the Australia-born (RCOA, 2009, 62; ABS, 2008).
- 221 -
Table 5.2:
Source:
Immigrant Settlers Arriving Between 2001-06: Percent who Engage in
Volunteering Work by Visa Type, 2006
ABS/DIAC Data Linkage Project
Family
Humanitarian
Skilled
Other
Total
Volunteer
10.7
9.0
14.5
8.6
12.4
Not a volunteer
84.6
81.5
82.5
85.1
83.4
4.6
9.6
3.1
6.3
4.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Not stated
Total
Note:
Percent of Australia-born who do voluntary work is 21.6 percent
Table is of migrants aged over 15 years
Table 5.3 presents data on the individual humanitarian birthplace group answers with respect
to the census volunteer question. Low rates of volunteering are evident for most groups with
only a couple of recently arrived African groups who have higher levels of participation than
the Australia-born.
The census results on volunteering among humanitarian settlers need to be considered in the
light of arguments by Kerr et al. (2001) who argue that humanitarian settlers probably have
higher rates of volunteering. They argue, as we have above, that there are different meanings
and ethnic-based understandings of the term ‘volunteer’ and this hides the fact that they
engage in a large amount of ‘informal volunteering’ where:
‘people are providing community, family and individual support to others in
an unstructured or unmanaged but nevertheless committed way (which) plays
just as important a role in building social capital as does formal or more
recognisable forms of volunteering’ (RCOA, 2009, 52).
- 222 -
Table 5.3:
Source:
Australia: First and Second Generation Refugee-Humanitarian Settler
Birthplace Groups:
Percent Who Do Voluntary Work for an
Organisation or Group, 2006
ABS, 2006 Census
First
Generation
21.6
Birthplace
Australia
Groups Arriving 1946-60
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovakia
Ukraine
Groups Arriving 1960s and 1970s
Chile
Czech Republic
Groups Arriving 1980s and 1990s
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cambodia
East Timor
El Salvador
Laos
Lebanon
Vietnam
Recent Arrivals
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Iran
Iraq
Eritrea
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Second
Generation
22.2
10.6
7.0
14.6
13.7
16.3
12.5
10.7
10.4
11.4
9.0
17.7
14.1
26.3*
20.7
24.1*
23.5*
20.5
23.3*
21.8
19.9
11.7
11.9
12.9
24.1*
6.5
5.5
6.6
12.6
8.5
6.2
8.4
10.8
8.8
10.2
16.0
12.0
11.7
13.7
6.2
14.8
14.8
22.8*
12.0
13.5
14.0
5.8
12.0
22.3*
13.9
18.9
15.3
* Above Australia-born average.
15.9
15.6
18.6
16.6
8.1
10.3
23.8*
14.8
8.1
25.0*
11.5
21.2
14.8
- 223 -
An example of the type of volunteer work that is undertaken by humanitarian settlers is
provided in Box 5.1.
Box 5.1:
Case Study: Hazara, Male Aged 27, a Volunteer
Mosa’s family migrated to Australia as refugees in 1997; they included three brothers and three sisters along
with his mother. Mosa’s father disappeared in Afghanistan prior to their migration to Australia and since then
they have heard nothing about him. After escaping violence and civil conflict in his hometown of Kabul, as a
small child, Mosa and his family escaped the border to Quetta where they stayed for 5 years.
Like most Hazaras, Mosa arrived in Australia with little English and found it challenging to compete with other
students at school. He spent the first 12 months learning English at the Chester Hill IES, and later completed his
HSC from Chester Hill High School. During his study Mosa started part-time work at a local Pizza Hut as a
junior kitchen hand, and later was promoted to Shift Manager. It was here that Mosa found a mentor who
encouraged him to pursue further education. After completing a Diploma in Management from Granville TAFE
Mosa enrolled at the University of Western Sydney, where he achieved a Bachelor of Business (Operations
Management) degree in 2007. He also succeeded in acquiring a customer service representative role at the
Commonwealth Bank of Australia in December 2004. Currently Mosa works as the ‘Area Relieving Manager’
at the Bank and studies part time for his MBA at the University of Western Sydney.
Despite his full time work and study commitments, Mosa has been heavily involved in community work for
over 3 years. This has seen him volunteer his time in various Hazara community associations where he has
provided key organisational and leadership skills. For Mosa this has been a critical way of learning about the
needs of the Hazara community in Sydney and promoting community capacity. Currently Mosa is the Vice
President of Hazara Council of Australia Incorporated, which was established early this year. Mosa’s vision is
to develop this community group into a forum which will give voice to the Hazara community – both young and
old as well as men and women – and provide information about the Hazaras and their struggle to the broader
Australian community. This is his way of ‘doing something for Australia’.
For Mosa it is a passion for justice and equality that drives him in his civic role. He wants to stress the
importance of education for current and next generations of Hazaras as a way that young people can assist and
support others, not just in Australia, but all around the world. For Mosa ‘Australia is the land of opportunity, it’s
our decision to choose the right path, so please, let’s make the right decision and take advantage of the
opportunities provided to us here’.
A study of humanitarian settlers in Adelaide found that 27 percent of participants interviewed
had at one time or another volunteered with various organisations (Njuki, 2009). This survey
involved one-on-one interviewing by people experienced in refugee work and in the language
with which the respondent felt most comfortable. The much higher rate of volunteering
observed in this survey suggests that it is more realistic than the census. It was found that
most of the volunteering involved dealing with the migrant community. It is interesting also
that the 2009 Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) Settlement Outcomes of
- 224 -
New Arrivals (SONA) Study of newly arrived immigrants found that the percentage of
humanitarian settlers who were involved in community or family work was 19.7 percent –
substantially higher than for other visa categories. The proportion for Skilled Migrants was
14.2 percent and those for Family and Regional groups 12.2 and 15.7 percent respectively.
Table 5.4:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Volunteering
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Whether Ever Volunteered
Number
Percent
Yes
332
58.7
No
244
41.3
Total
566
100.0
The survey of humanitarian settlers undertaken for the present study found a higher level of
volunteering than the census. Table 5.4 shows that a majority of the respondents indicated
that they had volunteered at some time since they arrived in Australia. Of these, some 42.8
percent volunteered at least once per week. This would indicate a relatively high level of
volunteering within the group and points to this group making a substantial contribution to
the Australian economy and society through this engagement.
5.3
COMMUNITY
GROUPS
CONTRIBUTING
TO
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
New and emerging refugee communities have a strong desire to promote the development of
their own communities. The extent of volunteer work conducted by formal community
organisations such as the Karen Welfare Association in Western Australia, the Afghan
Australian Association of Victoria Inc., African Think Tank Inc in Victoria, Italian/Timorese
Community Support Service in the Northern Territory and the African Communities Council
of South Australia, to name a few of the thousands of community based organisations
assisting with refugee resettlement across the country, is extensive. While groups may be
funded for community development and for specific services they may provide under the
Settlement Grants Program, they are not funded for the broad forms of settlement assistance
they provide.
- 225 -
The Afghan Australian Association of Victoria provides a good illustration of the role of
community organisations in facilitating community development. Established in 1977, the
organisation provides a number of services to new and established Afghan communities in
Australia, a large and growing percentage of which include refugees. These services range
from legal and migration advice, referrals to mainstream agencies such as Centrelink and
Legal Aid, assistance with health providers and specialist health problems. The organisation
also plays a key role in cultural maintenance and promotion. It runs a Dari Language School
for children, regular social and sport gatherings and key cultural events. It also provides
information to the Australian government in relation to new migrants’ settlement needs, as
well as engaging with new arrivals on information about living in Australia.
Individual community leaders are also important bridges between refugee communities and
the broader community, including mainstream services. Cultural consultancy work is being
performed by many representatives of newer communities, such as the various African
communities.
This consultancy with humanitarian communities is critical; without
understanding the cultural issues that communities face, services delivered by mainstream
agencies cannot be effective.
At the same time, community leaders interviewed for this research spoke about the extensive
time commitment and heavy personal toll this role has placed upon them. This heavy
personal toll has been particularly strong for leaders of new and emerging refugee
communities as often community members see one individual as a trustworthy source of
advice, referrals and assistance. This contribution is not paid or acknowledged at a formal
level; however, it plays a pivotal role in facilitating settlement for newly arrived groups, and
this is what drives particular individuals to perform this role.
One community leader who was interviewed observed that some individuals within newly
arrived refugee communities were ‘over-used’ and that this had important and often negative
effects not just for the individuals concerned but also for the communities they represent.
She noted that those with good English skills and qualifications acquired in Australia are in
‘great demand’ by service providers as consultants (to inform them about the issues African
communities are facing). However, because there are not many people who can act in this
capacity, those who can are over extended and prone to burn out because they are in so much
- 226 -
demand. Because there is no system or coordination between service providers and services
for recently arrived humanitarian migrants are so ad hoc, this community leader is often
performing the same duties/providing the same advice to different organisations and there is
room for a more efficient system of consultation. The key informant’s other concern here
was that because many organisations were only using a selected group of consultants, they
are not receiving a representative view of different cross-sections of the various communities.
The strength of ethnic networks among the humanitarian community was evident in the
survey. Table 5.5 shows their responses to the question of how they would describe their
networks with their ethnic community. This indicates that half of the respondents had strong
networks of friends within their ethnic community and points to the major significance of
those networks in the adjustment of humanitarian settlers.
This social capital is very
significant as is evident when the types of assistance given to others in the ethnic community
are examined in Table 5.6. Only 10 percent indicated that they did not provide at least one of
the forms of assistance specified in the question. Almost a quarter loaned money to other
people in their ethnic community, while a half provided transport. Clearly, the support given
by the ethnic community is critical in the adjustment process of humanitarian settlers.
Table 5.5:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey:
Within Their Ethnic Community
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Description
Description of Networks
Number
Percent
Strong network of friends in ethnic community
299
49.5
Know people from ethnic background
234
38.7
71
11.8
604
100.0
Don’t mix with people from ethnic community
Total
- 227 -
Table 5.6:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Assistance Given to Others in
Their Ethnic Community
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Type of Assistance
Number
Percent
Loaned household equipment
204
31.4
Provided transport
318
49.0
Assisted with shopping
263
40.5
63
9.7
141
21.7
Provided childcare
90
13.9
Cared for when sick
132
20.3
Provided food/meals
158
24.3
60
9.2
Cared for house while away
Loaned money
No assistance
Number
649
The significance of ethnic communities in the lives of humanitarian settlers is reflected in the
high levels of participation in activities arranged under the auspices of those communities.
Hence Table 5.7 shows that only 3.7 percent of respondents reported that they did not get
involved in any of the activities organised by their ethnic group. There were high proportions
who indicated that they attended refugee services, community events, cultural festivals and
formal and informal meetings. When asked whether they feel part of their ethnic community
in Australia, 516 or 83.1 percent agreed that they did, while a further 11.6 percent were
neutral and only 3.4 percent disagreed. There is clearly a very strong identification with
ethnic networks and communities and this is a major element of their social capital. Some
83.5 percent of respondents agreed that Australia provided opportunities for humanitarian
settlers and their families to maintain their cultural practices and traditions, while only 4.2
percent disagreed.
- 228 -
Table 5.7:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey:
Community Activity
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Participation in Ethnic
Type of Activity
Number
Percent
Religious service
411
63.3
Festival
366
56.4
Community events
428
65.9
Meetings – informal
478
73.7
Meetings – formal
297
45.8
24
3.7
Not participated
Number
649
One of the interesting findings of the study related to the importance of family networks.
Due to the conceptual difference of refugee-humanitarian migration from other forms of
migration (Richmond, 1988) it is sometimes assumed that because of the forced nature of the
migration that refugees do not have family and friends networks within destination countries
before their arrival. The DIAC SONA Study asked respondents:
‘When you arrived in Australia how many of your family members or close
friends were already living in Australia?’
The responses to this question are shown in Table 5.8 and show that only a quarter of
humanitarian settlers had no family or close friends in Australia on arrival. While this means
a large number do not initially have a social network upon which to rely for support and
assistance in adjustment, the majority do have this initial support.
Table 5.8:
Source:
Proportion of Migrants Without Family Members and Close Friends
Already in Australia, 2010
SONA Study
Visa Category
Number
Number of Friends and
Family (Percent)
Family
455
24.1
Humanitarian
1349
25.1
Skilled
588
45.0
- 229 -
5.4
PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THE WIDER COMMUNITY
Empowerment and engagement of refugee communities with the broader community is
critical to fostering refugees’ civic, economic and social contribution. The time that this
contribution takes to manifest itself and the strength of refugees’ engagement with the wider
community varies from community to community and depends on a range of factors related
both to their pre-settlement and migratory experiences.
Within more recently arrived
communities, several key informants observed that a lack of leadership and governance skills
acts as an impediment to community development.
Refugees’ cultural backgrounds play an important role in informing their engagement with
the wider community. For example, one key informant noted that those who have come from
rural regions and refugee camps have found settlement more difficult than those who have
come from urban towns and cities. The process of resettlement and acculturation for these
migrants was particularly acute. In research by Joyce et al. (2009), some of the multiple
challenges experienced by refugees included learning the government assistance system,
shopping in supermarkets, utilising public transport systems, understanding renting/real estate
procedures and banking systems. In some instances where refugees have spent extensive
periods in camps, the maintenance of rental housing is problematic. Tending to gardens,
paying rent and even tasks that we may take for granted such as cleaning are all unfamiliar.
Misunderstandings between new arrivals and landlords or agents were cited as a frequently
re-occurring problem.
Table 5.9:
Source:
Degree of Connection to Local Community Among Recent Arrivals by
Visa Category, 2009
SONA Study
Family
Humanitarian
Skilled
(%)
(%)
(%)
Well connected
54.0
52.8
49.7
A little connected
38.1
38.1
43.0
Not connected at all
6.8
6.7
6.7
No answer
1.1
2.4
0.5
1,889
5378
1307
Extent of Connection
Number
- 230 -
The SONA Survey asked recent migrants to Australia the extent to which they are connected
to or linked into their communities. Table 5.9 indicates that there was little difference among
all of the visa categories. However, it also evident in the SONA Study that humanitarian
settlers had the smallest proportion among the visa categories that indicated that they had
been treated well by the local community since coming to Australia. Table 5.10 shows that
more than a quarter of humanitarian arrivals indicated that they had been treated well only
sometimes. This reflects the considerable difficulty that this group experience in adjustment,
especially in the labour market.
Table 5.10:
Source:
Recent Arrivals to Australia: Have You Been Treated Well Since Coming
to Australia?, By Visa Category
SONA Study
Family
Humanitarian
Skill
(%)
(%)
(%)
Yes
81.6
69.0
79.5
Sometimes
15.9
26.9
18.7
No
1.3
2.7
1.2
No answer
1.2
1.4
0.6
1,889
5,378
1,307
Number
Table 5.11:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey:
Neighbourhood Social Networks
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Description
Description of Local
Number
Percent
Strong network of friends in neighbourhood
453
74.7
Know people in neighbourhood
145
23.9
18
1.4
606
100.0
Don’t mix with people in neighbourhood
Total
- 231 -
Turning to the Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey (AHSS), Table 5.11 indicates that
three quarters of respondents believed that they had a strong network of friends in their local
neighbourhood. This would indicate that the local community is of considerable importance
in the adjustment of humanitarian settlers. Respondents were also asked if they felt a part of
their local neighbourhood and Table 5.12 shows that 28.3 percent still did not feel that they
were part of their local neighbourhood. This indicates that while a majority of humanitarian
settlers were comfortable with their local situation, there were significant numbers who still
did not feel completely at home. Nevertheless, the overall level of integration into local
neighbourhoods remains quite high. Connor (2010, 383) argues that where refugees settle is
an important determinant of their level of adjustment to destination society. As a result of
their low incomes and limited resources they are obliged to live in poorer neighbourhoods
and centres.
Despite this, it seems from the AHSS that humanitarian settlers are
predominantly well integrated into their local neighbourhoods. The fact that many had
family and friends already in Australia and that there is a clustering of some groups,
especially new arrivals, assists in this local adjustment.
Table 5.12:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Do You Feel a Part of Your
Local Neighbourhood?
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Number
Percent
Strongly agree
122
19.6
Agree
258
41.5
Neutral
146
23.5
Disagree
50
8.0
Strongly disagree
16
2.6
Don’t know
30
4.8
622
100.0
Total
The picture is not quite as positive for the situation with respect to wider society. Table 5.13
shows that the proportion of respondents disagreeing with the statement that they feel part of
mainstream Australian life is quite a bit smaller than was the case for the question regarding
- 232 -
feeling a part of the local neighbourhood. Nevertheless, Table 5.13 shows that only a tenth of
respondents did not feel they are part of mainstream social and cultural life. While the
situation of this group is of concern, it indicates that the majority of those interviewed felt
that they belonged.
Table 5.13:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Do You Feel Part of the
Mainstream of Australian Social and Cultural Life?
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Number
Percent
Strongly agree
108
17.7
Agree
262
42.9
Neutral
153
25.0
Disagree
54
8.8
Strongly disagree
10
1.6
Don’t know
24
3.9
611
100.0
Total
It is also interesting to examine the types of assistance which humanitarian settlers had given
their neighbours to gain a better picture of the type of relationship they have with them. Table
5.14 indicates the types of assistance they have given to their neighbours and it will be noted
here that the proportions of humanitarian entrants who give the different types of assistance
to their neighbours are somewhat lower than the proportions of humanitarian entrants who
give those types of assistance to friends in the same ethnic group, as indicated in Table 5.6.
Whereas only 9.5 percent of respondents said they did not give any of the forms of assistance
listed to co-ethnic people, the proportion was more than double for neighbours (21.1 percent).
Nevertheless, there is a significant minority of humanitarian settlers who give a range of
types of assistance to their neighbours. There is a higher degree of social capital invested in
the ethnic community than neighbours but there is significant involvement within the local
community.
- 233 -
Table 5.14:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Types of Assistance Given to
Neighbours
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Type of Assistance
Number
Percent
150
23.1
90
13.9
184
28.4
Loaned money
60
9.2
Provided food
126
19.4
Provided childcare
45
6.9
Cared for during sickness
73
11.2
Shopping
124
19.1
No assistance
137
21.1
Number
649
Loaned household items
Looked after home while away
Provided transport
Table 5.15:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey:
Within Local Neighbourhood
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Type of Activity
Activities Participated in
Number
Percent
Community events
302
46.5
Playgroup
106
16.3
Religious service
290
44.7
School events
220
33.9
Local park
336
51.8
Met friends
228
35.1
Library
298
45.9
29
4.5
None of these
Number
649
- 234 -
The respondents were asked if they attended particular kinds of community events in their
neighbourhood and Table 5.15 shows that while generally they attended neighbourhood
events less than those of the ethnic community, there are significant proportions who are
involved in local community events, school events, and utilised libraries, parks etcetera.
Table 5.16 presents data from the SONA Study on the types of social activity that different
visa categories of recently arrived migrants regularly engaged in. It is noticeable that for
several of the categories it is the humanitarian migrants that are most heavily engaged. The
significance of religious organisations for humanitarian groups is especially notable with
almost two thirds regularly engaging in religious group activities – twice the rate of other visa
categories. Although more than three quarters indicate they have activities with family and
friends, this is a little lower than for other visa categories, perhaps indicating that
humanitarian settlers may be separated from family to a greater extent. It is notable that more
than a third, higher than for any group, are involved in activities at the school where their
children attend. The pivotal role of schools in the engagement of refugee-humanitarian (as
well as other) settlers has been found in a number of studies (e.g. Hugo, 2008c).
Table 5.16:
Source:
Activities Engaged in by Recently Arrived Migrants, by Visa Category
SONA Study
Family
Humanitarian
Skilled
(%)
(%)
(%)
Religious group
27.8
60.9
31.1
Meeting with family and/or friends
89.1
74.6
87.6
Activity
School where your children attend
18.4
32.1
26.5
Sporting club or group
20.9
16.5
30.7
1.9
9.8
3.3
22.0
46.5
19.0
Youth group
Cultural group (with people from your home country)
Community or voluntary work
11.9
18.8
10.4
Hobby group (examples include gardening, car etcetera)
23.5
15.1
24.9
2.4
2.8
2.6
1,889
5,378
1,307
Other activity – please specify
Number
Note: Multiple responses possible so total will not add up to 100 percent
- 235 -
In a survey of humanitarian settlers in Adelaide, of the 150 parents who commented on the
education system, only four had negative comments about the schools their children went to
(Njuki, 2009). It is apparent that most of the respondents saw the schools as one of the ways
in which both they and their children can be assisted in adjusting to life in Australia. Only
one respondent made a complaint of their child experiencing racism in the school context. It
is apparent from the key informant interviews that schools play a key role in the integration
of humanitarian settlers, not only for the children but also their parents for whom the school
is one of the main ways they interact with the wider community. The role of school staff,
especially principals, in this area is of key significance.
Table 5.16 also highlights the importance of cultural groups in the types of activity
undertaken by humanitarian settlers.
Refugee-humanitarian settlers come from diverse
countries, circumstances and individual backgrounds. This diversity is to be appreciated and
harnessed rather than problematised. Refugee communities across Australia have added
cultural diversity to the community, which many residents enjoy through food, architecture,
medicinal and health practices, festivals, the arts, and an increasingly cosmopolitan
atmosphere.
Maintaining their own cultural heritage through festivals and events is pivotal to enriching
Australia’s multiculturalism.
It is also key in creating strong and vibrant cultural
communities in Australia that feel proud of their heritage and look forward to their future in
Australia.
People from Migrant Resource Centres (MRCs) and resettlement agencies
interviewed in this study all noted that the mainstream Australian community was highly
receptive and welcoming to cultural events and festivals promoted by refugee communities.
In some cases animosities and tensions between different groups within a community rooted
in their country of origin play a role in preventing the community from moving forward and
developing a cohesive identity within the Australian context. Several key informants, for
example, cited examples where Hazara clients has been misinformed by members of the
wider Afghan community that due to their ethnicity, they would be ineligible for housing and
so forth. While such evidence is anecdotal in nature, numerous examples of this situation
were relayed across states.
- 236 -
Scattered around the Fairfield, New South Wales, local government area are Buddhist
temples set up by Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian migrant communities – many of
which entered Australia as refugees in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Built on state
government land, these temples have been funded by the communities themselves and are a
key a site of spiritual worship.
Dr Garry Lee from Fairfield MRC and also a key
representative of the Hmong community from Laos noted that a key concern of many refugee
communities from South East Asia was to establish their own institutions of religious
practice.
Knowing that their ancestors were safely rested was important for their own
settlement. These temples also represent places where communities are able to preserve their
cultural heritage and provide services to disadvantaged groups within the community.
Attached to many of the temples are community centres and sometimes welfare offices
dedicated to aged care or youth mentoring services. Phouc He Temple, for example, hosts an
aged care residential facility and also provides religious education for young and second
generation migrants.
Representatives from the Fairfield City Council also acknowledged the critical financial
contribution many refugee communities make to both ethnic-specific and mainstream charity
causes.
A culture of philanthropy and caring for disadvantaged elements within the
community is visible and growing. While much of this is informal, a number of formal
organisations have been established within each of these communities around service and
caring roles.
The survey of 252 humanitarian migrants in Adelaide found that a majority of respondents
socialised quite often. Figure 5.2 shows that a majority of humanitarian respondents (57
percent) socialise with family and friends very often, seeing them at least weekly. It is
concerning, however, that one in five humanitarian respondents felt that they were lonely.
The study was targeted at recently arrived humanitarian settlers and showed that most
migrants tended to socialise more with persons from their home country, although many
- 237 -
Figure 5.2:
Source:
Adelaide Humanitarian Migrants’ Social Situation, 2009 (n=252)
Njuki, 2009
also had friends from other migrant backgrounds as well as others who were Australia-born.
Table 5.17 shows that the most popular way in which the respondents met their friends was
within their ethnic community, indicating the crucial role that those communities play in the
adjustment of newly arrived humanitarian settlers. Some 78 percent of respondents reported
making friends at the government-funded English classes which all humanitarian settlers are
eligible to attend. More than a half make new friends at their place of worship and only just
over a third have made new friends among their neighbours.
Table 5.17:
Source:
Adelaide Humanitarian Migrants:
Friends (n=255)
Njuki, 2009
How Did You Meet Your Friends
Where the Migrants Meet Their
Percent
Ethnic community
85
Family
56
Neighbours
36
English class
78
Place of worship
49
- 238 -
The South Australian study also recognised the importance of community organisations
among humanitarian settlers, with just over half of respondents indicating that they were
active members of a community organisation. Among the 252 respondents, 20 separate
ethnic organisations were identified by respondents.
The types of activities they were
involved in included organising dances and festivals, celebration of national days as well as
organisation of recreational events for members. Some 16 percent of respondents were
identified as leaders in these groups and 12 percent were involved in women’s groups.
Church and religious based groups were also important.
Improving the social contribution of humanitarian settlers requires a combination of
strengthened services and infrastructure for individuals, but also – and equally as importantly
an emphasis on community empowerment. Through SGP and other community-oriented
grants, MRCs and other settlement and community organisations play an important role in
leadership and governance training which is critical for communities to strengthen
themselves. Several Burmese community associations, for example, have been praised across
Australia for their ability to raise and save funds over the long term in order to establish
community centres and facilities for prayer. Once communities feel confident about how
they can harness their knowledge, skills and strengths within their new landscape,
engagement with the wider community follows.
There is an increasing body of evidence (Civitillo, forthcoming) that sport can play a key role
in increasing economic and social engagement among ethnic communities in Australia. The
AHSS asked respondents whether they participated in any sporting activities and almost half
(290 persons) indicated that they had. This represents an opportunity for further engagement
of humanitarian settler groups, especially the young families of recent arrivals.
The RCOA (2009, Section 7) has produced an extensive list of over 70 humanitarian settlers
who have made major contributions across a spectrum of Australian life – the arts, sport,
science, research, business and civic and community life. It is not intended to duplicate this
here because the list fully justifies their argument that it highlights the enormous contribution
which refugees and humanitarian entrants make. It is necessary, however, to make a few
comments on the civic engagement of humanitarian settlers in Australia. Much of the early
civic engagement of settlers is in the role of being an advocate for the rights of their group
and taking leadership roles within their own communities, especially during the difficult
years of initial settlement. However, it is also evident that over time their civic engagement
- 239 -
becomes wider. They have been more active in local government than in state or federal
government, perhaps reflecting their heavy engagement in community affairs involving their
groups.
Some of the communities which recently have had mayors, who were former
refugees, include the City of Greater Dandenong, Maribyrnong, Richmond, Auburn and
Fairfield. Box 5.2 provides a case study of one such high achiever.
Box 5.2:
Source:
A Remarkable Civic Contribution
Mills, 2008, 2-4
Hieu Van Le is currently the Lieutenant Governor of South Australia, yet he was one of the earliest
boat people who arrived as an asylum seeker from Vietnam in Darwin harbour in 1977. Like the
other fifty people on the small wooden fishing boat (one of whom was his wife), Mr. Le had been
able to bring very little with him on the long journey to Australia via Malaysia. Upon arrival in
Darwin they were processed by the Department of Immigration and sent to the Pennington Hostel in
Adelaide which was the initial place of living for most post-war refugees to the state until its closure.
Mr. Le and his wife were able to get work in a factory manufacturing linen and clothing not too far
from the Hostel. However, he quickly was able to get admittance to study for a degree in Economics
and Accounting at the University of Adelaide and on the basis of this got a job in the South
Australian government.
From his arrival in Adelaide Mr. Le was a major leader among Adelaide’s Vietnamese community
with his passion to ensure that the Vietnamese were able to integrate and settle successfully. He had
a strong presence as a spokesperson for the community in the media and in government. He sought
to break down prejudices about the Vietnamese in the Adelaide community and worked with
government and politicians to give the Vietnamese a voice and to maintain and promote their culture.
In 1991 he became a member of the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission,
its Deputy Chairman in 2001 and its Chair in 2006. He is also a Senior Manager with the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) responsible for regulating the financial services
industry and investment markets in the state.
The AHSS asked respondents whether they had been a member of or participated in a number
of types of civic and community activities. Table 5.18 presents the proportions who had been
involved with particular groups and activities. It is noticeable that 37.2 percent of respondents
did not participate in, nor were members of, any of the types of activity listed. However, this
pattern differs little from that of the Australia-born population.
Indeed, the levels of
participation are quite high in some local organisations.
The survey asked specific information about involvement in particular civic roles and the
results are presented in Table 5.19. While the numbers are fairly small, they are nevertheless
- 240 -
significant, indicating a substantial degree of community and civic engagement, especially
within ethnic and local communities.
Table 5.18:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Participation/Membership of
Community Groups
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Type of Activity
Number
Percent
Arts/cultural group
82
12.6
Boards/committees
78
12.0
Community group
298
45.9
Local theatre/dance group
22
3.4
Neighbourhood association
25
3.9
Political party
24
3.7
Religious affiliated group
187
28.8
School/student group
120
18.5
Sport club
114
17.6
70
10.8
None of these
227
35.0
Number
649
Union/professional group
Table 5.19:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Involvement in Specific Civic
Roles
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Role
Politician
Number
Percent
10
1.5
6
0.9
110
16.9
Cultural mentor
45
6.9
School support worker
54
8.3
Youth counsellor
39
6.0
Cultural awareness trainee
58
8.9
143
22.0
Participant in community roundtable
70
10.8
Religious leader
39
6.0
8
1.2
Mediator
90
13.9
Translator
171
26.3
3
0.5
Local councillor
Community leader
Settlement worker
Media commentator
Union official
Number
649
- 241 -
Both socially and economically, second generation migrants have several advantages
compared with their parents; they are more likely to be proficient at English, and they have
been socialised in the Australian education system and are therefore familiar with local
culture and lifestyle.
As suggested by Zevallos (2002) the social experiences of second generation migrants are
critical in understanding issues surrounding multiculturalism. This is because migrants –
including refugees – negotiate multiple ideas of cultural identity in their everyday lives, both
from their parents’ country of origin and mainstream Australia.
This presents both
opportunities and problems. Second generation humanitarian migrants are often subject to
intense parental expectations about following traditional career pathways and maintaining
cultural practices that have little meaning to their new lives. In addition, second generation
migrants experience a range of issues similar to their parents – racism and discrimination;
mental health issues (often related to the trauma experienced by their parents) and feelings
and experiences of disenfranchisement from their peers and the mainstream. Yet these
individuals often miss out on access to services and programs.
Many key informants discussed the huge sense of sacrifice that first generation refugees
make in order to enable their children to pursue higher education within Australia. This
sacrifice is borne out in various ways including taking on menial and labour intensive jobs
which may not be matched to their skills and qualifications. When first generation migrant
communities struggle, it is often the second generation that achieve social mobility.
The AHSS asked some specific questions about the extent of civic and political engagement
of humanitarian settlers. Among the respondents, 70.4 percent had already voted in an
election.
Table 5.20 includes responses to questions about particular types of civic
engagement. This indicates that a minority but a significant number nevertheless have
engaged with civic and social issues in Australia.
- 242 -
Table 5.20:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey:
Political Activity Since Being in Australia
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Activity
Number
Percent
109
16.8
Contacted MP
81
12.5
Contacted local council
75
11.6
Attended public meeting
83
12.8
Contacted media
34
5.2
Discussed political issues with a neighbour
123
19.0
Number
649
Signed a petition
5.5
Involvement in Civic and
BARRIERS TO SOCIAL PARTICIPATION
Refugees, particularly in the early period of their arrival, have a strong desire to contribute to
the broader Australian society as well as their local community. As with other forms of
contribution, there are some barriers to refugees’ social participation in Australian society.
Housing instability, particularly during the early phase of resettlement, represents a key
obstacle here given that new arrivals are uncertain as to where they will live. Social or
collective models of housing were proposed by community leaders as viable and effective for
new arrivals because this would transition these migrants into the private housing or rental
market in a safe and informed manner.
The inability to speak English is a critical obstacle to participation in the wider community
and contributes to many refugees’ experiences of social isolation and lack of confidence to
participate within the wider community. For women refugees in particular, barriers to English
classes within the early years of arrival include transportation; lack of child care or reluctance
to leave their children with strangers; experiences of intimidation within the classroom, and
problems around unemployment and unsuitable housing which are viewed as more pressing.
Women refugees from African and Middle Eastern countries often face pressure from their
husbands and families not to enter the workforce and this entrenches their social isolation.
- 243 -
New arrivals in receipt of income support can find themselves in critical financial stress and
consumer debt. Settlement agencies and MRCs play a key role in supporting new arrivals out
of this financial stress. They play a key advocacy role in refugees’ relationships with utility
providers, real estate agents and employers. In this respect, these agencies are critical in
facilitating new arrivals’ entry into the wider community.
Refugee youth experience challenges in accommodating the culture of their homeland in their
or their parents’ memories, the culture of the new country as well as the culture of refugee
resettlement. Youth struggling with identity formation experience psychological difficulties
in the context of dual cultural membership (Phinney, 1990).
Recently arrived refugee youth experience issues such as social isolation and discrimination
as well as problems related to travel and transport, education and employment. Unlike other
migrants many are likely to experience trauma, either through their own direct experiences or
through parents who have suffered torture and trauma overseas. Several key informants noted
that many young people, both first and second generation refugees, must live with and deal
with the repercussions of mental health problems suffered by their parents and this can have
implications for their own development in terms of studying, finding employment and
socialising with other young people.
Young people from a refugee background often do not have good information about the
financial and social assistance that is available for them to enter tertiary study. While many
universities have targets around attracting students from low socio-economic backgrounds,
there is no specification for students who have arrived on refugee visas and often fall into this
category. Key informants noted that they were unaware of scholarships and other types of
assistance that refugee youth were eligible for. Information about this assistance should be
provided through various entry points including schools, university admission offices and
MRCs and settlement agencies.
Within the university setting also, research by Joyce et al. (2009) has identified a series of
interrelated barriers to participation. These include socio-cultural differences and the
prevalence of home life; pre-migration and settlement experiences which generated stress,
anxiety; health issues; racism and aspects related to acculturation; differences in educational
systems and styles with a greater reliance on assignments and self-directed learning in
Australia. Most significantly, subjects in this research study identified a sense of anxiety and
- 244 -
emotional distress while studying.
This involved carrying the burden of their refugee
background and home culture, and anxieties and frustrations about the university culture and
academic system, all of this most likely compounded by financial and social pressures. Joyce
et al. (2009) pointed out that young female students from a refugee background face extra
challenges to completing their studies, as they have bigger roles in the house to fulfil that
they put before studying.
Ageing is a key issue amongst refugee communities. Culturally sensitive aged care for
people who have come in as refugees is important to consider. If not integrated well, first
generation aged refugees will depend solely on the care of their children.
5.6
SATISFACTION WITH LIFE IN AUSTRALIA
Key informants acknowledged that Australia has one of the best resettlement programs in the
world. It has significantly improved over time. One key informant noted for example that
within South Australia, when the Vietnamese arrived by boat during the 70s and 80s, they
were sent to Pennington hostel which was originally an army barrack. This had very basic
facilities and rooms were without bathrooms or kitchens and had poor hygiene. Being a
former army building it was also not very conducive to newly arrived refugees’ mental
health.
Australia should be doing more to recognise the skills and qualifications refugees have
acquired prior to migrating. One key informant within the South Australian context noted the
loss of around 6-8 professionals over the past two years to countries in Africa. Most of these
individuals who entered Australia as refugees or humanitarian entrants experienced intense
and on-going frustration that they could not apply their professional skills here and so
returned to countries where they knew that these skills were needed and they would be
respected and remunerated accordingly.
Another informant from a refugee community
relayed the story of her husband who arrived with a PhD in Organic Chemistry from a British
university and had been employed in a number of posts within both Europe and Africa. After
much searching he found casual teaching work at a local university but this did not lead to
anything substantial and caused great family pressure. He eventually left his family to return
to Africa for work, given his belief that he was being racially discriminated against.
- 245 -
Several key informants maintained that if their countries were peaceful enough, many
refugees would return to their country of origin. Particularly for individuals from African
countries, living in an Anglo-Saxon country is difficult: community connection in urban
settings is difficult to achieve; racial discrimination is present and social networking is hard
without English skills, access to transport and so forth.
Time is important in enabling the contribution of refugees to be recognised. It is often within
the second generation that a community’s achievements and success can be fully recognised.
First generation refugees are often more focused on educating their children so that
professionals are more likely to be found amongst second generation refugees. Long term
professional individual and community development is a form of contribution that must be
acknowledged and emphasised in relation to refugees.
More established communities provide a solid base for newer arrivals to find settlement
success. Opportunities are pivotal in determining refugees’ satisfaction with life in Australia.
New communities are intent on harnessing the opportunities presented to them in order to
contribute to their new country. Family breakdown is common within the first few years
amongst several communities and can influence dissatisfaction with life in Australia. Family
links within the country of origin play a role in influencing an individuals’ intention to retain
their future in Australia.
Table 5.21:
Source:
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Answers to Question ‘I am
Happy With My Life in Australia’
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Response
Number
Percent
Strongly agree
303
47.9
Agree
246
38.9
Neutral
58
9.2
Disagree
17
2.7
Strongly disagree
6
0.9
Don’t know
3
0.5
Number
649
The Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey asked a question about satisfaction with the
respondent’s life in Australia. Table 5.21 shows that there was an overwhelming response
from the survey participants that they were happy in Australia, with very few indicating that
- 246 -
they were not. Moreover, it is apparent from the results of the survey that the great majority
of humanitarian settlers were committed to staying in Australia over the longer term. Only
3.6 percent of respondents indicated that they did not see their future to be in Australia.
The SONA Study asked respondents ‘How comfortable are you about living in Australia?’
Table 5.22 presents the results and while more than a half of humanitarian migrants indicated
that they felt comfortable most of the time, it is notable that this proportion is much lower
than for other visa categories.
This indicates that in the early years of settlement
humanitarian entrants have greater problems in adjusting than other migrants and points to
the policy challenge in assisting their adjustment.
Table 5.22:
Source:
Level of Comfort With Living in Australia by Visa Category (Percent)
SONA Study 2010
Family
Comfortable most of the
Humanitarian
Skilled
56.9
82.1
18.1
38.4
16.1
Not comfortable
0.8
2.8
1.4
No answer
0.7
2.0
0.5
1889
5378
1307
time
Sometimes comfortable
Total
Table 5.23:
Source:
80.4
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey: Percent Who Value Particular
Characteristics of Their Living Situation
Australian Humanitarian Settler Survey 2010
Aspect of Living Situation
Number
Percent
Cultural or ethnic practices respected
496
76.4
Transport
402
61.9
Local services
412
63.9
Open spaces/environment
360
55.5
Low crime/security
315
48.5
Local government
121
18.6
Proximity to friends
281
43.3
Property prices
122
18.8
Number
649
- 247 -
Given the high levels of overall satisfaction with their settlement it is useful to examine what
aspects of their current living situation they value the most.
Table 5.23 indicates the
proportions of respondents who nominated particular aspects which they were asked about.
The general happiness with the accessibility of local services and the local living situation is
apparent, but it is clear that there are real concerns over housing and property prices. This
was also evident in a survey of humanitarian settlers in South Australia (Njuki, 2009). This
found that around a third of respondents were not happy with their housing because it was too
expensive or too small for large families.
In looking at the adjustment of humanitarian settlers it is important to assess the confidence
that the settlers have in making choices about their life in Australia. The results of the SONA
provide some interesting evidence on this issue. Table 5.24 shows that only a third of
humanitarian settlers felt very confident they can make choices about their life in Australia.
The proportion indicating that they are not confident or a little confident is much higher
among the refugee group.
Table 5.24:
Source:
Level of Confidence About the Future by Visa Category (Percent)
SONA Study 2010
Confident Able to Make Choices
Family
Humanitarian
Skilled
Very confident
45.1
33.5
47.4
Confident
39.1
38.3
39.6
A little confident
12.7
21.0
11.8
Not confident at all
1.5
5.0
1.1
No answer
1.6
2.2
0.2
1889
5378
1307
About Life in Australia
N
- 248 -
5.7
CONCLUSION
While earlier chapters of this study have concentrated on the economic situation and
contribution of humanitarian settlers in Australia, the present chapter has sought to examine
their social and civic contribution to Australia. The nature of humanitarian migration means
that they are less likely than other migrants to have prepared and planned for settlement in a
new country and less likely to have been able to bring with them the resources they had
accumulated in their origin country. Moreover, for many the upheaval of leaving their
country was accompanied by trauma. Hence for many the barriers they face in engaging
socially and civically are considerable. While over the last half century Australians have
increasingly recognised, respected and celebrated diversity, their perceptions, attitudes and
prejudices can also constitute significant barriers to social engagement among humanitarian
settlers. Nevertheless, the overwhelming impression arising from the evidence presented in
this chapter is of a relatively high level of social and civic engagement among humanitarian
settlers and one which increases over time. There is a pattern of engagement with ethnic
communities being overwhelmingly dominant in the earliest years of settlement but with
outside interactions increasing with length of residence in Australia. The key findings of the
chapter are that the social contributions of refugee-humanitarian settlers are substantial
despite the fact that as a group they experience greater difficulty in adjusting to life in
Australia than other migrant groups.
- 249 -
CHAPTER 6.
6.1
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
More than one in twenty Australians are within two generations of a humanitarian settler
background as either humanitarian settlers themselves, family migrants sponsored to come to
Australia by humanitarian settlers, or the children of either group.
The demographic
influence of this significant group is hence substantial but this report has indicated that their
contribution goes far beyond the demographic. Assessing this contribution is not an easy task
because the standard data sets that are available do not distinguish first generation
humanitarian settlers, let alone those family migrants they sponsor or the second generation.
This has meant that most research on humanitarian settlers in Australia has focused on their
early years in Australia for they are more readily identified in standard data collections. In
this study, however, we have attempted to take a more holistic view of their settlement by
including contributions of their experience over the full life cycle as well as that of their
children. While we do not seek to minimise the difficulties and challenges confronted by
humanitarian settlers in Australia, especially in the initial years, the picture which emerges is
a largely positive one. There is clear evidence of upward mobility, although there are clearly
a minority that are trapped for an extended period in low paid, low status employment niches
in the ‘secondary labour market’ (Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2006). There are definite trends
of convergence toward Australia-born levels of labour market success within the first
generation and beyond those levels for some second generation groups. In this short, final
chapter we seek to summarise the main findings of this study and to draw out some of the
major policy implications.
Before summarising some of the major findings of the study it is important to say something
about the methodological approach which has been adopted in the study and the empirical
evidence which has been assembled to substantiate the argument presented. A perennial
problem which migration research in Australia and elsewhere has confronted is the lack of
data sets which are fully representative of migrant populations. This is especially the case for
visa categories of immigrant groups like humanitarian settlers. We have comprehensive
information about them upon entry to the country through the Department of Immigration
- 250 -
and Citizenship (DIAC) Settlement and International Movement data bases.
However,
immediately they arrive in the country and disperse throughout it we no longer have data
bases which differentiate all of them from other Australians – all are partial in the
representation of this group. It is especially difficult to assemble sampling frames which
allow a representative sample of humanitarian settlers to be selected for surveying.
The approach which has been adopted here places considerable reliance on the population
census because of its high quality and comprehensive coverage of the Australian population.
We believe the approach adopted of identifying refugee-humanitarian birthplace groups is a
robust one. Statistical analysis here has demonstrated that there is minimum overlap between
skilled and humanitarian birthplace categories, so that data derived for the refugeehumanitarian birthplace groups must be considered strongly representative of the experience
of humanitarian settlers. The census data has the advantage that it allows us to consider
humanitarian settlers of long standing as well as allowing us to identify the second
generation. In the past almost all study of humanitarian settlers has concentrated on recent
arrivals.
The robust findings from analysis of census data are used as the matrix within which we have
analysed and interpreted data from the less representative sources, surveys and purposively
selected in-depth studies.
6.2
THE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION
The Third Intergenerational Report of the Australian Treasury (Swan, 2010) has drawn
attention to the challenges which Australia faces as the post-World War II ‘baby boomers’ that currently comprise 27.5 percent of the Australian population and 41.8 percent of the
workforce - move into the dependent older age groups, thereby shifting the ratio between the
working and non-working population. This rise has been depicted by the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) chief economist (Cotis, 2005) thus:
‘Over the next couple of decades nothing will impact OECD economies more
profoundly than demographic trends and, chief among them, ageing’.
- 251 -
The Intergenerational Report argues that in confronting this major economic challenge over
the next three decades, there are three ‘Ps’ which Australians will need to lift their
performance to counterbalance the effects of ageing:
•
Population
•
Participation
•
Productivity
It is the argument of the present report, based on the empirical evidence, that humanitarian
settlers are making, and will continue to make in the future, a significant contribution in all of
the three Ps.
Firstly, with respect to population, it has been demonstrated that the demographic
contribution has been a substantial one, adding more than three quarters of a million
humanitarian settlers during the post-war period and perhaps many more among the family
members who have joined them under the Family Migration program, and the Australia-born
second generations. In looking to the future, however, there are a number of other aspects of
the ‘population’ contribution of humanitarian settlers which are important beyond the
numbers:
•
The humanitarian intake is the youngest of all of the major immigration streams
coming into Australia so they spend a greater proportion of their working lives in
Australia than is the case for other migrants.
•
The humanitarian intake has the lowest rate of settler loss of all of the major
streams of migrants coming into the country so a greater proportion spend their
entire working lives in the country.
•
The humanitarian intake has the largest proportion of dependent age children of
any of the major migration streams so that a higher proportion have their training in
Australia and spend their entire working lives in Australia.
While the impact of migration on ageing is limited (Young, 1994) because of the small
numbers involved and the fact that the migrants themselves also age, there can be no doubt
that migration can play an important role in offsetting the effect of ageing (United Nations,
2001). It is not the silver bullet which will counter the full impact of ageing but it can and
- 252 -
does play a role (Costello, 2004) and, in purely demographic terms, humanitarian migration
plays that role better than other migration streams.
Secondly, on the issue of participation, Australia ranks in the middle of OECD countries in
its labour force participation rates and there is considerable scope to better engage sub-groups
in the population who currently have low levels of involvement in the workforce (e.g.
disabled, indigenous, women) as one of the armoury of strategies to offset the effects of
ageing.
It is certainly true that humanitarian settlers have lower levels of workforce
participation than either the Australia-born or other migrants. However, it is clear from the
findings here that these participation rates improve over time and converge toward those of
the Australia-born with increased length of residence in Australia.
For many second
generation groups, participation levels are above Australian levels. Moreover, as is discussed
later in this paper, it is evident that appropriate policy and program intervention can
significantly enhance workforce participation rates among humanitarian settlers, even in the
earliest years of settlement in Australia. Much has been learned about the types of interaction
which are most effective in enhancing workforce participation.
In discussing participation it is important to consider not only the overall age-sex specific
proportions in the paid workforce as reflected in census and labour force data which is the
traditional way of assessing labour market performance in this area. It is necessary to
consider also three other dimensions of labour market engagement.
1.
Filling of Occupational Niches: It has been demonstrated, not only in this report but by
other authors (e.g. Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2006) that humanitarian settlers,
especially among the recently arrived, are concentrated in low skill, lowly paid,
insecure occupations.
This is usually constructed in a negative, pejorative way,
emphasising discrimination, non-recognition of skills and qualifications, lack of
integration into Australian job search networks, language and cultural barriers and
exploitation. Without question, these are all relevant and important issues which need
to be the subject of policy and program intervention, both from the perspectives of the
rights of the settlers and the economy so that their skills can be used in more
productive ways. However, this should not negate the fact that humanitarian settlers
are filling niches in the economy which are very important. Australia’s economic
growth is not just creating jobs for the highly skilled. Lower skilled jobs are an
important part of the economy as well. If humanitarian settlers were not filling these
- 253 -
demands, how would they be met? More needs to be done for humanitarian settlers
entering these jobs to be given equal opportunities for protection, in the workplace,
upward mobility, fair incomes and freedom from exploitation and discrimination.
However, this should not detract from the fact that they are filling niches in the labour
market which are important and which are not being filled from other sources. Hence
there is an important, albeit unrecognised, economic contribution.
2.
Overcoming Labour Shortages in Regional Areas:
The impacts of ageing of the
population in Australia, as elsewhere in the OECD, have been exacerbated in nonmetropolitan areas because of youth out-migration to cities. Accordingly, national
problems of labour shortage have been magnified in rural and regional areas.
Communities in these areas are threatened because of the lack of labour being
problematic for local industries and hence their economic base and the dwindling
populations lead to a diminution of services. In Australia, as elsewhere, humanitarian
settlers (and some other marginal groups) are settling outside major metropolitan
centres in greater numbers. While this is in its early stages, there is a strong indication
that international migration, and humanitarian settlers, are an important part of this and
will play an increasingly important role in regional development in Australia.
Increasing participation in regional labour markets then is another dimension of the
economic contribution of humanitarian settlers in the second ‘P’ – participation.
3.
Volunteering:
Traditional measures of labour force participation include only
engagement in the paid labour force and it is apparent that an important amount of
productive work of significance to the economy comes through unpaid work. Official
figures on volunteering suggest that migrants from culturally and linguistically diverse
(CALD) backgrounds and humanitarian settlers have lower levels of formal
volunteering than either other migrant groups or the Australia-born. However, the
evidence examined here suggests that there are important cultural factors which lead to
underreporting of volunteering among humanitarian and other CALD migrant groups.
The evidence is that humanitarian settlers are intensively participating in a range of
volunteer activities.
The third ‘P’ in the Department of Treasury trilogy is Productivity, and there are a number of
dimensions which need to be considered here. One of the findings of this and similar studies
of humanitarian groups is that they, more than other migrant groups, experience problems of
- 254 -
lack of recognition of their qualifications. The analysis presented here indicates that there is
a mismatch between the skills and qualifications of humanitarian settlers and the jobs they
hold. This would indicate that there is a significant loss of productivity as a result of these
skills not being used. The data presented here would suggest that the conventional stereotype
of humanitarian settlers being unskilled is far from the truth. While there is quite a difference
between groups, there is a considerable stock of human capital in the humanitarian group
which is not currently being fully deployed.
Another dimension of productivity which is addressed in the study is entrepreneurialism.
Humanitarian settlers have a greater propensity to be owner-operators of a business than
other immigrant groups and the Australia-born. Universally it has been found that migrants
tend to be more risk taking, entrepreneurial, able to identify business opportunities and
willing to adopt new approaches than non-migrants at either origin or destination. Moreover
they are more willing and able to utilise family labour resources and ethnic and family
networks in their business endeavours. While of course the situation varies enormously
between groups and between individuals, it seems that these unmeasurable but important
characteristics which differentiate migrants and non-migrants are disproportionately evident
among humanitarian settlers in Australia.
These characteristics are not captured in the
elements of the Points Assessment Scheme which focus on more formal qualifications. It
could be then that the humanitarian part of the migration program is disproportionately
capturing these more risk-taking entrepreneurial migrants than other parts of the program.
There is some spectacular evidence of this at the top end with five of the eight billionaires in
Australia in 2000 being of humanitarian settler background (Refugee Council of Australia,
2009) 15 , but census and survey data also show a higher than average proportion engaging in
business, much of it in small and medium enterprises, than other groups. Clearly this is
another dimension of productivity which is part of the economic contribution of humanitarian
settlers.
Other contributions to productivity which come from humanitarian settlers relate to the
strengthening of Australia’s international linkages, especially with their countries and regions
of origin. In an increasingly globalised world such connections are of major significance.
Research has indicated that international migration has an important impact on trade and the
effect on exports is greatest among migrants from CALD backgrounds.
15
In 2010, four of the top ten are of first or second generation refugee background.
Moreover,
- 255 -
humanitarian settlers in Australia remit more than other migrant groups and have a greater
positive impact on development in their countries of origin. International agencies like the
World Bank and the United Nations are drawing increasing attention to the role of diaspora
and their remittances in facilitating development in Low Income Emigration nations. The
diaspora of Australia’s recent humanitarian settlers are playing a small but increasingly
important role in reducing poverty and assisting development in their home countries.
In sum this study has demonstrated that humanitarian settlement in Australia has been, and
continues to be, an important contributor to the nation’s economic development. They have a
role to play in meeting the Intergenerational Report’s commitment to enhancing the three ‘Ps’
of productivity, participation and population in Australia. It is important to put in place
policies and programs which empower humanitarian settlers to maximise their potential to
facilitate them playing these roles.
6.3
SOCIAL AND CIVIC CONTRIBUTION
The economic contribution of humanitarian settlers to Australia is significant but it is also
important to recognise their wider impacts on the evolution and development of Australian
society. The social capital which humanitarian communities add to Australia is significant
and contributes to the strengthening of the life of the community in a number of ways. The
role of humanitarian settlers in volunteering both formally and informally is a substantial one,
contributing not only to the effective adjustment and development of their own ethnic
communities but more widely as well. It is apparent that there are different meanings and
ethnic-based understandings of the term ‘volunteer’.
This means that standard data
collections on volunteers such as that adopted in the population census do not detect much of
the unpaid work done by humanitarian settlers (Kerr, et al. 2001, Refugee Council of
Australia 2010, 52).
Much of the volunteer activity occurs outside of the formal
organisational structure.
humanitarian communities.
Community self-help structures play an important role in
- 256 -
It is apparent too that the social roles and connections of humanitarian settlers produce
substantial community capital in Australia. They have made significant contributions to
‘communication infrastructure through business development, community facilities and
diversity in cultural life (Refugee Council of Australia, 2010, 55; Lalich, 2006).
The study has brought together a substantial body of empirical evidence which has
demonstrated that humanitarian settlers in Australia have a high level of engagement both
with their own ethnic communities and with their neighbourhood community. While the
involvement is greater with their particular ethnic group and its institutions than with the
wider local community there is a clear pattern of the latter increasing with length of residence
in Australia. It is apparent that schools, community facilities like libraries and parks, sporting
organisations, day care groups and community events are especially important arenas for
social engagement of humanitarian settler groups.
6.4
THE IMPORTANCE OF A LONGER TERM PERSPECTIVE
The initial years of settlement of humanitarian settlers are often difficult and intensive in the
use of government provided support services. The circumstances of their migration make this
inevitable. Nevertheless the evidence which has been assembled here has demonstrated that
over time there is a strong pattern of not only economic and social adjustment but also of
significant contribution to the wider society and economy. This is not to say there are not
minorities who get stuck in an underclass situation who find it difficult to adjust and achieve
upward mobility. These groups are a cause for concern and must be the target of appropriate
policy. Nevertheless the overwhelming picture when one takes the longer term perspective of
changes over the working lifetime of settlers, and also considering their children, is one of
considerable achievement and contribution. This progress needs to be seen as more than a
convergence toward the Australian average in indicators such as unemployment, labour force
participation, income, housing, volunteering, education, etcetera. There is also an element of
distinctiveness about the contribution – there are dimensions which add more than human
capital. For example, it has been demonstrated that humanitarian settlers in Australia are
more likely than migrants from other visa categories within Australia’s immigration stream to
demonstrate the entrepreneurial and risk taking attributes which are often associated with
migrants.
They concentrate in particular occupational niches where there are worker
- 257 -
shortages and they are increasingly moving to regional localities suffering chronic labour
shortages. Moreover, they add a distinctively different cultural diversity and cultural capital
elements to Australian society.
6.5
POSITIVE RECEPTION AND RESETTLEMENT AS A FOUNDATION FOR
CONTRIBUTION
A major theme in the qualitative analysis included in the present study was the key role
which effective settlement services can and do play in facilitating the transition to the stage
where humanitarian settlers are able to contribute economically and socially. It is apparent
that the current services have been important in facilitating the adjustment of settlers.
However, the respondents made a number of suggestions for enhancement of these services.
Every refugee and humanitarian entrant comes to Australia under exceedingly different
circumstances and experiences settlement very differently; the settlement experiences differ
both across and within communities. Across all experiences however, there is an expectation
among settlers of upward mobility. While key informants praised the strengths of the services
presented under the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Services (IHSS) and Settlement
Grants Program (SGP), many also emphasized the need to shift away from the current service
delivery model which they believe is based on a welfare paradigm. The alternative pathway
would entail a community empowerment model which would focus on developing the
capacity of the community and build upon the strengths and confidence of its members.
Key informants who themselves had come from refugee backgrounds, noted that there was a
significant emphasis during IHSS on achieving independence. While it is critical that
settlement agencies and migrant resource centres move away from a paternalistic welfare
focused model, it is equally important that refugees and humanitarian migrants are not shifted
to mainstream agencies that ignore people’s diverse and unique needs. Australian
resettlement practices need to engage principles of social inclusion and multiculturalism in
order to facilitate the contribution of first generation and new arrival refugee and
humanitarian entrants.
- 258 -
IHSS provide initial intensive settlement support to newly arrived refugees and humanitarian
entrants. Generally, IHSS delivers assistance to refugees and humanitarian entrants within the
first 6 months of their arrival. This period is critical to determining how an individual’s
settlement period will be. It includes (a) in kind support (b) case management and
coordination (c) torture-trauma services (d) temporary accommodation and (e) case
management and coordination.
IHSS aims to promote the competence of humanitarian entrants and help them to achieve
self-sufficiency as soon as possible by providing specialized services based on an assessment
of needs. IHSS was established on the basis of past experience that revealed the integration of
humanitarian entrants into structures of Australian society is more problematic in virtually
every aspect, due partly to their often traumatic pre-arrival experiences and partly to the
considerable cultural distance between Australia and their countries of origin (Colic-Peisker
2009). While Migrant Resource Centres (MRCs) and settlement groups praised various
aspects of IHSS, particularly its orientation focus, they also pointed out several problems
based on funding issues and the program’s broad approach. They also suggested mechanisms
for improvement:
•
The program is structured in a way where MRCs and settlement agencies
contracted to provide IHSS are paid to perform specific functions, and will
therefore focus on these. In addition, the funding structure of both programs has
encouraged competition rather than collaboration in a sector which requires
concerted efforts to provide services.
•
The quality of the services delivered under IHSS varies across agencies. This has
implications for how successfully the program is delivered. Many organizations
reported that they were only able to allocate new arrival families one settlement
officer for around one week within the first six months. For many people coming
from rural backgrounds where western-style household tasks are unfamiliar (for
example, flushing a toilet), this short period is inadequate.
•
A key example is that while clients are provided with information about housing
and tenancy under the IHSS, it is not realistic to expect those who have never
experienced the rental market to be able to negotiate a new lease in this short-time
frame. What may be required is a worker to accompany them to real estate agents
- 259 -
to ensure that their rights are being protected and they are receiving the correct
information about both their rights and responsibilities
•
This mainstreaming approach of IHSS fails to take into account the specific needs
of different communities according to factors such as country of origin; time spent
in refugee camps; education levels of individuals and whether they have had rural
or urban-based experiences prior to migrating. Almost all key informants noted that
for many refugees coming from countries significantly different to Australia, the
orientation program within IHSS was problematic because it was not tailored to
individual or even community’s specific needs. For families coming from long
periods in refugee camps, information around rental rights and finding employment
was less important in the immediate weeks than basic information about crossing
roads and public transport.
•
In order to remedy this gap, there should be a focus on providing specifically
tailored services under IHSS such as services oriented specifically at young people,
or women and men, or aged and elderly. Category specific assessments under IHSS
(i.e. youth specific etcetera) should be performed.
•
Complex Case Support (CCS) was implemented in October 2008 and has been
welcomed by MRCs and settlement agencies. This support is available for refugees
with particular complex and difficult circumstances. Under the new IHSS, this is
available for up to 5 years and to refugees and humanitarian entrants who have
come in under different visa categories. Non-government organisations (NGOs)
can refer clients to CCS and many have registered to be CCS providers.
•
Trauma and counselling services are a pivotal and appreciated aspect of the IHSS
program. However, several key informants from resettlement agencies questioned
the tight time framework in which these services were offered. While many new
arrivals have experienced trauma and persecution prior to their migration, they
demonstrate a high degree of resilience in the post arrival period. They identify
their main needs in the first six months of arrival as relating to finding housing and
employment or education as well as sending remittances to family overseas.
Counselling and mental health services are critical, but key informants pointed out
through their own work experiences, they are not at the forefront of many
humanitarian migrants needs in the first six months of arrival. For many refugees
- 260 -
and humanitarian entrants, mental health issues often re-emerged after basic needs
– such as employment and accommodation – had been met. Regularly this can
extend beyond the 5-year period after arrival and often mental health issues
resurface and are directed into the family. Several key informants who migrated as
refugees observed that it often took years for them to psychologically process
traumatic experiences that they experienced pre-migration. Waiting lists for torture
and trauma services are also long after the first year of arrival.
•
Related to this, while refugees who have experienced torture and trauma must have
the right to services which address this if they choose, these experiences should not
be placed at the forefront of Australia’s resettlement paradigm and IHSS. In other
words refugees and humanitarian entrants should not be treated solely or even
primarily as victims of suffering who need ongoing and acute assistance for their
experiences overseas. What is required is an acknowledgement of how reception
and resettlement can serve to re-traumatize or even traumatize individuals and
families if it is not experienced in a way that facilitates immediate opportunities to
engage with the labour force and broader community.
•
In this context, several key informants maintained that IHSS works on a welfare
based model. It assumes that refugees are victims of their experiences and fails to
acknowledge their resilience, strength and determination to succeed within their
new host country.
•
There are limited channels of complaint into service delivery for refugees.
Refugees and humanitarian entrants often feel reluctant or fearful to make a
complaint and often do not have adequate or correct knowledge of what they are
entitled to. One key informant for example noted that individuals from most
African communities had a real fear of being returned to their country of origin,
and they worry that any criticisms they make about services they are using will
affect future intakes from their country of origin.
•
The new Humanitarian Settlement Services (HSS) will expand on the IHSS to
include more services and a new orientation process. The new orientation process
comprises an overseas and on-shore component, the latter of which is more
intensive.
- 261 -
Key informants noted that like IHSS, SGP community capacity programs are funded in such
a way that they encourage competition rather than co-operation between different agencies.
This has the effect of diminishing the capacity of communities as funding is granted within
communities on a competitive basis. The high degree of competition between different NGOs
servicing refugees under SGP has other implications. For instance, settlement agencies
described extensive confusion among refugee clients about what services are available and
from where.
Key informants also noted that the SGP funding cycle is problematic for two other reasons.
First, the one-year time frame is too short for effective implementation. Many stressed that
one year is inadequate to design and implement, let alone evaluate programs. Within the oneyear time frame, agencies also have to re-tender for the following year’s SGP – taking
extensive time – and therefore compounding the difficulties of implementation. Second, the
re-tendering process makes it difficult to sustain effective programs due to funding insecurity
and uncertainty. This makes it extremely difficult to plan for long-term settlement needs
particularly as the regional composition of intakes may change from year to year. Key
informants across several MRCs noted that sustainability of programs was highly problematic
and needed reform. Housing and accommodation remains one of the biggest issues under the
SGP. Under the SGP, funded agencies are able to provide short-term accommodation for
newly arrived refugees and humanitarian entrants; however, there is no scope for any longer
term housing. Consequently clients often come back to the agency for housing assistance
after the first 6 months looking for longer term and more secure housing. Housing is an acute
issue for newly arrived communities due to their resistance to moving to outer suburbs
because of transport issues and scarce employment opportunities.
In addressing some of the issues highlighted above, key informants made the following
recommendations:
•
Humanitarian settlement services should shift away from a welfare oriented model
to one which focuses on empowerment and flexibility. The focus should be on
harnessing the social capital that these migrants possess.
- 262 -
•
The implementation of IHSS should be shared across Commonwealth and State
agencies. At the national level for example the Departments of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations; Families, Housing, Community Services
and Indigenous Affairs; Health and Ageing and Human Services all play a role in
delivering services that are required by new arrivals. While these agencies should
take on greater responsibilities for refugees and humanitarian entrants, they should
also be funded to deliver appropriate services in a culturally sensitive way that
considers the specific needs of these migrants.
•
A line of ethno-specific funding under the IHSS and SGP stream which focuses on
building capacity and addresses the needs of specific ethnic groups in a way which
is economically viable. Multicultural services need to re-introduce ethno-specific
principles to ensure that services are based on a combination of mainstream and
ethno-specific services. Funding should be according to numbers and need.
•
Commonwealth, State and local governments need to encourage acceptance of, and
respect for, people from different ethnic, national, religious, cultural and linguistic
backgrounds. Education and awareness raising campaigns must be developed to
promote notions of inclusiveness and cohesion in the way we shape our future.
6.6
CONCLUSION
Australia’s contribution to the important global task of resettling refugees in third countries
during the last half century has been greater in relation to our national population than any
other OECD country. This has been, and continues to be, an important element in Australia’s
role as a responsible, caring global citizen. However, it is important also to recognise that
Australia has experienced a substantial gain from this policy which has rightly been driven by
ethical and humanitarian concerns.
This study has sought to bring together the extant
empirical evidence which indicates the scale and nature of the contribution which
humanitarian settlers have made to Australia’s economy and society over the last few
decades.
Despite problems of lack of comprehensive, representative and relevant data
sources, it is apparent that the contribution of humanitarian settlers has been substantial.
There are difficulties which most humanitarian settlers experience in the early years of
- 263 -
settlement but most are able to adjust effectively and converge toward the Australian average
levels of economic and social contribution.
Indeed many pass these levels and this is
especially the case for the second generation. This study has demonstrated that the economic,
social and civic contribution of humanitarian settlers to Australia has not only been a major
one but it includes distinctive elements which are specific to their contribution. They will be
an important part of the Australian response to the challenges posed by an ageing population.
While it is important to recognise this major contribution of humanitarian settlers, it is crucial
that the dominant motivation of Australia’s policy of including a strong refugee-humanitarian
stream in its migration program should remain the national humanitarian concern for people
who have been forcibly displaced from their homeland.
This is important not only to
Australia’s global role but it is part of an Australian culture of concern for people in distress
and for giving people a ‘fair go’.
- 264 -
APPENDIX I: INSTRUCTION PROVIDED TO ORGANISATIONS AND
RESPONDENTS
- 265 -
Invitation to participate in research
The Experiences of First and Second Generation Humanitarian Entrants in
Australia
Thank you for your interest in this research project. This research project is being undertaken by the
University of Adelaide and funded by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC).
We are interested in understanding the different and valuable ways in which humanitarian migrants
have contributed to Australia’s society and economy over the past twenty five years. The project aims
to gain information about the factors that have allowed people who have come into Australia on refugee
and humanitarian visas to make positive contributions – through employment, volunteer work, their
skills and knowledge and role within their own communities.
We want to learn about the opportunities you have had in Australia as well as the barriers that have
made settlement difficult.
A key part of this project is a questionnaire. This comprises multiple choice questions about your
settlement experience in Australia and the ways in which you have experienced work, education,
community and family life since migrating here.
We are interested in people to complete the questionnaire who:
•
are aged 18 years or above
•
have migrated to Australia as a refugee or humanitarian migrant in the last 5 – 25 years
•
OR who are the children of one or both humanitarian migrants (who have migrated to Australia
in the past 5 – 25 years)
IF YOU MATCH THESE CRITERIA, AND ARE INTERESTED IN TAKING PART PLEASE NOTE:
•
The information you provide will be completely confidential; your name or personal details will
not be used in the research results;
•
The survey will take about 20 – 30 minutes to complete.
•
You will need to return the questionnaire directly to the coordinating organisation
- 266 -
Your participation will be extremely helpful for DIAC and community organisations in developing new
ideas to help current and future refugees in Australia to have positive settlement experiences and be
able to contribute to the wider economy and society. Thank you for your assistance.
If you have any questions or would like to be involved please contact Dr. Sanjugta Vas Dev, (08) 8303
4598, sanjugta.vasdev@adelaide.edu.au OR please let the head of your organisation know.
- 267 -
THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE
STANDARD CONSENT FORM
FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE PARTICIPANTS IN A RESEARCH PROJECT
1.
I, ………………………………………………………………
(please print name OR ID NUMBER )
consent to take part in the research project entitled: ‘Economic, social and civic
contributions of first & second generation humanitarian entrants’.
2.
I acknowledge that I have read the attached Information Sheet.
3.
I have had the project, so far as it affects me, fully explained to my satisfaction by the research
worker. My consent is given freely.
4.
I have been given the opportunity to have a member of my family or a friend present while the
project was explained to me.
5.
I have been informed that, while information gained during the study may be published, I will
not be identified and my personal results will not be divulged.
6.
I understand that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time.
7.
I am aware that I should retain a copy of this Consent Form, when completed, and the attached
Information Sheet.
………………………………………………………………………………………………...
(signature)
(date)
WITNESS
I have described to ……………………………………………………..
(name of subject)
the nature of the research to be carried out. In my opinion she/he understood the explanation.
Status in Project: ...........................................................................................................
Name: ............................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
(signature)
(date)
- 268 -
INFORMATION SHEET FOR CO-ORDINATING ORGANISATIONS
Thank you for assisting us in the research project ‘Economic, Social and Civic Contributions of
First and Second Generation Humanitarian Entrants’.
This project is being run by the University of Adelaide and was commissioned by DIAC as a project of
national significance. A key component of the research involves gathering data from first and second
generation humanitarian entrants in metropolitan and regional areas Australia wide.
We are interested in participants from a wide cross-section of countries who have a range of
employment/business and education experiences.
As part of this project we have designed a questionnaire comprising multiple choice questions for
humanitarian migrants who have been living in Australia for between 5 and 25 years (that is who
arrived between 1984 and 2004). We are also interested in second generation migrants – that is
people who have one or more parents who came into Australia as a refugee.
This questionnaire has been developed to elicit information about participants’ pre-migration
educational and employment experiences; their settlement experience in Australia and their post
settlement experiences with regards to issues such as employment, education and voluntary work. It
has also been designed to find out about the experiences of second generation migrants. The
questionnaire should take approximately 30 minutes to complete.
Organisations will be required to:
(a) recruit participants based on the criteria below
(b) guide participants through the questionnaire if required and
(c) collect and return completed questionnaires by post to the University of Adelaide (postal
costs will be reimbursed); organisations will receive a nominal payment of $30 per completed
questionnaire.
While we will leave it to each organisation to decide the best ways to identify participants and coordinate distribution of the questionnaire, we hope that the following points are useful in guiding you:
1. Selection of Participants
- 269 -
Participants should:
9 Be 18 years or over;
9 Have arrived as first generation migrants who have come on a humanitarian/refugee visa OR
be the children of migrants who have come in as refugees;
9 Have been in Australia for between 5 and 25 years (that is they should have arrived between
1984 and 2004);
9 Have a level of English which is sufficient to complete the questionnaire AND
9 Come from one of the countries identified in Question 5 of the questionnaire.
2. Working with Participants to complete the Questionnaire
The coordinating organisation should:
9 Complete the details on page 2 of each questionnaire (i.e. date, name of staff member
responsible and name of organisation);
9 Ensure that the names of participants are recorded against the id numbers on the front of the
questionnaire. We will supply you with a records sheet to do this. You should keep this sheet
until you receive payment.
9 Ensure that all participants have a copy of the information sheet, consent form and complaints
form prior to completing the questionnaire. The complaints form gives participants the details
of the contact person at the University of Adelaide, should they wish to raise any concerns
regarding the conduct of the research project;
9 Ensure that participants know: (a) the purpose of the project (b) how to fill in the questionnaire
and (c) that their names or personal details will not be supplied to the University of Adelaide or
any other organisation (i.e. the information they provide is confidential);
9 Ensure that participants know that you are there to help them if they have any
queries/questions about the questionnaire.
9 Ensure that participants return the completed questionnaire AND the consent form to
you;
3. Guidelines to assist Participants in completing the Questionnaire
In providing information and instructions to participants about completing the
questionnaire, please ensure that the following points are communicated:
9 The Questionnaire will take about 30 minutes to complete;
- 270 -
9 The Questionnaire includes multiple choice questions which cover topics such as ‘You and
Your Family’, ‘Your Experiences Prior to Settling in Australia’ ‘Your Employment and Education
Experiences in Australia’ and ‘Your Social and Cultural experiences in Australia’;
9 It is ESSENTIAL that participants read each question and complete all questions relevant to
them
9 Some of the questions may not be applicable; for example if someone is studying or
unemployed they would not need to fill in questions about employment experiences. If this is
the case please tick the option ‘Do not know/Don’t want to answer’;
9 Part 2 and some of Part 3 are for first generation migrants only; Part 8 is for second generation
migrants only. The rest of the questionnaire is for everyone to complete.
9 Participants have the option of NOT answering a question if they do not want to. If this is the
case please tick the option ‘Do not know/Don’t want to answer’; Participants should also tick
this box if the question not applicable.
9 All the information participants provide is confidential; participants will remain anonymous;
9 Thank them for their time in participating and let them know researchers contact details for any
queries or comments;
9 If participants would like to access the findings of the research, direct them to the contact sheet
provided.
4. Guidelines for returning Questionnaires
After participants complete the questionnaire, coordinating organisations should:
9 Ensure that you have a record of ID numbers (supplied on questionnaires) matched against
the names & contact details of participants for your own records (record sheet supplied)
9 Return questionnaires by post to the University of Adelaide: Dr Sanjugta Vas Dev, Australian
Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide, Level 4, 230 North Terrace, ADELAIDE
SA 5005;
9 We will ensure that each questionnaire is completed and follow-up with you if required;
9 Once any missing data is retrieved, please invoice the University of Adelaide for completed
surveys and any postage costs incurred. The invoice should include the organisations ABN.
PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT WILL ONLY BE ISSUED FOR FULLY COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES
¾ For queries, please contact Sanjugta Vas Dev sanjugta.vasdev@adelaide.edu.au or on (08) 8303
4598
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE! IT IS MUCH APPRECIATED!
- 271 -
5. Web version of the Questionnaire
We are currently in the process of making the questionnaire accessible online. I would
like to hear your views about how we could use the web to access people who might not
be able to come in to your offices to complete the questionnaire and how online access
might make distribution easier for you!
- 272 -
- 273 -
- 274 -
APPENDIX II:
THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
- 275 -
- 276 -
- 277 -
- 278 -
- 279 -
- 280 -
- 281 -
- 282 -
- 283 -
- 284 -
- 285 -
- 286 -
- 287 -
- 288 -
- 289 -
- 290 -
- 291 -
- 292 -
- 293 -
- 294 -
- 295 -
- 296 -
- 297 -
- 298 -
APPENDIX III:
OFFICIAL KEY INFORMANTS
Key Informants from South Australia
Ms. Dawn Aubuchon
Mr. Tarik Beden
Mrs Noor Brink
Ms. Catherine Cole
Ms. Sandra Dzafic
Mr. Loc Doan
Mr Derek Guymer
Ms. Margaret Hess
Mr Craig Heidenreich
Ms. Vivien Hope
Ms. Margo Johnston
Mr Seng Kong
Ms Ayen Kuol
Mr Roger Lean
Mr. Peter Laintoll
Mr Peter Lawrie
Mr Kevin Liston
Ms Nikki Marcel
Dr Julie Robinson
Ms Jane Rodeghiero
Ms. Patricia Rios
Mr. Matthew Rudd
Ms Elizabeth Sakora
Mr Sian Thang
Ms Euginia Tsoulis
Mr Hieu Van Le
Manager, LM Training Specialists Pty Ltd
President, Iraqi Community Cultural Association of SA
Muslim Women's Association of SA
Case Worker, African Women's Program, Australian
refugee Association
Manager Client Services, Australian Refugee
Association
President, Vietnamese Community in Australia (SA
Chapter)
Employment, Business Development Consultant,
Australian Refugee Association
Community Capacity Development Team Leader,
Families and Communities, Government of South
Australia
Manager Community Development, Australian Refugee
Association
Executive Officer, Multicultural Communities Council
Sector Development Officer, Shelter SA
President, Cambodian Association of South Australia
African Women's Federation of SA
Manager Community and Government Relations,
Multicultural SA
Chief Executive Officer, Australian Refugee
Association
Employment Services Manager, ARA Jobs
Community Liaison Worker, Department for Families
and Communities, Government of South Australia
Program Manager, Radio Adelaide
Flinders University of South Australia
Family Support Project Officer, Australian Refugee
Association
Cultural Project Worker (Mental Health), Carers SA
Program Manager, Youth Jet (New Arrivals
Employment and Education Settlement Project)
Cultural Development Officer, Marion City Council
Pastor/P President, Burmese Christian Community of
SA
Executive Director, Migrant Resource Centre of South
Australia
Lieutenant Governor of South Australia and SA
Multicultural & Ethnic Affairs Commission
- 299 -
Key Informants from Queensland
Mr David Barton
Mr Andrew Bartlett
Ms Kerin Benson
Ms Kareena Clifford
Mr. David Hamlet
Ms. Jatinder Kaur
Ms Mitra Khakbaz
Mr Michael Kraft
Ms. Lilly Matich
Ms. Mercedes Sepulveda
Ms. Freddie Steen
Dr. Sandrine Therese
Mr. Bobby Whitfield
Multicultural Community Worker, Community Action
for a Multicultural Society Program
Policy and Advocacy Consultant , Ethnic Community
Council of Queensland
Chief Executive Officer , Multicultural Development
Association
Community Development Coordinator-Diversity ,
Brisbane City Council
Manager, Skilled and Business Migration, Migration
Economic Unit, Department of Employment, Education
and Innovation, Government of Queensland
Multicultural Affairs Queensland
Executive Manager, Community Engagement,
Multicultural Development Association
Director Economic Participation and Development,
ACCES Services Inc.
Program Coordinator, Community Employment
Programs, Brisbane City Council
Manager, Settlement Support and Community
Engagement, MultiLink Community Services
Romero Centre
Senior Policy Officer, Economic Unit, Department of
Employment, Education and Innovation, Government of
Queensland.
Senior Community Development Officer, Multicultural
Development Association; Board Member, Refugee
Council of Australia; Member, Queensland
Government Multicultural Community Advisory
Committee
Key Informants from New South Wales
Ms. Ricci Bartel
Ms. Cheryl Bossler
Ms. Julianne Christie
Mr Andrew Cummings
Ms. Maja Frolic
Mr. Mosa Gherjestani
Mr Atef Hamie,
Dr Gary Yia Lee
Ms.Lucy Morgan
Mr Paul Power
Ms. Deena Yako
Ms Violet Roumeliotis
Co-ordinator, Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre
Place Manager Cabramatta, Fairfield City Council
Senior Policy Advisor -Economic Development,
Fairfield City Council
Executive Officer, Settlement Council of Australia
Member, Bosnian Community in Sydney
Vice President, Hazara Council of Australia Inc.
Humanitarian & Refugee Post IHSS Project Officer,
Metro Migrant Resource Centre
Bilingual Welfare Service, Cabramatta Community
Centre
Policy Officer, Refugee Council of Australia
Chief Executive Officer, Refugee Council of Australia
Iraqi Settlement Worker, Fairfield Migrant Resource
Centre
Executive Director, Metro Migrant Resource Centre
- 300 -
Key Informants from Victoria
Mr Ross Barnett
Mr Khaliq Fazal
Ms. Sue Herbst
Mr Ramesh Kumar
Ms. Leah Nichles,
Ms. Soo-Lin Quek
Dr Melika Yassin Sheikh-Eldin
Ms. Sonia Vignjevic
Mr Andrew Waugh-Young
Director, Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria
Chairman, The Afghan Australian Association of
Victoria
Manager, Migrant Information Centre, Eastern
Melbourne
Acting General Manager, Settlement, AMES
Director, Settlement and Multicultural Affairs,
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, State
Government of Victoria
Manager, Research and Policy, Centre for Multicultural
Youth
Manager Settlement Partnerships, Settlement Division,
AMES
Manager, Settlement & Family Services, Spectrum
Migrant Resource Centre
Senior Policy Officer, Victorian Multicultural
Commission
Key Informants from Western Australia
Ms. Veronica Bannon
Ms. Jolene Chua
Ms. Denise Bertilone
Dr Farida Tilbury Fozdar
Ms. Lynne Fisher
Mr. Paranthaman Kuppusamy
Mr Michael O'Hara
Ms. Maria Osman,
Dr Megan Paull
Mr Ramdas Sankaran
Ms. Anita Tuzlukovic
Ms. Jenny Au Yeong,
Manager (A/g), Settlement and Multicultural Affairs
Branch, Department of Immigration and Citizenship
SGM & Community Liaison Officer, Settlement &
Multicultural Affairs Department of Immigration and
Citizenship
Research & Project Officer, Volunteers WA
WA Migration Research Network, Murdoch University
Department of Communities, Government of WA
Advocacy Officer, Ethnic Disability Advocacy Centre
Director, Metropolitan Migrant Resource Centre
Executive Director, Office of Multicultural Interests
Murdoch Business School, Murdoch University
Executive Director of the Multicultural Services Centre
of WA
Settlement Grants Program Coordinator, Freemantle
Multicultural Centre
Chief Executive Officer, Ethnic Disability Advocacy
Centre
- 301 -
APPENDIX IV:
Visa
Visa
Class
Subclass
HUMANITARIAN VISAS
Subclass Description
Start Date*
Repeal Date*
26/09/2001
BA (P)
200
Refugee
01/09/1994
XB (P)
200
Refugee
27/09/2001
BA (P)
201
In-country special humanitarian
01/09/1994
XB (P)
201
In-country special humanitarian
27/09/2001
BA (P)
202
Global special humanitarian
01/09/1994
XB (P)
202
Global special humanitarian
27/09/2001
BA (P)
203
Emergency rescue
01/09/1994
XB (P)
203
Emergency rescue
27/09/2001
BA (P)
204
Woman at risk
01/09/1994
XB (P)
204
Woman at risk
27/09/2001
AF (P)
205
Camp Clearance
01/09/1994
01/11/1997
206
Lebanese Concession
19/12/1989
31/08/1994
BF (P)
207
Soviet Concession
19/12/1989
31/08/1994
AM (P)
208
East Timorese SAC
01/09/1994
01/11/1997
AI (P)
209
Citizens of the former Yugoslavia
01/09/1994
01/11/2000
26/09/2001
26/09/2001
26/09/2001
26/09/2001
(displaced persons)
AV (P)
210
Minorities of former USSR
01/09/1994
01/07/1999
AB (P)
211
Burmese in Burma
01/09/1994
01/11/2000
BD (P)
212
Sudanese
01/09/1994
01/11/2000
AC (P)
213
Burmese in Thailand
01/09/1994
01/11/2000
AE (P)
214
Cambodian SAC
01/09/1994
01/11/1997
BG (P)
215
Sri Lankan (special assistance)
09/01/1995
01/11/2000
BJ (P)
216
Ahmadi
01/11/1995
01/11/2000
BK (P)
217
Vietnamese
01/11/1995
01/07/1999
(P) = Permanent, (T) = Temporary
* Please note that some visa subclasses included in this list are no longer granted but may still be in
operation
- 302 -
REFERENCES
Adams, W., 1968. The Brain Drain, Macmillan, New York.
Agunias, D.R. (ed.), 2009. Closing the Distance: How Governments Strengthen Ties with
Their Diasporas, Migration Policy Institute, Washington DC.
Alba, R.D. and Nee, V., 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and the
New Immigration, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Asal, H., 2008. Les Premières Mobilisations d’Immigrants Arabes au Canada, à Travers
l’Exemple du Journal, The Canadian Arab, 1945-1948, Journal of International
Migration and Integration, 9, 1, pp. 1-19.
Asian Development Bank, 2004. Developing the Diaspora. Paper presented at Third Coordination Meeting on International Migration, Population Division, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, New York, 27-28 October.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1984.
The Measurement of Ethnicity in the Australian
Census of Population and Housing. Report to the Australian Statistician by the 1986
Population Census Ethnicity Committee, Cat. No. 2172.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1988. Estimated Resident Population by Country of birth,
Age and Sex, Australia, 1988, Cat. No. 3221.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1990. The Economic Status of Migrants in Australia, Bureau
of Immigration Research, AGPS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1994a. Testing of Ethnic Origin Questions for the 1996
Census. Census Working Paper 94/4. http://www.abs.gov.au.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1994b. Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics of
Migrants, Australia, Cat. No. 6250.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997. Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics of
Migrants, Australia, Cat. No. 6250.0, ABS, Canberra.
- 303 -
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000. Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics of
Migrants, Australia, Cat. No. 6250.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002. Small Business in Australia, Cat. No. 1321.0, ABS,
Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005a. Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics of
Migrants, Australia, Cat. No. 6250.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005b. Characteristics of Small Business, Cat. No. 8127.0,
ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006. How Australia Takes a Census, 2006, Cat. No. 2903.0,
ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007.
Australian Demographic Statistics, December
Quarter, Cat. No. 3101.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008. Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics of
Migrants, Australia, Cat. No. 6250.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009. Assessing the Quality of Linking Migrant Settlement
Records to Census Data, Cat. No. 1351.0.55.027, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010a. Labour Force Australia, Cat. No. 6202.0, ABS,
Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010b. Perspectives on Migrants, June 2010, Cat. No.
3416.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2006. Economic Impacts of Migration
and Population Growth, Productivity Commission Research Report, 24 April.
Australian Population and Immigration Council (APIC), 1979.
Population Report 3,
Australian Population and Immigration Council, Canberra.
Australian Survey Research Group Pty Ltd, 2010. Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals –
Report of findings, Study for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
- 304 -
Bakalis, S. and Joiner, T.A., 2006. The Role of Ethnic Networks in Export Activities: The
Case of Australia’, Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship
Development, 3, 1/2, pp. 85-108.
Barraket, J., 2007. Pathways to Employment for Migrants and Refugees? The Case of Social
Enterprise, The Australian Sociological Association.
Bean, F.D. and Brown, S.K., 2010. Exclusionary Dynamics and Incorporation Outcomes in
the United States: Comparative Theoretical Implications.
Paper presented at
Conference on ‘Immigration in Harder Times: The United States and Australia’,
Monash University Prato Centre, Prato, Italy, 23-25 May.
Bedford, R. and Hugo, G., 2008. International Migration in a Sea of Islands: Challenges and
Opportunities for Insular Pacific Spaces, Population Studies Centre Discussion
Papers, No. 69, July, University of Waikato.
Blainey, G., 1994. Melting Pot on the Boil, The Bulletin, 30 August, pp. 22-27.
Bonacich, E. and Modell, J., 1980. The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: Small Business
in the Japanese American Community, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los
Angeles, London.
Brotherhood of St. Laurence, 2005.
Closing the Gap for TPV Refugees in Victoria,
Ecumenical Migration Centre, Brotherhood of St. Laurence, Victoria.
Brubaker, R., 2001. The Return of Assimilation? Changing Perspectives on Immigration and
Its Sequels in France, Germany, and the United States, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24,
pp. 531-548.
Bryant, J., Murat, G. and David, L., 2004. Trade Flows and Migration to New Zealand,
Working Paper 04/18, New Zealand Treasury, Wellington.
Burnley, I., 1982. Lebanese Migration and Settlement in Sydney, Australia, International
Migration Review, 16, 1, pp. 102-132.
Burnley, I.H., 1989. Settlement Dimensions of the Vietnam-Born Population in Metropolitan
Sydney, Australian Geographical Studies, 27, 2, pp. 129-154.
- 305 -
Burnley, I. and Murphy, P. (eds.), 2004. Sea Change: Movement from Metropolitan to
Arcadian Australia, UNSW Press, Sydney.
Cassis, Y. and Minoglou, I.P. (eds.), 2005.
Entrepreneurship in Theory and History,
Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Castles, S., Collins, J., Gibson, K., Tait, D. and Alcorso, C., 1991. The Global Milkbar and
the Local Sweatshop: Ethnic Small Business and the Economic Restructuring of
Sydney, Working Papers in Multiculturalism No. 2, Centre for Multicultural Studies,
University of Wollongong, Australia.
Chiswick, B.R. and Miller, P.W., 2007. Earnings and Occupational Attainment: Immigrants
and the Native Born, Discussion Paper, Business School, University of Western
Australia.
Civitillo, J., forthcoming. Ethnicity in Soccer Leagues in South Australia, Victoria and New
South Wales.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Geographical and
Environmental Studies, University of Adelaide.
Cobb-Clark, D.A., 2006a.
Technical Appendix: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to
Australia, pp. 213-218 in D.A. Cobb-Clark and S-E Khoo, Public Policy and
Immigrant Settlement, Edward Elgar.
Cobb-Clark, D.A., 2006b.
Selection Policy and the Labour Market Outcomes of New
Immigrants, pp. 27-52 in D.A. Cobb-Clark and S.E. Khoo (eds.), Public Policy and
Immigrant Settlement, Edward Elgar.
Cobb-Clark, D.A. and Khoo, S-E, 2006. Public Policy and Immigrant Settlement, Edward
Elgar.
Colic-Peisker, V. and Tilbury, F., 2003. ‘Active’ and ‘Passive’ Resettlement: The Influence
of Support Services and Refugees’ Own Resources on Resettlement Style,
International Migration, 41, 5, pp. 61-91.
Colic-Peisker, V. and Tilbury, F., 2006. Employment Niches for Recent Refugees: Segmented
Labour Market in Twenty First Century Australia. http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/
content/abstract/19/2/203.
- 306 -
Colic-Peisker, V. and Tilbury, F., 2007. Refugees and Employment: The Effect of Visible
Difference on Discrimination: Final Report. Murdoch University, Western Australia.
http://www.cscr.murdoch.edu.au/_docs/refugeesandemployment.pdf.
Colic-Peisker, V., 2009. The ‘Visibly Different’ Refugees in the Australian Labour Market:
Settlement Policies and Employment Realities, in S. McKay (ed.), Refugees, Recent
Migrants and Employment: Challenging Barriers and Exploring Pathways,
Routledge, New York.
Collins, J., 1996. Ethnic Small Business and Employment Creation in Australia in the 1990s.
Working Paper No. 71, School of Finance and Economics, University of Technology
Sydney.
Collins, J., 2009. Sydney’s Cronulla Riots: The Context and Implications, pp. 27-43 in G.
Noble, Lines in the Sand: The Cronulla Riots, Multiculturalsim and National
Belonging, The Institute of Criminology Series 28, Sydney.
Collins, J., 2010. Immigrants, Income Distribution, Spatial Patterns and the Global Financial
Crisis in Australia. Paper presented at Conference on ‘Immigration in Harder Times:
The United States and Australia’, Monash University Prato Centre, Prato, Italy, 23-25
May.
Collins, J., Gibson, K., Alcorso, C., Castles, S. and Tait, D., 1995. Shop Full of Dreams:
Ethnic Small Business in Australia, Pluto Press, Leichhardt.
Connor, P., 2010. Explaining the Refugee Gap: Economic Outcomes of Refugees versus
Other Immigrants, Oxford University Press.
Convy, P. and Monsour, A., 2008. Lebanese Settlement in New South Wales: A Thematic
History, Migration Heritage Centre, New South Wales.
Costello, P., 2004. Australia’s Demographic Challenges. Discussion Paper, 25 February,
28 pp.
Cotis, J-P., 2005. Challenges of Demographics. Policy Network Spring Retreat, Survey,
11-12 March.
- 307 -
Cottone , C., 2005. New Kids on the Block: Making Space for Sudanese Young People in
Queensland, Youth Affairs Network of Queensland.
Couton, P. and Gaudet, S., 2008. Rethinking Social Participation: The Case of Immigrants in
Canada, Journal of International Migration and Integration, 9, 1, pp. 21-44.
De Haas, H., 2005.
International Migration, Remittances and Development: Myths and
Facts, Third World Quarterly, 26, 8, pp. 1269-1284.
Department for International Development (DFID), 1997. White Paper on International
Development, Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century.
Department for International Development (DFID), 2007. Moving Out of Poverty - Making
Migration Work Better for Poor People, Policy Paper, DFID, London.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Department of
Immigration and Citizenship (DEEWR and DIAC), 2009. Select Skills: Principles for
a New Migration Occupations in Demand List, Issues Paper No. 1, August.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), 2008.
Vietnam Country Profile.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/vietnam/vietnam_brief.html.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), 2006.
Longitudinal Survey of
Immigrants to Australia, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/research/lsia/index.htm last
accessed 10/12/06, cited in J. Barraket, 2007.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), 2007. Annual Report 2006-07, AGPS,
Canberra.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), 2009a. Annual Report 2008-09, AGPS,
Canberra.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), 2009b. Refugee and Humanitarian
Issues: Australia’s Response, AGPS, Canberra.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). Immigration Update, various issues,
AGPS, Canberra.
- 308 -
Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC).
Population Flows: Immigration
Aspects, various issues, AGPS, Canberra.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), 1999. Longitudinal Survey of
Immigrants to Australia, User Documentation for August 1999 Release of Unit
Record Data, Wave 1, 2 and 3 Full Period Sample, DIMIA, Canberra.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). Australian
Immigration Consolidated Statistics, various issues, AGPS, Canberra.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA), 2002.
Unauthorised Arrivals by Air and Sea, Fact Sheet 74, DIMIA, Canberra.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA), 2003.
Report of the Review of Settlement Services for Migrants and Humanitarian Entrants,
AGPS, Canberra.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA), 2004.
Unauthorised Arrivals by Air and Sea, Fact Sheet 74, DIMIA, Canberra.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA), 2005.
Managing the Border: Immigration Compliance 2004-05 Edition, AGPS, Canberra.
Evans, C., 2010.
Budget 2010-11 – Government Sharpens Focus of Skilled Migration
Program, http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2010/ce01-budget10.htm.
Evans, M.D.R., 1989.
Immigrant Entrepreneurship Effects of Ethnic Market Size and
Isolated Labour Pool, American Sociological Review, 54, December, pp. 950-962.
Fix, M., 2007. Securing the Future: US Immigrant Integration Policy, A Reader, Migration
Policy Institute, Washington.
Fix, M., Papademetriou, D.G., Batalova, J., Terrazas, A., Lin, S. and Mitteldtadt, M., 2009.
Migration and the Global Recession, A Report Commissioned by the BBC World
Service, Migration Policy Institute, Washington DC.
- 309 -
Fonseca, M.L., 2008. New Waves of Immigration to Small Towns and Rural Areas in
Portugal, Population, Space and Place, 14, 6, November-December, pp. 525-536.
Gartner, M., 1996. The Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia: The Survey Design
and Implementation. Draft report on the Development and Implementation of the
LSIA with special emphasis on Questionnaire Design and Field Procedures, March.
Gibson, C., 2008. One Man, One Mission: Ben Yengi, Lumen, Summer, pp. 16-17.
Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM), 2005.
Migration in an
Interconnected World: New Directions for Action, Report of the Global Commission
on International Migration, Switzerland.
Gould, D.M., 1994. Immigrant Links to the Home Country: Empirical Implications for US
Bilateral Trade Flows, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 2, May, pp. 302316.
Halfacree, K., 2008.
To Revitalise Counterurbanisation Research? Recognising an
International and Fuller Picture, Population, Space and Place, 14, 6, NovemberDecember, pp. 479-496.
Hassell and Hugo, G.J., 1996. Immigrants and Public Housing, Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
Healy, E. and Birrell, B., 2003. Metropolis Divided: The Political Dynamic of Spatial
Inequality and Migrant Settlement in Sydney, People and Place, 11, 2, pp. 65-87.
Hirschman, C., 2001. The Educational Enrollment of Immigrant Youth: A Test of the
Segmented-Assimilation Hypothesis, Demography, 38, 3, pp. 317-336.
Holton, R., 1994. Social Aspects of Immigration, pp. 158-217 in M. Wooden, R. Holton,
G. Hugo and J. Sloan, Australian Immigration: A Survey of the Issues, Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Hugo, G.J., 1975. Postwar Settlement of Southern Europeans in Australian Rural Areas: The
Case of Renmark, Australian Geographical Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 169-181.
- 310 -
Hugo, G.J., 1989-1992. Atlas of the Australian People Volumes I to VIII: 1986 Census.
AGPS, Canberra.
Hugo, G.J., 1994. The Economic Implications of Emigration from Australia, Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Hugo, G.J., 1999. A New Paradigm of International Migration in Australia, New Zealand
Population Review, 25, 1-2, pp. 1-39.
Hugo, G.J., 2003a. Changing Patterns of Population Distribution, pp. 185-218 in S-E Khoo
and P. McDonald (eds.), The Transformation of Australia’s Population: 1970-2030,
University of New South Wales Press.
Hugo, G.J., 2003b. Migration and Development: A Perspective from Asia, IOM Migration
Research Series, 14.
Hugo, G.J., 2004. The Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA). Paper
prepared for IRSS Workshop on Longitudinal Surveys and Cross Cultural Survey
Design, Home Office, London, 11-12 May
Hugo, G.J., 2005. International Migration and Development: A Role for Policy. Paper
prepared for UNFPA.
Hugo, G.J., 2007. New Questions in the 2006 Population Census: Some Initial Findings,
People and Place, 15, 3, pp. 53-66.
Hugo, G.J., 2008a. Recent Trends in Migration Between China and Australia, Chinese
Southern Diaspora Studies, 2, pp. 82-103.
Hugo, G.J., 2008b.
Australia’s State Specific and Regional Migration Scheme: An
Assessment of Its Impacts in South Australia, Journal of International Migration and
Integration, March, 9, 1, pp. 125-145.
Hugo, G.J., 2008c. Immigrant Settlement Outside of Australia’s Capital Cities, Population,
Space and Place, 14, 6, pp. 553-571.
Hugo, G.J., 2008d. People Movement in East Asia: A Thematic Paper. Final Draft of a
Paper for AusAID for a Series on Key Transboundary Issues in East Asia, January.
- 311 -
Hugo, G.J., 2009a. Migration Between Africa and Australia: A Demographic Perspective.
Paper for Australian Human Rights Commission, December.
Hugo, G.J., 2009b. South Australia’s Changing Population, in J. Spoehr (ed.), State of South
Australia: From Crisis to Poverty, Wakefield Press, Kent Town, Adelaide, pp. 67-98.
Hugo, G.J., 2010a. Recent and Likely Future Trends in International Migration in South
Australia. Draft paper prepared for Planning SA, January.
Hugo, G.J., 2010b. International Migration in Australia and the Global Financial Crisis.
First Draft of Paper for Conference on ‘Immigration in Harder Times: The United
States and Australia’, Monash University Prato Centre, Prato, Italy, 23-25 May.
Hugo, G.J., forthcoming. Changing Spatial Patterns of Immigrant Settlement, in M. Clyne
and J. Jupp (eds.), Multiculturalism and Integration – A Harmonious Combination?,
ANU epress.
Hugo, G.J. and Bakalis, S., 2009.
The Potential of Hellenic-Australian Diaspora
Entrepreneurial Networks, in E. Close, G. Couvalis, G. Frazis, M. Palaktsoglou and
M. Tsianikas (eds.), Greek Research in Australia:
Proceedings of the Biennial
International Conference of Greek Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide
Hugo, G.J. and Rivett, K., 1993.
Review of Some Socio-Economic Consequences of
Refugee and Humanitarian Migration to Australia.
Report No. 8 in National
Population Council, Refugee Review, Vol. 2, Commissioned Reports, National
Population Council, Canberra.
Hugo, G.J., Khoo, S.E. and McDonald, P., 2006. Attracting Skilled Migrants to Regional
Areas: What Does It Take?, People and Place, 14, 3, pp. 25-36.
Hugo, G.J., Rudd, D. and Harris, K., 2001.
Emigration from Australia: Economic
Implications, Second Report on an ARC SPIRT Grant, CEDA Information Paper No.
77.
Iredale, R. and D’Arcy, B., 1992. The Continuing Struggle; Refugees in the Australian
Labour Market, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
- 312 -
Ironmonger, D., 2000.
Measuring Volunteering in Economic Terms, pp. 56-72 in
J. Warburton and M. Oppenheimer (eds.), Volunteers and Volunteering, The
Federation Press, New South Wales.
Johnson, B. and Sedaca, S., 2004.
Diasporas, Émigrés and Development: Economic
Linkages and Programmatic Responses. A Special Study of the US Agency for
International Development (USAID), Trade Enhancement for the Services Sector
(TESS) Project.
Joint Standing Committee on Migration, 2006.
Negotiating the Maze: Review of
Arrangements for Overseas Skills Recognition, Upgrading and Licensing,
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Jones, R. and McAllister, I., 1991. Migrant Unemployment and Labour Market Programs,
AGPS, Canberra.
Joyce, A., Earnest, J. De Mori, G. and Silvagni, G., 2009. The Experiences of Students from
Refugee Backgrounds at Universities in Australia: Reflections on the Social,
Emotional and Practical Challenges, Journal of Refugee Studies, 23, 1, pp. 82-96.
Jupp, J., 1993. Ethnic Concentrations: A Reply to Bob Birrell, People and Place, 4, 4,
pp. 51-52.
Kasimis, C., 2008. Survival and Expansion: Migrants in Greek Rural Regions, Population,
Space and Place, 14, 6, November-December, pp. 511-524.
Kerr, L., Savelsberg, H., Sparrow, S. and Tedmanson, D., 2001.
Experiences and
Perceptions of Volunteering in Indigenous and non-English Speaking Background
Communities. A joint project of the Department of State Aboriginal Affairs, the
South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission, Volunteering SA, the
Unaipon School (University of SA) and the Social Policy Research Group (University
of SA), Adelaide. http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/sprg/default.asp.
Khoo, S., forthcoming. Intermarriage, Integration and Multiculturalism: A Demographic
Perspective, in M. Clyne and J. Jupp (eds.), Multiculturalism and Integration – A
Harmonious Combination?, ANU epress.
- 313 -
Khoo, S.E. and Lucas, D., 2004. Australians’ Ancestries 2001, Cat. No. 2054.0, Australian
Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Khoo, S.E., McDonald, P., Georgas, D. and Birrell, B., 2002.
Second Generation
Australians, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs,
Canberra.
Kibria, N., 1994. Household Structure and Family Ideologies: The Dynamics of Immigrant
Economic Adaptation Among Vietnamese Refugees, Social Problems, 41, pp. 81-96.
Kunz, E.F., 1969. Blood and Gold: Hungarians in Australia, FW Cheshire, Melbourne,
Canberra, Sydney.
Kunz, E.F., 1975.
The Intruders: Refugee Doctors in Australia, Australian National
University Press, Canberra.
Kunz, E.F., 1988.
Displaced Persons: Calwell’s New Australians, Australian National
University Press, Canberra.
Kyle, L., Macdonald, F., Doughney, J. and Pyke, J., 2004. Refugees in the Labour Market:
Looking for Cost-Effective Models of Assistance, Ecumenical Migration Centre,
Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.
http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/refugees_in_
labour_market.pdf.
Lalich, W., 2006. Collective Action of ‘Others’ in Sydney, Journal of Multidisciplinary
International
Studies,
3,
1,
January,
University
of
Technology
Sydney.
http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/portal/article/viewFile/127/91.
Lampugnani, R. and Holton, R., 1991. Ethnic Business in South Australia: A Sociological
Profile of the Italian Business Community, Working Papers on Multiculturalism No.
7, Office of Multicultural Affairs.
Law, D., Genç, M. and Bryant, 2009. Trade, Diaspora and Migration to New Zealand. Paper
prepared for the NZIER 50th Anniversary Research Award.
Lever-Tracy, C., Ip, D., Kitay, J., Phillips, I. And Tracy, N., 1991. Asian Entrepreneurs in
Australia: Ethnic Small Business in the Chinese and Indian Communities of Brisbane
and Sydney, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
- 314 -
Lewins, F. and Ly, J., 1985. The First Wave: The Settlement of Australia’s First Vietnamese
Refugees, George Allen and Unwin.
Lukomskyj, O., and Richards, P., 1986. Return Migration from Australia: A Case Study,
International Migration, 24, 3, pp. 603-632.
Martin, J.I., 1965.
Refugee Settlers: A Study of Displaced Persons in Australia, The
Australian National University, Canberra.
Martin, P., 2010.
Immigration, Labor Markets, and Immigration Reform.
Draft paper
prepared for Conference on Immigration and Harder Times: US and Australia, Prato,
Italy, 24-26 May.
Mason, A., 2007. Demographic Dividends: The Past, the Present, and the Future, in A.
Mason and M. Yamaguchi (eds.), Population Change, Labour Markets and
Sustainable Growth: Towards a New Economic Paradigm, Elsevier Press.
Mason, A. and Lee, R., 2006. Reform and Support Systems for the Elderly in Developing
Countries: Capturing the Second Demographic Dividend, GENUS, LXII(2), pp. 1135.
Massey, D.S. (ed.), 2008. New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American
Immigration, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
McCue, H., 2008. The Civil and Social Participation of Muslim Women in Australian
Community Life, Edsoc Consulting Pty Ltd for the Asian Law Group, July.
McDonald, B., Gifford, S., Webster, K., Wiseman, J. and Case, S., 2008.
Refugee
Resettlement in Regional and Rural Victoria: Impacts and Policy Issues. VicHealth,
Carlton.
http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/~/media/ProgramsandProjects/Mental
HealthandWellBeing/Publications/Attachments/RefugeeResettlement_Web2.ashx.
McKay, J. and Batrouney, T., 2001. Lebanese Immigration Until the 1970s, pp. 554-558 in J.
Jupp and V. Oakleigh (eds.), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation,
Its People and Their Origins, Cambridge University Press.
Migration Policy Institute, 2010. Remittances Profiles,
http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/.
- 315 -
Mills, R., 2008. A Remarkable Journey: The Story of Hieu Van Le, Lumen, Summer, pp.
2-4.
Missingham, B., Dibden, J. and Cocklin, C., 2006. A Multicultural Countryside? Ethnic
Minorities in Rural Australia, Rural Society, 16, 2, pp. 131-149.
Monsour, A. and Convy, P., 2008. The Lebanese in Sydney, Sydney Journal, 1, 2, June.
http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/sydney_journal/article/viewFile/663/786.
Morén-Alegret, R., 2008. Ruralphilia and Urbophobia versus Urbophilia and Ruralphobia?
Lessons from Immigrant Integration Processes in Small Towns and Rural Areas in
Spain, Population, Space and Place, 14, 6, November-December, pp. 537-552.
Murdie, R.A., 2008. Pathways to Housing: The Experiences of Sponsored Refugees and
Refugee Claimants in Accessing Permanent Housing in Toronto, Journal of
International Migration and Integration, 9, 1, pp. 81-101.
National Farmers’ Federation, 2008. Summary of Labour Shortages in the Agricultural
Sector, March. http://www.nff.org.au/get/2449661872.doc.
National Population Council, 1993.
Refugee Review, Vol. 2, Commissioned Reports,
National Population Council, Canberra.
Newland, K. and Patrick, E., 2004. Beyond Remittances: The Role of Diaspora in Poverty
Reduction in Their Countries of Origin, Migration Policy Institute, Washington DC.
Njuki, P., 2009. Longitudinal Study of Newly Arrived Migrants. A Joint Study of the
Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia and Adelaide University, August.
Njuki, P., forthcoming. Sub-Saharan African Women in South Australia: Work, Money and
Changing Gender Roles? Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Geographical and
Environmental Studies, University of Adelaide.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2009. International
Migration Outlook: SOPEMI 2009, OECD.
- 316 -
Phillips, J. and Spinks, H., 2010. Background Note: Boat Arrivals in Australia Since 1976,
Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/
bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm.
Phinney, J., 1990.
Ethnic Identity in Adolescents and Adults: Review of Research,
Psychological Bulletin, 108, pp. 499-514.
Phythian, K., Walters, D. and Anisef, P., 2009. Entry Class and the Early Employment
Experience of Immigrants in Canada, in F. Trovato (ed.), Canadian Studies in
Population, 36, 3-4, Fall/Winter.
Pool, I., 2004. ‘Demographic Dividends’, ‘Windows of Opportunity’ and Development:
Age-Structure, Population Waves and Cohort Flows.
Presentation at CICRED
Seminar on Age-Structural Transitions: Population Waves, Disordered Cohort Flows
and the Demographic Bonus, 23-26 February, Paris.
Portes, A. and Stepick, A., 1985. Unwelcome Immigrants: The Labor Market Experiences of
1980 (Mariel) Cuban and Haitian Refugees in South Florida, American Sociological
Review, 50, pp. 493-514.
Portes, A., Fernández-Kelly, P. and Haller, W., 2005.
Segmented Assimilation on the
Ground: The New Second Generation in Early Adulthood, Ethnic and Racial Studies,
28, pp. 1000-1040.
Potocky-Tripodi, M, 2001. Micro and Macro Determinants of Refugee Economic Status,
Journal of Social Service Research, 27, pp. 33-60.
Potocky-Tripodi, M, 2003.
Refugee Economic Adaptation: Theory, Evidence and
Implications for Policy and Practice, Journal of Social Service Research, 30, pp. 6390.
Potocky-Tripodi, M, 2004. The Role of Social Capital in Immigrant and Refugee Economic
Adaptation, Journal of Social Service Research, 31, pp. 59-91.
Price, C.A., 1955.
The Italian Population of Griffith, Australian National University,
Canberra.
Price, C.A., 1963. Southern Europeans in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
- 317 -
Price, C.A., 1979. Australian Immigration: A Bibliography and Digest No. 4, Department of
Demography, Australian National University, Canberra.
Price, C.A., 1982. International Migration: Contribution to Growth and Distribution of
Australian Population, Population of Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 46-58, ESCAP (Country
Monograph Series No. 9), United Nations, New York.
Price, C.A., 1988.
Measuring Ethnic Ageing in Australia.
Paper presented at Fourth
National Conference of the Australian Population Association, Queensland
University, 31 August – 2 September, Brisbane.
Price, C.A., 1990. Australia and Refugees, 1921-1976, in National Population Council,
Refugee Review – Volume 2 – Commissioned Reports, National Population Council.
Putnins, A.L., 1975. Ethnic Identification: An Exploratory Study in Second Generation
Latvians.
Unpublished Diploma in Applied Psychology Research Investigation,
University of Adelaide.
Qian, M., 2008.
The Economic Relationship Between Trade and Immigration in New
Zealand, Working Paper No. 1, Integration of Immigrants Programme, Massey
University, Albany, University of Waikato, November.
Ratha, D. and Xu, Z., 2008.
Migration and Remittances Factbook 2008, World Bank
Publications
Refugee Council of Australia, 2009. Economic, Civic and Social Contributions of Refugees
And Humanitarian Entrants: A Literature Review, Prepared for the Department of
Immigration and Citizenship, unpublished draft.
Refugee Council of Australia, 2010. Economic, Civic and Social Contributions of Refugees
and Humanitarian Entrants: A Literature Review. Prepared for the Department of
Immigration and Citizenship, released February 2010.
Richardson, S., Robertson, F. and Ilsley, D., 2001. The Labour Force Experience of New
Migrants, AGPS, Canberra.
Richardson, S., Healy, J., Stack, S., Ilsley, D., Lester, L. and Horrocks., J., 2004. The
Changing Labour Force Experience of New Migrants: Inter-Wave Comparisons for
- 318 -
Cohort 1 and 2 of the LSIA. Report to the Department of Immigration and
Multicultural
and
Indigenous
Affairs,
Canberra.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/pdf/settlementv2.pdf.
Richmond, A.H., 1988.
Sociological Theories of International Migration: The Case of
Refugees, Current Sociology, 36, pp. 331-349.
Rogaly, B., 2008. Intensification of Workplace Regimes in British Horticulture: The Role of
Migrant Workers, Population, Space and Place, 14, 6, November-December, pp. 497510.
Rowland, J.J., 1982. Ethnic Composition of the Population, Population of Australia, Vol. 1,
pp. 101-127, ESCAP (Country Monograph Series No. 9), United Nations, New York.
Ryan, D., 2008. Mind Your Language, The Age, 12 May, pp. 6-7.
Ryan, J.F., 2005.
Australia.
Migration, Remittances and Economic Development. Case Study:
Paper presented at Workshop on International Migration and Labour
Markets in Asia, The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training, Tokyo, 20-21
January.
Shapley, n.d.
Stevens, C., 1984. The Occupational Adjustment of Kampuchean Refugees in Adelaide.
Unpublished BA (Hons) Thesis, University of Adelaide, November.
Stevens, C., 1997. Balancing Obligations and Self-Interest: Humanitarian Program Settlers
in the Australian Labor Market, Asian Pacific Migration Journal, 6, 2, pp. 185-212.
Stevenson, R., 2005. Hopes Fulfilled or Dreams Shattered? From Resettlement to
Settlement. Background Paper Refugees and Economic Contributions. Conference
Papers, 23-28 November.
http://www.crr.unsw.edu.au/media/File/Resettlement_service_for_refugee_children.p
df.
Stigler and Monsutti, 2005.
- 319 -
Stilwell, F., 2003. Refugees in a Region: Afghans in Young, NSW, Urban Policy and
Research 21, 3, pp. 235-248.
Stilwell, F., 2003. Refugees in a Region: Afghans in Young, NSW, Urban Policy and
Research, 21, 3, September, University of Sydney.
Stilwell, F.J.B., 2004. The Economic Impact of Afghan Refugees in Young, NSW, University
of Economics and Political Science, Sydney University.
Stilwell, F. and Grealis, A., 1993. Refugees Working: Afghans in Young, NSW, Human
Rights Defender, 12, 1, pp. 3-6.
Strahan, K.W. and Williams, A.J., 1988. Immigrant Entrepreneurs in Australia: A Report to
the office of Multicultural Affairs, Office of Multicultural Affairs.
Stromback, T., Chapman, B., Dawkins, P. and Bush-Jones, S., 1992. The Labour Market
Experience of Vietnamese, Maltese and Lebanese Immigrants: An Analysis of the
OMA Supplementary Survey of Selected Birthplace Groups, Working Papers on
Multiculturalism No. 21, Office of Multicultural Affairs.
Swan, W., 2010. Australia to 2050: Future Challenges, CanPrint Communications Pty Ltd.,
Australia.
Sypek, S. Clugston, G and Phillips, C., 2008. Critical Health Infrastructure for Refugee
Resettlement in Rural Australia: Case Study of Four Rural Towns, Australian Journal
of Rural Health, 16, pp. 349-354.
Tabar, P. (ed.), 2005.
Lebanese Diaspora: History, Racism and Belonging, Lebanese
American University, Beirut.
Tait, D. and Gibson, K., 1987. Economic and Ethnic Restructuring: An Analysis of Migrant
Labour in Sydney, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 8, 1, p. 1-26.
Takeda, A., 2000. Psychological and Economic Adaptation of Iraqi Adult Male Refugees:
Implications for Social Work Practice, Journal of Social Service Research, 26, pp. 121.
- 320 -
Taylor, J., 2005. Refugees and Regional Settlement: Win-Win?, Brotherhood of St Laurence,
Paper
presented
at
Australian
Social
Policy
Conference,
20-22
July.
http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/taylor_refugees_Aust_Social_Policy_Conf_paper.pdf.
Taylor, J and Stanovic, D., 2005. Refugees and Regional Settlement: Balancing Priorities.
Brotherhood of St. Laurence, Fitzroy.
http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/refugees_and_
regional_settlement.pdf.
Taylor-Neumann, L.V.N and Balasingam, M.R., 2009. Sustaining Settlement in Murray
Bridge South Australia, Lutheran Community Care, Murray Bridge, South Australia.
Terry, D.F. and Wilson, S.R., (eds.), 2005.
Beyond Small Change: Making Migrant
Remittances Count, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington.
Tran, M.V. and Holton, R., 1991. Sadness is Losing Our Country, Happiness is Knowing
Peace: Vietnamese Social Mobility in Australia, 1975-1990, Working Papers on
Multiculturalism No. 12, Office of Multicultural Affairs.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Statistical Yearbook, various
issues, UNHCR.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 2010. 2009 Global Trends:
Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons,
UNHCR, 16 June.
United Nations, 2001. Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing
Populations?, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New
York.
United Nations, 2006. International Migration and Development, Report of the SecretaryGeneral.
Sixtieth Session, Globalisation and Interdependence: International
Migration and Development, 18 May, United Nations.
United Nations, 2009.
International Migration 2009.
United Nations, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York.
- 321 -
VandenHeuvel, A. and Wooden, M., 1999. New Settlers Have Their Say – How Immigrants
Fare Over the Early Years of Settlement. Report prepared for the Department of
Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
Velayutham, S. and Wise, A., 2010. Co-Ethnic Exploitation and Indian Temporary Skilled
Migrants in Australia.
Paper presented at International Sociological Association
World Congress, Gothenburg, Sweden, 11-16 July.
Viviani, N., Coughlan, J. and Rowland, T., 1993. Indo-Chinese in Australia: The Issues of
Unemployment and Residential Concentration, Australian Government Publishing
Service, Canberra.
Volunteering Australia, 2005.
Patterns of Volunteering in Emerging Communities.
Submission in response to the Department for Victorian Communities Discussion
Paper.
Wadhwa, V., Saxenia, A., Rissing, B. and Gereffi, G., 2007. America’s New Immigrant
Entrepreneurs, Master of Engineering Management Program, Duke University,
School of Information, UC Berkeley.
Waldinger, R., 1986. Through the Eye of the Needle: Immigrants and Expertise in New
York’s Garment Trades, New York University Press, New York.
Wang, F. and Mason, A., 2007. Population Aging in China: Challenges, Opportunities and
Institutions, in Z. Zhao and F. Guo (eds.), Transition and Challenge: China’s
Population at the Beginning of the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, pp. 177196.
Ware, H., 1981. A Profile of the Italian Community in Australia, Australian Institute of
Multicultural Affairs, Melbourne.
Waxman, P., 2001. The Economic Adjustment of Recently Arrived Bosnian, Afghan and
Iraqi Refugees in Sydney, Australia, International Migration Review, 35, pp. 472-505.
White, D., 2007. Immigrant-Trade Links, Transplanted Home Bias and Network Effects,
Applied Economics, 39, pp. 839-852.
- 322 -
White, R. and Tadesse, B., 2007.
Immigration Policy, Cultural Pluralism and Trade:
Evidence from the White Australia Policy, Pacific Economic Review, 12, 4, pp. 489509.
Withers, G. and Powell, M., 2003. Immigration and the Regions: Taking Regional Australia
Seriously, October, Chifley Research Centre, Sydney.
Wooden, M., 1994a. The Economic Impact of Immigration, pp. 111-157 in M. Wooden,
R. Holton, G. Hugo and J. Sloan, Australian Immigration: A Survey of the Issues,
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Wooden, M., 1994b.
The Labour-Market Experience of Immigrants, pp. 218-279 in
M. Wooden, R. Holton, G. Hugo and J. Sloan, Australian Immigration: A Survey of
the Issues, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
World Bank, 2006. Global Economic Prospects 2006. Economic Implications of Remittances
and Migration, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Young, C., 1994. Beliefs and Realities About the Demographic Role of Ageing, Australian
Quarterly, 66, 4, pp. 49-74.
Zevellos, Z., 2005. ‘It’s Like We’re Their Culture’: Second Generation Migrant Women
Discuss Australian Culture, People and Place, 13, 2, pp. 41-49.
Zubrzycki, J., 1964. Settlers of the Latrobe Valley, The Australian National University,
Canberra.