the changing settlement experience of new migrants changing settlement experience of new migrants 1...

The Changing Settlement

Experience of New Migrants

Inter-Wave Comparisons for Cohort 1 and 2 of the LSIA

Report to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

The National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University - June 2004

Professor Sue Richardson Josh Healy

Dr Sue Stack Lauren Miller-Lewis

Megan Moskos Diana Ilsley

Laurence Lester John Horrocks

ISBN 0 642 26083 4

© Commonwealth of Australia 2004

This report is a companion volume to

The Changing Labour Force Experience of New Migrants.

The companion report is available online at:

www.immi.gov.au/research/publications

or in hardcopy from the Department’s Research Section

Tel: 02 6264 3395 oremail: [email protected].

This work is copyright. You may download, display, printand reproduce this material in unaltered form only(retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercialuse or use within your organisation. All other rights arereserved.

Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction andrights should be addressed to the Manager, CopyrightServices, Info Access, GPO Box 2154, Canberra ACT2601 or by e-mail [email protected].

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 8

2 EMPLOYMENT 9

3 INCOME 12

4 HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE 14

5 HEALTH 15

5.1 Physical Health 15

5.2 Psychological Health 17

5.3 Interrelationships Between Health Factors 20

5.4 Conclusions 20

6 HOUSING 22

6.1 Comparisons 22

6.2 Difficulties Experienced In Getting Housing 30

6.3 Mobility 31

6.4 Conclusion 34

7 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 36

7.1 Analysis of English Language Courses 36

7.2 Conclusion 44

8 QUALIFICATIONS 44

8.1 Assessment of Overseas Qualifications 44

8.2 Use of Qualifications 47

8.3 Patterns of Further Study In Australia 49

8.4 Conclusion 53

9 FINANCES 54

9.1 Assets Transferred to Australia – Post Arrival 54

9.2 Assets Transferred From Australia 57

9.3 Remittances-Funds Sent From Australia On A Regular Basis 59

9.4 Financial Help Received 62

9.5 Conclusions 63

10 SPONSORSHIP OF RELATIVES 66

10.1 Assistance Provided by Sponsor 66

10.2 Composition of Family Members Overseas 69

10.3 Sponsorship Intentions 70

10.4 Conclusions 73

11 SATISFACTION WITH LIFE IN AUSTRALIA 75

11.1 General Satisfaction With Life In Australia 75

11.2 Intention to Apply for Australian Citizenship 78

11.3 Major Likes And Dislikes of Australia 80

11.4 Emigration Intentions 83

11.5 Conclusions 84

12 SOCIAL INDICATORS 85

12.2 Perceptions of Life In Australia 85

12.3 Maintenance of Cultural Links 89

12.4 Participation In The Community 89

12.5 Awareness of Multicultural Policy 92

12.6 Conclusion 93

13 SUPPORT SERVICES 94

13.1 Types of Support Received 94

13.2 The Organisations That Are Most Commonly Contacted 98 13.3 Satisfaction With Help Received 100 13.4 Internet Use 100 13.5 Conclusion 103

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Labour Force Status 10 5.1 Assessing Health As Good Or Very Good, by Selected Factors 16 7.1 Migrants’ Main Method of Learning English In Australia 39 7.2 Benefits of English Language Classes, Cohort 2 Wave 2 41 7.3 Other Ways English Language Courses Help Migrants, Cohort 2, Wave 2 42 8.1 Migrants’ Qualifications Assessment 45 8.2 How Qualifications Assessed 47 9.1 Value of Assets Transferred to Australia 57 9.2 Average Value of Assets Transferred by Migrants In The Form of Funds 60 9.3 Average Value of Money Sent Overseas by Migrants 62 10.1 Assistance Received From Sponsor. Cohort 2 67 13.1 Primary Applicant Use of The Internet 102

LIST OF TABLES

5.1 Presence of Long Term Health Conditions by Selected Characteristics 17 5.2 Presence of Significant Psychological Distress by Selected Characteristics 18 5.3 Interrelationships Between Health Factors 19 6.1 Household Size 22 6.2 Housing Tenure by Visa Category 24 6.3 Dwelling Type by Visa Category 25 6.4 Housing Satisfaction by Visa Category 26 6.5a Proportion of Primary Applicants With Given Levels of Housing Costs for Each Level of

Family Income 29

6.5b Percentage of Primary Applicants (And Their Families) With Given Levels of Housing Costs for Each Level of Family Income

30

6.6 for Those Who Moved, Main Reason for Choosing Current Suburb/Town 32 6.7 Reasons for Moving A Short Distance 33 7.1 Characteristics Those Attending English Courses At Last Interview Or Starting A Course

Since Last Interview, Cohort 2 Wave 2 37

7.2 Characteristics of Migrants Who Tried to Improve English Since Last Interview, Cohort 2, Wave 2

38

8.1 Selected Features of The Assessment of Migrants’ Qualifications 46 8.2 Percentage of Qualified Migrants Who Use Their Qualifications “Often” Or “Very Often” In

Their Main Job 48

8.3 Selected Features of Migrants’ Participation In Further Study 52 9.1 Selected Characteristic of Migrants Who Transferred Funds, Personal Effects Or Capital

Equipment to Australia 55

9.2 Asset Transfers – Selected Features 58 9.3 Remittances – Selected Features 61 9.4 Financial Help – Selected Features 64 10.1 Assistance Received From Sponsor by Visa Category 68 10.2 Overseas Relatives of Primary Applicants 70 10.3 Sponsorship of Relatives 71 11.1 Percent ‘Very Satisfied’ Or ‘Satisfied’ With Life In Australia, by Selected Factors 76

11.2 Percent That Would Encourage Others to Migrate to Australia, by Selected Factors 77 11.3 Percentage of Migrants Intending to Apply for Australian Citizenship, by Selected Factors 79 11.4 What Migrants Liked About Australia 80 11.5 What Migrants Disliked About Australia 82 12.1 Perceptions Held by Migrants About Aspects of Life In Their Former Country of Residence

And In Australia 88

12.2 Characteristics of Sole Person Households, Migrants Compared to The General Australian Community

91

13.1 Support Received 96 13.2 Support Services Contacted by Primary Applicants 98 13.3 Primary Applicant Satisfaction With Help From Support Services 101 13.4 Primary Applicants Who Used The Internet Cohort 2 Wave2, by Selected Factors 103

LIST OF APPENDICES

A5.1 Percentage Who At Assessed Their Health As ‘Good’ Or ‘Very Good’ by Selected Characteristics

A5.2 Self-Assessed Health Status by Visa Category A5.3 Self-Assessed Health Status by Gender A5.4 Self-Assessed Health Status by English Proficiency A5.5 Self-Assessed Health Status by Age A5.6 Wave 2 Self-Assessed Health Status by Visa Category A5.7 Wave 2 Self-Assessed Health Status by Gender of Primary Applicant And Migrating Unit

Spouse A5.8 Wave 2 Self-Assessed Health Status by Age A5.9 Wave 2 Self-Assessed Health Status by Region of Birth A5.10 Wave 2 Self-Assessed Health Status by English Proficiency A5.11 Presence of Long-Term Health Conditions by Selected Characteristics A5.12 Number of Cases of Long-Term Health Conditions A5.13 Number of Health Care Visits In The Past 4 Weeks by Visa Category A5.14 Number of Health Care Visits In The Past 4 Weeks by Gender A5.15 Number of Health Care Visits In The Past 4 Weeks by Age A5.16 Number of Health Care Visits In The Past 4 Weeks by English Proficiency A7.1 Completion Rates for AMEP And Other Types of English Courses, A7.2 Characteristics of Those Needing Interpreting Services A7.3 Reasons for Not Completing English Courses by Presence of Long Term Health Condition A9.1 Proportions of Migrants In Each Category Who Transferred Funds, Personal Effects Or Capital

Equipment From Australia A9.2 Value of Remittances A10.1 Labour Force Status by Visa Category A10.2 Sponsor Assistance by Gender A10.3 Sponsor Assistance by English Proficiency A10.4 Relatives Overseas by Visa Category A10.5 Primary Applicants With Relatives Overseas, by Age A10.6 Relatives Overseas by English Proficiency A10.7 Intent to Sponsor Overseas Relatives by English Proficiency A10.8 Major Reasons Relatives Not Yet Sponsored by Visa Category A10.9 Major Reasons for Not Sponsoring Any (More) Overseas Relatives, by Visa Category A11.1 Satisfaction With Life In Australia by Selected Characteristics A11.2 Satisfaction With Life In Australia by Visa Category A11.3 Satisfaction With Life In Australia by Gender A11.4 Satisfaction With Life In Australia by English Proficiency A11.5 Satisfaction With Life In Australia by Age A11.6 Feelings On The Migration Decision by Selected Characteristics A11.7 Main Reasons Given for Wanting to be an Australian Citizen A11.8 Main Reasons Given by Migrants for Not Wanting to Apply for Australian Citizenship A11.9 What Migrants Liked About Australia by Visa Category A11.10 What Migrants Disliked About Australia by Visa Category

A11.11 What Migrants Satisfied With Life In Australia Liked About Australia A11.12 What Migrants Who Felt They Made The Right Decision to Move to Australia Liked About

Australia A11.13 What Migrants Not Satisfied With Life In Australia Disliked About Australia A11.14 What Migrants Who Regretted Decision to Move to Australia Disliked About Australia A11.15 Migrants’ Expectations of Emigration by Selected Characteristics A11.16 Main Reasons Given for Wanting to Return Permanently to Home Country At Wave 2 A11.17 Main Reasons for Wanting to Emigrate to Another Country At Wave 2 A11.18 Emigration Intentions, by Satisfaction With Life In Australia A12.1 Perceptions of Crime Levels by Selected Characteristics A12.2 Perceptions of Race/Culture/Nationality Tolerance by Selected Characteristics A12.3 Perceptions of Influence Over Government by Selected Characteristics A12.4 Perceptions of Monetary Reward by Selected Characteristics A13.1 Percentage of Primary Applicants Who Received Support by Visa Category A13.2 Percentage of Primary Applicants Who Received Support by Age A13.3 Percentage of Primary Applicants Who Received Support by English Proficiency A13.4 Support Services Contacted by Primary Applicants by English Proficiency A13.5 Support Services Contacted by Primary Applicants by Visa Category A13.5 Support Services Contacted by Primary Applicants by Age A13.7 Primary Applicants Purpose of Internet Use, by Gender A13.8 Primary Applicants Purpose of Internet Use by English Proficiency A13.8 Primary Applicants Purpose of Internet Use by Age A13.10 Primary Applicants Purpose of Internet Use by Visa Category

The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants

1

Executive Summary

s part of the ‘new world’, Australia has had

an active migration program ever since

white settlement. Today, almost one quarter of

Australian residents were born overseas. The

experience of being a new migrant is a big part

of the Australian story. This report examines in

detail the settlement experiences of two groups

of new migrants in their first year and a half in

Australia.

The Department of Immigration and

Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs initiated a

major series of surveys of recently arrived

migrants, known as the Longitudinal Survey of

Immigrants to Australia (LSIA). Two sets of

surveys have been conducted, of migrants who

received their visas offshore. The first set

surveyed migrants arriving in Australia from

September 1993 to August 1995 (Cohort 1) and

the second surveyed migrants arriving in

Australia from September 1999 to August 2000

(Cohort 2). Migrants were first interviewed

about six months after arrival. A second wave of

interviews of the same people was conducted 12

months after the first wave. This report provides

an account of the insights that we can obtain

from a close analysis of these data. A companion

report looks in more detail at the labour force

outcomes, income and qualifications of these

migrants.

In this report we focus particularly on

information from the second waves of both

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2. We use this to describe

and compare the experience of these two groups

of recent migrants, and to see what changes have

occurred for the second group in the twelve

months since their first interview.1

Employment

Overall, the satisfactory labour market outcomes

of Cohort 2, that were identified in an earlier

report2, have been maintained and enhanced in

the subsequent 12 months in Australia. Eighteen

months after arrival, levels of employment were

high, unemployment was low and participation

in the labour market was low only for

Humanitarian and Preferential family/family

stream migrants. Cohort 2 has much higher

employment, and much lower unemployment,

than Cohort 1, both six months and 18 months

after arrival. However, the size of the Cohort 2

advantage has diminished between Waves 1 and

2. All the visa groups, in both cohorts, made

large gains in employment over the twelve-

month period between the first and second

waves of interviews.

A total of 28 per cent had experienced some

unemployment in the 12 months between

interviews. Importantly, long term

unemployment was rare. Very few held more

than one job, so the image of the typical migrant

having to accept multiple bits and pieces of low

1 In a companion report, The Changing Labour Force

Experience of New Migrants: Inter-wave Comparisons

for Cohort 1 and 2 of the LSIA, we examine in detail the

employment, income, qualifications and English

language proficiency of recent migrants.

2 “The Labour Force Experience of New Migrants”,

report by the National Institute of Labour Studies, for

DIMIA, 2001.

A


2

paid insecure work to make ends meet is not

supported by the information provided in the

survey. Nor did they work especially long hours.

While some had found it necessary to change

their occupation in order to obtain a job in

Australia, an equal number had chosen to do so

as a new opportunity. In many ways, Cohort 2

migrants looked much like the Australian labour

force more generally. They relied on family,

friends and employment agencies to find work;

they worked a typical range of hours; a

proportion wanted to change jobs to get more

money or more job satisfaction, or use their

qualifications better; and most but not all were

satisfied with the sort of work they did.

Income

In addition to employment, a second key

indicator of successful settlement in Australia is

the extent to which recent migrants are able to

earn an income sufficient to support themselves

and their families.

Earnings from wages and salaries are the

overwhelming source of income for recent

migrants. All the evidence on income and

earnings confirms two main themes. These are

that Cohort 2 has done better in establishing the

basis for financial independence than did

Cohort 1 at the same duration of settlement. And

an additional 12 months in Australia, between

Waves 1 and 2 for Cohort 2, has resulted in

increased incomes and earnings.

The superior economic outcomes for Cohort 2 is

the result of two factors. One is that the

characteristics of Cohort 2 migrants were more

conducive to success in the labour market: they

were on average younger, better educated and

had better English language skills. The second is

that, even for those with the same attributes,

Cohort 2 migrants typically had higher earnings

and income than did their earlier counterparts.

This confirms what we found when comparing

the cohorts after six months in Australia. In most

cases, the early advantage has been retained,

even if the size of the advantage has diminished

for some groups with extra time in Australia.

Household Expenditure

Overall, Primary Applicants felt no more

comfortable about the adequacy of their income

to meet their needs, 18 months after arrival than

they did six months after arrival. This lack of

apparent progress in establishing a comfortable

standard of living is at odds with the rise in

income between the two waves.

It is also at odds with the judgement of almost

half of Cohort 2 migrants, who felt that they had

made progress in establishing an adequate

income from their own resources between

Waves 1 and 2. Only a minority felt that they

went backwards. The gainers tended to be the

ones who were already doing relatively well—

the economic visa groups and migrants with

fluent English. Those with the lowest levels of

English proficiency made the least progress. The

main reasons for feeling better off were rises in

pay and, of lesser importance, additional

employment.

The surveys provide some direct information on

the material standard of living of the migrants, in

the form of estimates of expenditure on a

nominated set of items. There was little change

in average weekly spending on food and clothes,

between Waves 1 and 2 of Cohort 2. There was,

however, some increase in spending on medical

care and on transport. But even by Wave 2 of

Cohort 2, these amounts still were quite low,

relative to the Australian average. Total reported

expenditure is considerably less than total

income for each category of migrant. This

reinforces the conclusion that the selected items

reported in the LSIA do not give a full account

of migrant expenditure or standards of living.


3

Health

Migrant selection criteria include a requirement

that a person have no substantial chronic ill

health. It is not surprising, then, to find that

overall, the vast majority of migrants reported

believing their health was at least ‘good’. Those

less likely to report that their health was at least

good were Humanitarian migrants, those who

could not speak English well, older migrants,

and females. At Wave 2, Cohort 2 were more

likely to report that their health was good than

Cohort 1 (91% compared to 86%). This pattern

was the same for both sexes, all age groups, all

levels of English proficiency and for all visa

categories, with the exception of the

Humanitarian migrants. Humanitarian migrants

showed the opposite pattern, with Cohort 1

being more likely to report their health was good

than Cohort 2 (77% versus 68%).

The two most common long-term health

problems for both cohorts and both waves were

arthritis/rheumatism and nerves/stress problems.

One-quarter of all the migrants reported a

significant level of psychological distress, with

greater prevalence in females, those in the

middle age-groups (rather than younger or older

age-groups), those who spoke English not well

or not at all, and especially in the Humanitarian

migrants. At Wave 2 (18 months after arrival), a

quarter of both Cohorts 1 and 2 showed

psychological distress at a level indicating the

need for a full psychiatric assessment. Thus, at

Wave 2 the migrants were still exhibiting a level

of distress that was much greater than the

general Australian population.

Housing

Finding suitable and affordable housing is a

major issue for immigrants in the early

settlement years. In Cohort 2, Wave 2, we detect

fewer large households (comprising five or more

persons) than in previous waves and a move

away from shared accommodation to home

ownership.

The quality of housing enjoyed by

Cohort 2 remains high and the Independent and

Humanitarian visa category groups are happier

than they were at Wave 1 (although the latter

only marginally so). The majority of migrants

(60%) have not moved since they first arrived,

while for those who have, the move was likely to

be into better quality housing.

Work and employment opportunities, a preferred

lifestyle and a sense of community among family

and friends accounted for over 60 per cent of the

reasons nominated for choosing their town or

suburb.

Wanting one’s own home and independence

accounts for almost one-third of the motivations

for short distance moves. As we might expect,

independence rates highly for those who tend to

share accommodation on arrival the

Preferential family/family stream and

Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked

visa category groups. Migrants generally reflect

the overall population in terms of their

aspirations. They move because they want more

space, in a nice dwelling, well located, close to

amenities and they want these things at an

affordable price.

English Language Proficiency

Overall, there were improvements in English

proficiency between Waves 1 and 2 in Cohort 2

that consolidate the better outcomes in this area

for Cohort 2 compared with those for Cohort 1.

By Cohort 2 Wave 2 more than three quarters of

all migrants said they could speak English well.

The improvements in English proficiency for



4

stream migrants at Wave 2 in Cohort 2 appear

stalled, with little gain in proficiency over the

preceding 12 months. We refer here to the

experience of both Primary Applicants and

migrating spouses.

A typical English language student is likely to be

a female migrant quite possibly from the

Preferential family/family stream visa category

in her late-twenties/early-thirties who does not

speak English well, has had a need for

interpreting services and who is unlikely to be in

the labour force. The main reason for wanting to

improve English may well be to subsequently

find work but she is also motivated by a desire to

survive in her new land and communicate well

with family and the society in which she now

lives.

While there is a 60 per cent chance that the

course chosen would be an AMEP course soon

after arrival, by Cohort 2 Wave 2 it was just as

likely that some other type of course would be

pursued or that informal methods for improving

English have been settled upon. However,

having commenced English language classes

there are likely to be difficulties to overcome.

For some, either work commitments or family

caring responsibilities will overwhelm her ability

to complete the course. To the extent that there

is any dissatisfaction with the course itself it

probably arises from a mismatch between its

degree of difficulty and the student’s level of

ability on entering the course.

Our typical student is among the 90 per cent

whose English improves as a result of attending

classes. As a result, everyday activities

associated with settling into a new land become

easier and opportunities to find a job or pursue

further education are enhanced.

Thus, the targeting of English courses, the range

of types of courses on offer and the courses

themselves appear to be functioning well. It

remains that the Preferential family/family

stream and Humanitarian visa category students

experience difficulties and may benefit from a

more intensive or more specific set of support

services to allow them to complete their courses.

Qualifications

The extent to which migrants are able to use

their qualifications is important because

migrants who quickly find work that makes use

of their qualifications are likely to be more

productive on the job, better paid for the work

they do, and happier about their degree of

integration into Australian society.

A range of Australian agencies is involved in

assessing migrants’ qualifications. The

assessments are usually done quickly, and a

majority result in qualifications being recognised

at the same level as they were originally

awarded. For Cohort 2 migrants, 17 per cent of

assessments reported at Wave 2 stipulated that

some further training would be required. The

increase in the completed assessment of

migrants’ overseas qualifications between the

Waves (6%) was the same for both cohorts.

Even by Wave 2, it is still the case that there are

many more migrants yet to have their

assessments completed than those who have

been assessed. Migrants who choose not to have

their qualifications assessed usually make this

decision because an assessment was not needed

to find a job, because they wanted to learn

English better first, or because they have simply

not got around to seeking assessment yet.

For both cohorts, the proportion who used their

qualifications often or very often scarcely

changed between Wave 1 and Wave 2. However,

at 62 per cent it was higher for

Cohort 2 than for Cohort 1 (at 49%). Thus

qualified migrants from Cohort 2 are more likely

to make frequent use of their qualifications in

their jobs than was the case for Cohort 1, and


5

this is particularly true for females, younger

workers, and those from the Concessional

family/skilled Australian-linked and Preferential

family/family stream visa categories.

Most migrants have not undertaken further study

since arriving in Australia, but the proportion to

do so rises between Wave 1 and Wave 2 (for

both cohorts). Of those who do study, most

attend courses at TAFE or university, and over

three-quarters go on to successfully complete the

qualifications they have begun. About half of all

the migrants in each cohort intend to study in the

future, with most wanting to do so as a means of

improving their employment or upgrading

existing qualifications.

Finances

We examined four distinct elements of migrant

finances: asset transfers to Australia, asset

transfers from Australia, remittances (monies

sent to relatives or friends overseas), and

financial help received from local and overseas

sources.

The vast majority of migrants did not transfer

any funds, personal effects or capital equipment

to Australia, but those in Cohort 2 are slightly

more likely to have done so than those in

Cohort 1. The migrants most likely to transfer

assets to Australia were: in the Business

skills/employer nomination scheme visa group,

male, middle-aged, and good English speakers.

The average value of funds transfers (on a per

migrant basis) was higher in Cohort 2 than in

Cohort 1, and rose for both cohorts over time.

The majority of assets transferred to Australia

were in the form of funds.

There was a small increase in the rate migrants

transferred assets from Australia from Wave 1 to

Wave 2, but the total proportion of migrants who

make asset transfers abroad is still very small

(fewer than one in ten) and the assets are mostly

in the form of funds. The average value of

transfers from Australia increases for both

cohorts between Wave 1 and Wave 2, and the

rate of increase in value is faster for Cohort 2.

A slightly smaller percentage of Cohort 2

migrants send money overseas to relatives and

friends than was the case for Cohort 1. However,

those migrants from Cohort 2 who do make

remittances, on average, send larger amounts.

There is quite clear evidence that more time in

Australia increases the proportion of remitting

migrants. It is likely that those who choose to

make remittances are simply in a better position

to send more than their counterparts in Cohort 1

could afford.

Migrants mostly turned to their family for

financial help. They were most likely to receive

help from family in Australia, but the proportion

who accessed this source of help fell from

Wave 1 to Wave 2. In contrast, the proportion

who received help from family overseas, the

next most likely source, rose with time. Very

small proportions of migrants received financial

help from government overseas, from their

employer, from friends, or from community

groups. The total value of financial help received

by migrants increased over time, but the number

receiving help fell.

Sponsorship of Relatives

The Preferential family/family stream category

accounted for over 85 per cent of sponsored

families (in Cohort 2). Migrants with higher

levels of English proficiency had lower need for

assistance from their sponsor.

As expected, the use of sponsors’ assistance falls

with time. In Cohort 2, there was a reasonably

rapid decrease in the use of assistance, with the

proportion of those not using any assistance

increasing three-fold by Wave 2. There

remained, however, substantial use of assistance


6

by Wave 2 with over half of immigrant families

receiving at least one of the following forms of

assistance - food, clothing and household goods;

financial assistance; and assistance with finding

accommodation.

Intentions to sponsor overseas relatives

increased quite substantially between Cohorts 1

and 2 (doubling in some visa categories), while

actual sponsorship fell. The Humanitarian

category had the highest intent, and


migrants were also well above the average of

about 40 per cent.

The major reason immigrants had not yet carried

out sponsorship intentions switched between

Cohort 1 and 2 from “insufficient money” to

“relatives not interested”. This is consistent with

the change in profile of immigrants: Cohort 2

immigrants are, on average, less financially

constrained but their relatives are less keen to

immigrate.

Satisfaction with Life in Australia

How satisfied are new migrants are with life in

Australia? Satisfaction matters because those

who are happy with their initial migrant

experience will be more likely to become

productive and active members of Australian

society. It is also important, of course, for the

wellbeing of the migrants themselves.

When the migrants were asked at each interview

to rate their overall satisfaction with life in

Australia, the resulting picture was a

resoundingly positive one. The vast majority

(94% of Cohort 2 Wave 2) of migrants reported

being either ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ when

asked ‘how do you feel about your life in

Australia?’

Overall, Cohort 2 were more satisfied with life

in Australia than Cohort 1, and there was an

increase in satisfaction from Wave 1 to Wave 2

of Cohort 2. It is likely that the higher levels of

employment and income of Cohort 2 have

contributed to their greater reported life

satisfaction. Corresponding well to the findings

on satisfaction, most of the migrants intended to

apply for Australian citizenship. Their main

reasons for wanting to become a citizen were to

stay in Australia permanently and to belong to

and feel Australian.

When migrants were asked what they liked

about Australia, non-material aspects such as the

environment, lifestyle, the friendly people and

the fact that it is quiet, peaceful and safe were

the most frequent responses. Of the material

factors, education and employment were

consistently the most frequently liked aspects of

Australia.

When asked what they disliked, the most

common response was nothing, which is

consistent with the high level of satisfaction that

migrants reported. Those who did nominate

aspects they disliked most frequently reported

disliking lifestyle/social factors and employment

difficulties.

Only a small number of respondents either

intended to leave Australia permanently or had

already done so. We note that those immigrants

who were the least satisfied with their life in

Australia are likely to have been amongst the

two per cent of each Cohort who emigrated out

of Australia during the survey period, and are

thus not included in the sample considered here.

Social Indicators

On every major social indicator, migrants had

superior perceptions of Australia than of their

former countries of residence. In particular, they

perceived lower levels of crime, greater personal

influence over government, greater contact

between persons of different racial and cultural


7

backgrounds, better monetary reward for hard

work, and better education opportunities. The

perceptions held by Cohort 2 migrants also

tended to be more favourable than those reported

by Cohort 1, especially in terms of perceived

levels of crime, racial tolerance, religious

tolerance, and inter-cultural interaction.

Whilst holding favourable perceptions about

social life in Australia, the vast majority of

migrants considered it important that they

maintain cultural ties to their former country of

residence. Young migrants and those from the

Preferential family/family stream visa group

were most likely to want to maintain their

cultural ties.

Migrants were able to engage with their new

communities in Australia by attending organised

activities and through informal contact with

neighbours. Migrants were most likely to attend

activities organised by either people from their

country of origin or by a religious organisation,

which suggests they feel most comfortable

building their social networks in familiar cultural

contexts. The average migrant has spoken to six

people in his/her immediate neighbourhood, and

would consider three of these to be friends.

Support Services

New migrants to Australia require assistance in a

number of different areas to help their successful

integration into a foreign country. Australia

provides a number of support services to new

migrants that help migrants significantly

in this process. These range from standard

services which provide support to all Australian

residents, such as Medicare and the Australian

Taxation Office, to more specific support

tailored to meet individual migrant needs,

including learning English and trauma

counselling. Overall, a great deal of support was

received by migrants in the first six months in

Australia. By Wave 2 of Cohort 2 however, a

general decline in the use of these services was

evident. Assistance received with finding

housing/ accommodation and help concerning

health services and health insurance saw the

biggest decline whilst help received with

financial matters and torture/trauma counselling

was unchanged between Waves 1 and 2 of

Cohort 2.

Given the types of assistance sought by migrants

it was not surprising to find that most migrants

contacted the core government agencies. The

organisations that were most commonly

contacted to provide the assistance sought by

migrant were: The Australian Taxation Office

(ATO), the Department of Immigration and

Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA),

Centrelink and Medicare. Fewer than five per

cent of migrants contacted ethnic, non-profit

welfare services or embassies.

A large majority of migrants were satisfied with

the help that they received. Levels of satisfaction

ranged from just under three-quarters of

respondents satisfied with Embassy of Former

Country of Residence to all respondents satisfied

with the services of Torture/Trauma Counselling

(Cohort 2 Wave 1) and Ethnic Welfare Agency

(Cohort 2 Wave 2). Perhaps more surprising,

virtually all those who had contact with the

Australian Taxation Office were satisfied with

the service they received, as were most who used

Medicare.


8

1. Introduction

s part of the ‘new world’, Australia has had

an active migration program ever since

white settlement. Today, almost one quarter of

Australian residents were born overseas, and

there have been a number of years since World

War 2 when migration provided over half of our

population growth. Despite the significance of

migration in the Australian story, it is not until

recently that we have had the information that

enables us to obtain a good appreciation of the

experience of recent migrants in settling into

their new country of residence. Nor has there

been good evidence from which to assess the

consequences for successful settlement of

changes in migration policy and services. An

important initiative by the Department of

Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous

Affairs has produced a world class data set that

enables the early settlement experience of two

different cohorts of migrants to be traced in

detail. Two sets of surveys have been conducted,

of migrants who received their visas offshore.

The first set surveyed migrants arriving in

Australia from September 1993 to August 1995

(Cohort 1) and the second surveyed migrants

arriving in Australia from September 1999 to

August 2000 (Cohort 2). Migrants were first

interviewed about six months after arrival. A

second wave of interviews of the same people

was conducted 12 months after the first wave.

The information collected in this Longitudinal

Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA)

provides a unique insight into a number of

important questions. These include the extent to

which people who migrate under different visa

categories have different outcomes; the impact

of personal attributes such as English language

proficiency, age, formal education and gender on

economic independence and other settlement

outcomes; and the role played by Australian

migrant services in assisting settlement. It is also

possible to investigate whether changes in the

overall state of the economy and in government

policy have had a substantial effect on the early

integration of migrants into employment.

In this report we focus particularly on

information from the second waves of both

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2. We use this to describe

and compare the experience of these two groups

of recent migrants, and to see what changes have

occurred for the second group in the twelve

months since their first interview.

Changes in migrant selection criteria produced

substantial changes in the main characteristics of

migrants between the two cohorts. Compared

with Cohort 1, Cohort 2 had a higher proportion

of people who were highly educated, fluent in

English, employed, and reliant on their own

wage earnings. The other side of the coin was

that Cohort 2 had a smaller proportion who had

little education, spoke little or no English, were

unemployed and reliant on social welfare

support. These differences were large. For

example, the proportion who were employed

about six months after arrival in Australia rose

from 33 to 50 per cent, while the proportion who

had less than Year 12 education fell from 23 to

14 per cent (these data refer to both Primary

Applicants and Migrating Unit Spouses).

A


9

2. Employment

clear majority of migrants are looking to

find employment soon after arrival in

Australia. Many have been to Australia prior to

migration, or have family here, and have quite a

good idea of what to expect. In figure 2.1 we

show how migrants in the different cohorts fared

as they looked for work, both six months and 18

months after arrival.

Cohort 2 has much higher employment, and

much lower unemployment, than Cohort 1, both

six months and 18 months after arrival.

However, the size of the Cohort 2 advantage has

diminished between Waves 1 and 2. All the visa

groups, in both cohorts, made large gains in

employment over the twelve-month period

between the first and second waves of

interviews. By the second wave of Cohort 2, the

Skilled Australian-linked migrants had the

highest rate of employment of all the visa

groups, having overtaken Independent migrants.

This same group also made large gains between

Waves 1 and 2 in Cohort 1, though to a lower

Wave 2 level.

The age groups that had the biggest increases in

employment, both between waves and across the

cohorts, were 35-44 and especially, 45-54.

Indeed, the profile for Cohort 2, Wave 2

indicates that there is no employment

disadvantage for older migrants, provided that

they are aged no more than their mid-fifties.3

3 Numbers in the 55-64 age group are not sufficient to have a material impact on labour market outcomes. They make up about 2-3% of the skilled stream labour force in any wave, and none of the independent stream. In the family stream they make up about 2% of the labour force in Cohort 2 and about 4% in Cohort 1, and in the skilled business they make up about 3% of the labour force in

It may be that the greater levels of English

proficiency of skilled migrants, the possession of

skills in short supply in Australia, and an

increased emphasis on education and skills, has

made the effect of age less significant. Another

important factor in the outcomes reported for

older migrants is that many of those in the

business stream, who represent the largest

number of 45-54 year olds in Cohort 2, were

setting up their own businesses at Wave 1 and

then working in them by Wave 2. This

contributed to the rise in employment for the

migrants in this age group over time. At the

same time, the proportion of 45-54 year old

migrants doing mainly “home duties” declined

(from 26% in Wave 1 to 18% in Wave 2).

For each cohort and both waves, the better the

English, the higher the employment. This

positive link between English proficiency and

employment is large and systematic. Among

Cohort 2, the lower employment of those who do

not speak English well arises not from high rates

of unemployment, but from low levels of

participation in the labour force. Unemployment

Cohort 1 and about 3-5% of Cohort 2. Migrants of that age make up about 4-6% of Cohort 1 Humanitarian immigrants and there were none in Cohort 2. There are not sufficient numbers to make any meaningful comparisons of changes from Wave 1 to Wave 2 (or Cohort 1 to Cohort 2). In the 65 plus age group numbers are very small (and generally less than 5 per cell when disaggregated by age and visa category). Of the three categories in which there non-trivial numbers of people aged 65 plus the participation rate is between about 3% across the four Waves for the family stream immigrants. For the Humanitarian category it is zero participation, except in C1W1 when it was 4.6%.

A


10

Figure 2.1 Labour Force Status

was much more a cause of low employment for

Cohort 1. This suggests that the migration policy

changes that have occurred between the two

cohorts of migrants—to emphasise skills and

English language competence for all but the

family-reunion and Humanitarian migrants—has

had a notable impact.

Migrants were mostly content to remain with

their current main job, after they found one.

Perhaps surprisingly, this was little changed after

they had been in Australia for 18 months rather

than six months. In each case, 27-33 per cent of

migrants who were employed said they were

looking for another job: the main reason was to

change job rather than to get additional work.

The main reasons that people gave for wanting

to change their job were to obtain more money,

more job satisfaction, use their qualifications and

have better career opportunities. These reasons

sound very much like those we would expect

workers at large to give.

Most migrants quite like their work, with at least

three-quarters saying that they have a really

good job or that it is OK. More (around 10%)

say that it is the best job they have ever had, than

say that they dislike their work.

Overall, the satisfactory labour market outcomes

of Cohort 2, that were identified in an earlier

report, have been maintained and enhanced in

the subsequent 12 months in Australia. Eighteen

months after arrival, levels of employment were

high, unemployment was low and participation

in the labour market was low only for


stream migrants. A total of 28 per cent had

experienced some unemployment in the 12

months between interviews. Importantly, long

term unemployment was rare. Very few held

more than one job, so the image of the typical

migrant having to accept multiple bits and pieces

of low paid insecure work to make ends meet is

not supported by the picture provided above.

Nor did they work especially long hours. While

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Employed Unemployed Not in Labour Force

Perc

ent

Cohort 1 - Wave 1 Cohort 1 - Wave 2 Cohort 2 - Wave 1 Cohort 2 - Wave 2


11

some had found it necessary to change their

occupation in order to obtain a job in Australia,

an equal number had chosen to do so as a new

opportunity. In many ways, Cohort 2 migrants

looked much like the Australian labour force

more generally. They relied on family, friends

and employment agencies to find work; they

worked a typical range of hours; a proportion

wanted to change jobs to get more money or

more job satisfaction, or use their qualifications

better; and most but not all were satisfied with

the sort of work they did. A migrant’s prospects

of being employed were substantially higher if

he was a man and spoke English fluently, but it

appears that once the decision has been made to

enter the labour force, language is the more

important factor. For example, in Cohort 2

Wave 1, while the employment to population

ration for males and females was 64 percent and

37 percent respectively, the employment rate

(those employed as a proportion of the labour

force, i.e. the employed plus the unemployed)

was 82 per cent for males compared to 84

percent for females. When considering English

language proficiency however, 86 percent of the

immigrant labour force with “English only or

best” were employed compared with 83 percent

who spoke “English very well or well” and only

71 percent who spoke “English not well or at

all”.


12

3. INCOME

n addition to employment, a second key

indicator of successful settlement in Australia

is the extent to which recent migrants are able to

earn an income sufficient to support themselves

and their families. One of the major changes in

Government policy towards migrants has been to

exclude non-Humanitarian migrants from access

to social welfare benefits for a period of two

years after arrival in Australia. This puts added

pressure on migrants to find paid work or

satisfactory self-employment. It also puts

pressure on people not to migrate if they believe

they are unlikely to be able to find work or

private sources of financial support for the first

two years. We report several perspectives on the

level and source of income of recent migrants,

and how this has changed.

Earnings from wages and salaries are the

overwhelming source of income for recent

migrants. All the evidence on income and

earnings confirms two main themes. These are

that Cohort 2 has done better in establishing the

basis for financial independence than did

Cohort 1 at the same duration of settlement. And

an additional 12 months in Australia, between

Waves 1 and 2 for Cohort 2, has resulted in

increased incomes and earnings.

The superior economic outcomes for Cohort 2 is

the result of two factors. One is that the

characteristics of Cohort 2 migrants were more

conducive to success in the labour market: they

were on average younger, better educated and

had better English language skills. The second is

that, even for those with the same attributes,

Cohort 2 migrants typically had higher earnings

and income than did their earlier counterparts.

This confirms what we found when comparing

the cohorts after six months in Australia. In most

cases, the early advantage has been retained,

even if the size of the advantage has diminished

for some groups with extra time in Australia.

Typically, the levels of income and earnings of

Primary Applicants were higher than those of

Migrating Unit Spouses. Across the waves of

Cohort 2, average earnings rose both because of

a rise in the proportion of migrants who had

jobs, and a rise in the earnings of those who

were employed. There was non-trivial use of

government social welfare payments. Part of this

arises from the heavy reliance on this support by

the Humanitarian migrants. While we cannot be

definitive, it appears that a substantial amount of

the remaining use of these benefits arises from

the eligibility of the spouses of Primary

Applicants, who were in Australia prior to the

arrival of their migrant partner.

Men on average earn more than women. Men,

whether considering PAs or all migrants, are

also more likely to be employed , especially

soon after arrival.4 Men, as a result, contribute

substantially more to the financial independence

of migrants than do women, although the

women’s contribution is still substantial.

Employment and labour market outcomes

improved more for women between Cohorts 1

and 2 than they did for men. Women in Cohort 2

received higher earnings relative to men if they

had a job, and a higher proportion of them were

employed.

4For example, as described previously, for Cohort 2

Wave 1, the employment to population ratio for males

and females was 64 percent and 37 percent.

I


13

Earlier research drew attention to the fact that

older workers in Cohort 2 have done particularly

well, relative to Cohort 1, to the point where it

was no longer a disadvantage to be older. This

has been reinforced by the experience of a

further 12 months in the labour force. Indeed,

the highest earning age group in Cohort 2 was

that aged 45-54 and the age group that had the

largest gain over 12 months was 55-64. A

contributing factor to the improvement of older

migrants’ employment outcomes is the

movement into employment of older business

migrants who represent the largest number of

45-54 year olds in Cohort 2.


14

4. HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE

verall, Primary Applicants felt no more

comfortable about the adequacy of their

income to meet their needs, 18 months after

arrival than they did six months after arrival.

While a slightly smaller proportion said they did

not have enough income to meet their needs, at

the same time a smaller number said they had

more than enough. The proportion who said they

had just enough to meet their basic needs had, as

a result, risen from 52 per cent to 59 per cent.

This lack of apparent progress in establishing a

comfortable standard of living is at odds with the

rise in income between the two waves.

It is also at odds with the judgement of almost

half of Cohort 2 migrants, who felt that they had

made progress in establishing an adequate

income from their own resources between waves

one and two. Only a minority felt that they went

backwards. The gainers tended to be the ones

who were already doing relatively well—the

economic visa groups and migrants with fluent

English. Those with the lowest levels of English

proficiency made the least progress. The main

reasons for feeling better off were rises in pay

and, of lesser importance, additional

employment.

How can we reconcile the evidence on rising

incomes, and a feeling of progress, with the

absence of a margin of comfort? One way is to

suppose that migrant’s feelings about what are

basic needs have adjusted to the standards that

they see around them, in their lengthening time

in Australia.

The surveys provide some direct information on

the material standard of living of the migrants, in

the form of estimates of expenditure on a

nominated set of items. There was little change

in average weekly spending on food and clothes,

between Waves 1 and 2 of Cohort 2. There was,

however, some increase in spending on medical

care and on transport. Even by Wave 2 of

Cohort 2, these amounts still were quite low,

relative to the Australian average. There is a

very close correlation between the average

weekly earnings of any category of migrants,

and their average weekly expenditure on food,

clothing etc. If we know their ranking on

income, then we also know their ranking on

expenditure, and vice versa. Note that total

reported expenditure is considerably less than

total income for each category of migrant. This

reinforces the conclusion that the selected items

reported in the LSIA do not give a full account

of migrant expenditure or standards of living.

O


15

5. HEALTH

5.1 Physical Health

igrant selection criteria include a

requirement that a person have no

substantial chronic ill health. It is not surprising,

then, to find that overall, the vast majority of

migrants reported believing their health was at

least ‘good’. Those less likely to report that their

health was at least good were Humanitarian

migrants, those who could not speak English

well, older migrants, and female migrants. At

Wave 2, Cohort 2 were more likely to report that

their health was good than Cohort 1 (91%

compared to 86%). This pattern was the same for

both genders, all age groups, all levels of

English proficiency and for all visa categories,

with the exception of the Humanitarian migrants.

Humanitarian migrants showed the opposite

pattern, with Cohort 1 being more likely to

report their health was good than Cohort 2 (77%

versus 68%). (See Figure 5.1).

When we examine changes over time in

Cohort 2, we see that migrants maintained their

self-assessed health advantage over the general

Australian population. Figure 4.1 shows that

there was little change in self-assessed health

status over the 12 months between the Wave 1

and Wave 2 surveys. This was the pattern

exhibited in most of the demographic groups,

with some exceptions. Compared to Wave 1, at

Wave 2 the Humanitarian migrants, migrants

who spoke English not well or not at all, and

migrants aged 65 and over were less likely to

report that their health was good (see Appendix

Tables A5.1 to A5.10 for the age-related data;

for a 4-category breakdown of self-assessed

health; and for the significant differences

between Cohorts 1 and 2 at Wave 2). These

findings are somewhat different from changes

over time for Cohort 1, in which for all groups

there was a decline in self-assessed health from

Wave 1 to Wave 2 (VandenHeuvel & Wooden,

1999).

Objective indicators of health give a similar

picture to that provided by migrant’s judgement

about their overall health. Under 10 per cent of

all migrants reported the presence of a long-term

health condition that restricted their physical

activity or work (see Table 5.1). Long-term

health conditions were more common in

Humanitarian (foremost) and Preferential

family/family stream migrants (secondly),

English not well or not at all migrants, and older

migrants. Overall, there was no difference

between the cohorts at Wave 2 in the prevalence

of long-term health conditions (both 10 per

cent). The exceptions to this were the

Humanitarian migrants, English not well or not

at all migrants, and migrants in the 55-64 and

65+ age groups. In these groups, the Cohort 2

migrants had significantly more long-term health

conditions than those in Cohort 1. Conversely,

for English only or best migrants there was a

significantly lower prevalence of long-term

health conditions in Cohort 2 than Cohort 1.

(See Appendix Table A5.11 for significant

differences.)

M


16

Figure 5.1 Assessing health as good or very good, by selected factors

When comparing Waves 1 and 2 of Cohort 2,

there was an increase in long-term health

conditions among Humanitarian migrants, those

with English not well or not at all, and those in

the 55-64 and 65+ age groups.

The two most common long-term conditions for

both cohorts and both waves were

arthritis/rheumatism and nerves/stress problems

(see Appendix Table A5.12). For Cohort 2 in

both waves, nerves/stress problems was the

long-term condition with the most cases (with a

slight increase over time); in Cohort 1

arthritis/rheumatism was the most common.

Humanitarian migrants accounted for 39 per cent

of cases of nerves/stress problems in Cohort 1,

but in Cohort 2 they accounted for 75 per cent of

cases. Similarly, English not well or not at all

migrants accounted for 50 per cent of

stress/nerves problems in Cohort 1, but in

Cohort 2 this was 73 per cent. Of course, a high

proportion of migrants who did not speak

English well or at all were on Humanitarian

visas.

Another more objective measure of physical

health is the number of visits to a health care

professional in the previous four weeks (see

Appendix Tables A5.13 to A5.16).

Approximately one-third of all the migrants had

visited a health professional recently. Health

care visits were more common in Humanitarian

migrants, those with English not well or not at

all, female migrants, and migrants in the 65+ age

group. It is likely this is related to the generally

poorer health of these groups.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total Concessional

family/skilled

Australian-linked

Independent Preferential

family/family

stream

Business

skills/employer

nominations

scheme

Humanitarian Male Female English only or

best

English w ell +

other language

English not w ell

or not at all

Perc

ent

Cohort 1 - Wave 2 Cohort 2 - Wave 1 Cohort 2 - Wave 2


17

Table 5.1: Presence of long-term health conditions, by selected characteristics

CharacteristicCohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Visa Category

Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 6 3 5

Independent 3 4 5

Preferential family/family stream 12 9 10

Business skills/employer nomination scheme 6 4 5

Humanitarian 16 32 41

Gender

Male 9 9 11

Female 11 8 10

English Proficiency

English only or best 8 5 6

English well and other language 7 5 8

English not well or not at all 16 16 21

Age Group

15-24 7 4 4

25-34 6 5 6

35-44 8 7 9

45-54 17 17 16

55-64 26 31 38

65+ 39 40 51

Total 10 8 10

Indeed, when the poorer health of English not

well or not at all migrants was taken into

account, it was found that those who spoke

English poorly were actually relatively less

likely to have visited a health care provider.5

Overall, Cohort 1 migrants had fewer health care

visits than Cohort 2 migrants. This difference

5 We compared the percentage of the two groups (English well and English not well) who had visited a health care provider with the percentage who had long-term health conditions. The results indicated a ratio of six (that is, 6 persons had visited a health care provider for every one person with a long-term condition) for those who spoke English well (English only or best and English well and other language groups combined), compared to a ratio of 2.4 for those who did not speak English well. The corresponding ratios when looking at who reported their health as being not good were six for those who could speak English and 2.5 for those who could not.

was particularly pronounced in the Humanitarian

migrants and migrants aged 65+, where multiple

health visits were prevalent. As found previously

with Cohort 1 (VandenHeuvel & Wooden,

1999), when comparing Waves 1 and 2 of

Cohort 2, there was an increase in health care

visits from Wave 1 to Wave 2 (from 32% to 37%

having at least one visit). By Wave 2, multiple

health care visits increased particularly in the

65+ age group. Only Independent migrants did

not show an increase in health visits over time.

5.2 Psychological Health

The General Health Questionnaire was

administered to participants in order to assess

their level of psychological distress (for a

description of scoring, see Richardson, et al.,


18

2002). One-quarter of all the migrants reported a

significant level of psychological distress, with

greater prevalence in females, those in the

middle age-groups (rather than younger or older

age-groups), those who spoke English not well

or not at all, and especially in the Humanitarian

migrants. At Wave 2 (18 months after arrival), a

quarter of both Cohorts 1 and 2 showed

psychological distress at a level indicating the

need for a full psychiatric assessment. Thus, by

Wave 2 the migrants were still exhibiting a level

of distress that was much greater than the

general Australian population. Although the

overall figures indicate little difference between

the cohorts on psychological health, this finding

did vary among different demographic groups

(see Table 5.2). For the Independent and

especially the Humanitarian entrants,

psychological distress was considerably greater

in Cohort 2 than Cohort 1 (this is not surprising

given the greater prevalence of nerves/stress

problems in Cohort 2 Humanitarians migrants).

This was offset by lesser distress in Cohort 2 for

the other visa groups. The similar average

experience between the cohorts also conceals the

finding that for those who spoke English well

(English only or best and English well and other

language groups), Cohort 1 was slightly more

distressed than Cohort 2. Cohort 2 migrants aged

55-64 were also considerably more likely to be

psychological distressed than those in Cohort 1.

Table 5.2: Presence of significant psychological distress, by selected characteristics


Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % % Visa CategoryConcessional family/skilled Australian-linked 24 32 18 Independent 24 26 28 Preferential family/family stream 21 22 16 Business skills/employer nomination scheme 25 15 11 Humanitarian 33 50 52

GenderMale 21 25 20 Female 27 27 26

English ProficiencyEnglish only or best 23 25 19 English well and other language 25 22 23 English not well or not at all 25 31 31

Age15-24 19 20 16 25-34 23 26 20 35-44 27 30 27 45-54 27 27 28 55-64 21 28 36 65+ 25 15 23

Total 24 26 23

Note: (1) Cohort 1 Wave 2 had 56 missing observations, thus per cents expressed in this table for Cohort 1 Wave 2 are out of non-missing observations only (not total N).

Tab

le 5

.3:

Inte

rrela

tio

nsh

ips

betw

een

healt

h f

acto

rs

Hea

lth

Fa

cto

rs

Co

ho

rt

Wa

ve

Ha

ve

a L

on

g-T

erm

Hea

lth

Co

nd

itio

n

Ha

ve S

ign

ific

an

t

Psy

cho

log

ica

l D

istr

ess

Ha

ve

Vis

ited

a H

ea

lth

Ca

re

Provid

er i

n l

ast

4 w

eek

s T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

Hea

lth

Ass

esse

d a

s V

ery G

oo

d

C1W

2

4

16

1

8

42

C

2W

1

2

18

2

2

55

C

2W

2

4

14

2

5

49

Hea

lth

Ass

esse

d a

s G

oo

d

C1W

2

9

25

3

7

45

C

2W

1

11

3

1

42

37

C

2W

2

10

2

6

44

42

Hea

lth

Ass

esse

d a

s F

air

C1W

2

27

4

2

55

11

C

2W

1

32

5

6

61

6

C

2W

2

37

5

9

66

7

Hea

lth

Ass

esse

d a

s P

oo

r/V

ery

Po

or

C1

W2

4

5

52

8

7

3

C

2W

1

62

6

2

68

2

C

2W

2

85

7

3

93

2

Hav

e a

Lo

ng

-ter

m H

ealt

h C

on

dit

ion

C

1W

2

N/A

3

7

58

10

C

2W

1

N/A

4

4

62

8

C

2W

2

N/A

4

6

59

10

Hav

e S

ign

ific

ant

Psy

cho

log

ical

Dis

tres

s

C1

W2

N

/A

N/A

3

7

24

C

2W

1

N/A

N/A

3

8

26

C

2W

2

N/A

N/A

4

8

23


20

As with Cohort 1, in Cohort 2 there was a minor

decrease in the prevalence of significant

psychological distress over time from Wave 1 to

Wave 2 (from 26% to 23%). Many of the

demographic groups exhibited this pattern, with

levels of psychological distress falling most

rapidly for younger migrants and for migrants

with strong family ties (Concessional


family/family stream entrants).

Other demographic groups did not exhibit this

pattern. For females, and those for whom

English was not their best language (English

well and other language and English not well or

not at all groups), there was little change over

time. Additionally, a considerable increase in

psychological distress from Wave 1 to Wave 2

was seen in the older age groups (those aged 55+

displaying an increase in distress of eight per

cent). This may perhaps reflect dealing with

issues of the latter stages of life, including illness

and death, or it may indicate a greater difficulty

for older people in adjusting to radical change in

their life.6

5.3 Interrelationships Between

Health Factors

The interrelationships between these health-

related factors are shown in Table 5.3. Overall,

the health factors were related in the expected

manner: for all cohorts and all waves, the poorer

people’s self-assessed health, the greater the

likelihood that they reported having a long-term

health condition, the greater the likelihood that

they had visited a health care provider in the

previous four weeks, and the more likely they

were to be suffering from a significant level of

psychological distress. Furthermore, one-third to

one-half of those with significant psychological

6 Independent and Humanitarian migrants exhibited a

small but not significant increase in distress over time.

distress also reported having a long-term health

condition and having visited a health-care

provider, and two-thirds of those with long-term

health conditions had visited a health care

provider. These considerable interrelationships

between the health factors were stronger for

Cohort 2 migrants than Cohort 1 migrants. For

example, of migrants with a long-term health

condition, those in Cohort 2 were considerably

more likely than those in Cohort 1 to also have

significant psychological distress (46% versus

37%).

Similarly, the expected interrelationships

between most of the health factors were stronger

at Wave 2 than at Wave 1. The exception to this

was the relationship between presence of long-

term conditions and visiting a health-care

provider.

5.4 Conclusions

The vast majority of migrants reported believing

their physical health was at least ‘good’— and

better than for Australians generally. Their

subjective assessment was supported by other

evidence on the extent of chronic disease and

doctor visits. This pattern remained unchanged

between the two waves of interviews of

Cohort 2. Those with the poorest health were

migrants who had a poor command of English,

were older and came on Humanitarian visas. In

contrast to their good physical health, a

relatively high proportion of migrants showed

signs of mental distress, and this did not subside

with an additional 12 months in Australia.

The Humanitarian migrants had considerably

poorer psychological as well as physical health

than other migrants. This finding was

particularly pronounced in Cohort 2. Part of the

explanation for the poorer health of the Cohort 2

Humanitarian entrants may lie in the different

composition of the two cohorts. Cohort 2

Humanitarian migrants were older than those in


21

Cohort 1, and included more from the Middle

East and Europe and fewer from South-East

Asia. The poorer physical and psychological

health of the Cohort 2 Humanitarian migrants

may also be related to the finding that there was

a stronger interrelationship between physical and

psychological health in Cohort 2 than Cohort 1.

Humanitarian migrants also showed increases in

psychological and physical health problems from

Wave 1 to Wave 2. This is reflected in the

corresponding increase in health visits over time,

which also provided greater opportunity for

diagnosis. The reduction in self-assessed health

ratings from Wave 1 to Wave 2 for

Humanitarian migrants could also be caused by

these migrants changing their point of

comparison to people in Australia instead of

people in their home country.

Many of these novel findings for Humanitarian

entrants were also found for those who could not

speak English well (English not well or not at

all). This similarity is in part accounted for by

the overlap between these two groups: At Cohort

2 Wave 1, 78 per cent of Humanitarian migrants

were in the English not well or not at all group,

and at Wave 2 for both cohorts this overlap was

still 60-61 per cent. Conversely, 22 per cent of

English not well or not at all migrants in Cohort

1 Wave 2 were Humanitarian entrants, and for

Cohort 2 Waves 1 and 2, 15-16 per cent of

English not well or not at all migrants were

Humanitarian entrants. The question does arise

as to whether these results are really due to just

the level of English proficiency or whether being

a Humanitarian entrant is particularly important.

Using psychological distress as an example, it

was found that if Cohort 2 Wave 2 Humanitarian

migrants had the same risk of psychological

distress as others with the same level of English

proficiency, then the level of psychological

distress in Humanitarian migrants should only be

about half of what it actually is. Thus, after

taking into account their level of English

proficiency, Humanitarian migrants still had a

high rate of psychological distress.7 In

conclusion, these findings suggest that health

services provided to new immigrants to Australia

should consider specifically targeting

Humanitarian migrants.

7 This was determined by using knowledge of the different levels of risk of psychological distress for each level of English Proficiency, and knowledge of the different level of English Proficiency in Humanitarians compared to the rest of the cohort. This information was then used to determine how many Humanitarians would be psychologically distressed if Humanitarians had the same risk of distress as others given their level of English Proficiency. This number was then compared to the actual number of Humanitarians who had psychological distress.


22

6. HOUSING

inding suitable and affordable housing is a

major issue for immigrants in the early

settlement years. In this report we are able to

track the experience of Cohort 2 as they begin to

settle in their new land, by comparing the

housing experiences for Cohort 2 at Wave 1 with

those at Wave 2. We will also compare the

experiences of this Cohort with those in Cohort

1 at the same stage.

6.1 Comparisons

6.1.1 Household Size

On the basis of information provided by Primary

Applicants only, Table 6.1 tells us that a typical

household comprises two to four members and

this is true for between 70-80 per cent of

households across Waves 1 and 2 in both

Cohorts. There are very few single person

households (no more than 5%) and there appears

to be a trend toward smaller households with 78

percent in Cohort 2 Wave 2 in two to four

person households and reduced numbers of

larger households. While larger households are

not uncommon for migrants on arrival, when

they are more likely to be sharing with family or

friends, by Wave 2 in each of Cohorts 1 and 2

the numbers begin to drop away. At Wave 2 in

Cohort 1 households with five to seven persons

accounted for 19 per cent of households (down

from 22% in Wave 1) and at Wave 2 in Cohort 2

it was 15 per cent (down from 19% in Wave 1).

There are also very few large households (eight

or more persons).

Table 6.1: Household size (per cent of households)

Persons in householdCohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % % %

1 person 4 5 4 5

2-4 persons 70 73 73 78

5-7 persons 22 19 19 15

8 persons 4 3 4 2

Total 100 100 100 100

F


23

6.1.2 Tenure Type

Table 6.2 illustrates that migrants tend to go

through a housing progression, often starting

with shared housing before moving on to private

rental accommodation and purchase of a house.

Given higher employment levels in Cohort 2

than Cohort 1 in Wave 1, we might expect to see

some housing progression at the six-month

interval and indeed this is the case. There has

been general movement across all visa categories

into home ownership. At Cohort 2 Wave 2, 29

per cent of migrants owned or were purchasing a

dwelling, compared with 22 per cent in Cohort 1

Wave 2. The Business skills/employer

nomination scheme and Independent visa

categories were particularly likely to have

bought a home. Interestingly, 3-4 per cent

reported starting in public rental accommodation

(restrictedly predominantly to those in the

Preferential family/family stream, from 3-5 per

cent, and Humanitarian, from 9-13 per cent).

This did not fall between Waves 1 and 2, but

rose by about 1-2 per cent.

Between Waves 1 and 2 in Cohort 2, many of

the Concessional family/skilled Australian-

linked and Preferential Family/family stream

entrants have moved from shared

accommodation and into both the private rental

market and home ownership. We are seeing here

the important role played by family who are

already in Australia, in assisting the early

settlement of family stream migrants.

No Humanitarian migrants had bought their own

home at Wave 1 in Cohort 2. By Wave 2,

however, six per cent had and, in this respect,

they are doing slightly better than their

counterparts in Cohort 1. While there was no

change in their propensity to privately own,

there is a slight increase between Waves 1 and 2

in Cohort 2 and between Cohorts 1 and 2 in their

use of public housing. While at Wave 2 in

Cohort 1 nine per cent rented from the

government, at Wave 2 in Cohort 2, this is 13

per cent.

6.1.3 Dwelling Type

Table 6.3 sets out the type of dwelling that

migrants lived in at Wave 2 in Cohort 2. Clearly,

there has been little change between Cohorts 1

and 2, with the most common type of dwelling

being a separate house, occupied by almost 50

per cent of migrants. A further 14 per cent live in

semi-detached dwellings and just over one-third

in flats, and these sorts of dwellings represent

the main types of housing stock available (refer

Table 6.3). Indeed the patterns are very similar

even when we disaggregate by visa category.

Tab

le 6

.2

Ho

us

ing

Ten

ure

by V

isa

Ca

teg

ory

Ho

usi

ng S

tatu

sC

oh

ort

/

Wa

ve

Co

nces

sio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lian

-lin

ked

Ind

ep

end

ent

Pref

eren

tia

l

fam

ily

/

Fa

mil

y s

trea

m

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loy

er

no

min

ati

on

sch

em

e

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

C1W

1

9

5

14

2

9

*

11

C1W

2

23

2

0

25

4

9

4

22

C2W

1

11

1

1

19

4

1

*

16

Ow

n o

r p

ayin

g o

ff

C2W

2

29

2

7

30

6

3

6

29

C1W

1

48

7

3

42

5

5

60

51

C1W

2

57

7

0

42

4

4

70

52

C2W

1

48

7

6

42

4

5

73

54

Ren

tin

g p

riv

atel

y

C2W

2

53

6

9

45

3

0

73

53

C1W

1

*

*

4

*

7

4

C1W

2

*

1

5

*

9

4

C2W

1

*

*

3

*

11

3

Ren

t fr

om

go

ver

nm

ent

C2W

2

*

*

4

*

13

3

C1W

1

43

2

2

41

1

4

33

36

C1W

2

19

1

0

28

7

18

22

C2W

1

42

1

3

36

1

4

16

28

Oth

er r

ent,

bo

ard

C2W

2

17

4

2

1

8

8

15

No

tes:

(1

) *

= n

um

ber

of

ob

serv

atio

ns

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5

)

(2)

Pre

vio

us

Hou

sing

rep

ort

sho

wed

Tab

le o

f H

ou

sing

Arr

angem

ents

id

enti

fyin

g ‘

Ren

t fr

ee f

amil

y/o

ther

’ an

d ‘

Oth

er’

sep

arat

ely

. T

his

Tab

le c

om

bin

es t

hes

e

in

to ‘

Oth

er r

ent,

bo

ard’

and t

he

dat

a is

con

sist

ent

wit

h t

hat

pre

vio

usl

y r

eport

ed.

Tab

le 6

.3

Dw

ellin

g t

yp

e b

y v

isa c

ate

go

ry

Dw

elli

ng

Ty

pe

Co

hort

Wa

ve

Co

nce

ssio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-l

ink

ed

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loyer

no

min

ati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

C1

W1

60

35

5

3

58

4

0

49

C1

W2

50

43

5

0

68

3

8

47

C2

W1

55

36

5

2

59

3

5

47

Sep

arat

e H

ou

se

C2

W2

55

40

5

0

54

3

5

47

C1

W1

10

14

1

3

16

1

4

13

C1

W2

13

15

1

6

10

1

5

15

C2

W1

15

19

1

1

12

1

2

13

Sem

i-d

etac

hed

hou

se

C2

W2

16

13

1

3

19

1

9

14

C1

W1

15

23

1

6

9

25

18

C1

W2

16

22

1

8

10

2

5

19

C2

W1

17

20

1

8

7

26

18

One

to t

wo s

tore

y

flat

C2

W2

12

19

2

1

5

25

19

C1

W1

14

25

1

5

12

1

9

17

C1

W2

17

19

1

3

11

2

0

15

C2

W1

12

23

1

6

20

2

6

18

Thre

e o

r m

ore

sto

rey

fla

t

C2

W2

16

26

1

3

21

2

0

18

C

1W

1

2

3

3

5

2

3

Oth

er

C1

W2

5

1

3

2

2

3

C

2W

1

2

2

4

3

2

3

C

2W

2

2

2

3

- 1

2


26

6.1.4 Housing Satisfaction

We know that on arrival the quality of housing

enjoyed by Cohort 2 was high, although there

were a number in the Humanitarian and

Independent visa categories who were not so

happy with their accommodation. We also know

that family and friends played a crucial role in

these generally good outcomes. Here, we look

again at these two visa categories to find out if

their views have changed after a further 12

months in Australia.

We note that more than two-thirds of all

migrants rated their standard of accommodation

as good in Cohort 2 Wave 2, slightly more than

at the same stage in Cohort 1 (refer Table 6.4). It

remains that the Humanitarian and Independent

visa categories are less likely to be happy,

although their levels of satisfaction have

improved somewhat between Waves 1 and 2 in

Cohort 2. Nevertheless, judgements about

quality of housing are subjective and it is

possible that some members of these groups may

now perceive the quality of their housing to be

better, having had their initial discontent

mediated by more realistic expectations or by

comparison with similar others. On the other

hand, some may remain aspirational and

continue to be frustrated, or be in objectively

poor housing.


and Business skills/employer nomination scheme

migrants remain the most content: only three per

cent of these two groups thought their housing

was of poor standard.

6.1.5 Housing Costs

Housing affordability is an amalgam of prices,

interest rates (and in the case of private rental,

rent payments) and income. For those who join a

spouse on arrival, or shortly afterwards move in

with someone who already owns a dwelling,

then housing costs will not be the critical issue it

is for others. Similarly, for those boarding with

family or friends it may be less significant in the

short term. However, for migrants seeking to

purchase or rent a dwelling, housing costs will

reflect the general affordability of housing.

Location can aggravate problems of the

affordability of housing for migrants in Sydney

or Melbourne, where prices are higher than in

other cities.

Tab

le 6

.4

Ho

usin

g s

ati

sfa

cti

on

by v

isa

cate

go

ry (

per

cen

t)

Sta

nd

ard

of

Cu

rren

t H

ou

sin

g

Coh

ort

/Wave

Co

nce

ssio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-l

ink

ed

Ind

epen

den

tP

refe

ren

tial

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y s

trea

m

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loyer

no

min

ati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

C1

W2

6

1

68

6

9

77

52

66

C2

W1

7

3

58

6

5

72

53

64

G

ood

C2

W2

7

0

63

7

1

74

54

68

C1

W2

3

7

29

2

8

23

40

31

C2

W1

2

5

36

2

8

26

35

30

M

od

erat

e

C2

W2

2

7

33

2

4

25

37

28

C1

W2

3

3

3

+

7

4

C2

W1

3

6

6

3

12

6

Po

or

C2

W2

3

3

5

+

10

5


28

Housing is shared by all the members of the

household, so its affordability should be

assessed in relation to the incomes of all the

members of the household. We make a

distinction here between members of the family

and members of the household (although in

many cases they are the same). We follow the

ABS in defining the family to comprise an adult

plus any spouse and any dependent children. A

household comprises a family plus any others

who live under the same roof and share kitchen

facilities.

In the LSIA data, it is easier to calculate family

than household income, although it is the latter

that is most relevant to an assessment of housing

stress. The limitations and complexities of

imputing an income for each adult household

member to arrive at a household income have

been extensively reported previously. Here, we

note that household income is made up of the

income of the Primary Applicant, Migrating Unit

Spouse and non-migrating spouse and other

adults in the household. Only a small number of

migrating children had independent incomes and

these have been excluded. If no income is given

(as in the case of some non-migrating spouses

and other adults in the household) then an

average has been imputed based on age and sex,

education and workforce status. Table 6.5a

examines the link between family income and

the amount of weekly payment on rent and

mortgage. Table 6.5b shows housing costs as a

proportion of household income. The two Tables

show, for each wave of Cohort 2, the level of

weekly rent or mortgage payment and how this

relates to the level of family or household

income.

Table 6.5a shows that of the small number of

families who had zero income, almost two-thirds

paid nothing for their housing. Most were living

with other household members, who presumably

paid the housing costs. We can see this by

comparing the number of Primary Applicants in

families that had zero income (195 in Wave 1

and 92 in Wave 2) with the smaller number of

Primary Applicants who lived in households that

reported zero income (57 and 25).

In Wave 1, a quarter of families paid nothing for

their housing. This proportion dropped to 17 per

cent by Wave 2, no doubt as a result of some

families moving from initial accommodation

with family already resident in Australia into

housing of their own. Those families who did

pay their own housing costs typically paid

between $100 and $300 per week.

In the interval between Waves 1 and 2 there was

a modest rise in the proportion of families

paying relatively high amounts for their housing

($200 per week or more). The growth in

numbers paying $300 or more arose mainly from

an increase in the number of high income

families. The overall picture presented by Table

6.5a is that migrants with low initial income

depend heavily on other family members to help

them with housing in their initial few months in

Australia. As they become settled and their

incomes rise, they move into independent and/or

more expensive housing. Those with higher

incomes tend to pay more for their housing, but

the correlation is not precise.


29

Table 6.5a Proportion of Primary Applicants with given levels of housing costs for

each level of family income

Weekly Family Income ($) Weekly Rent

/Mortgage

Payment Cohort/

Wave Zero < $309 $309 - $577 $578 -$961 >$ 961 Total

% % % % % %

Zero C2W1 66 38 21 21 18 26

C2W2 62 26 14 13 14 17

< $100 C2W1 11 18 11 7 4 9

C2W2 2 27 14 6 1 8

$100-$149 C2W1 5 15 24 23 11 17

C2W2 9 15 30 22 11 17

$150-$199 C2W1 6 17 32 26 17 22

C2W2 10 19 25 28 19 22

$200-$299 C2W1 10 10 11 16 27 17

C2W2 12 12 12 24 31 23

$300 or more C2W1 3 2 2 6 23 9

C2W2 5 2 6 6 25 13

(number) C2W1 (195) (462) (571) (709) (841) (2778)

C2W2 (92) (287) (451) (636) (1013) (2479)

Notes

(1) Family income is defined as the sum of the incomes of the Primary Applicant plus any migrating spouse plus any

current spouse who did not migrate as part of the migrating unit.

(2) We have excluded from this table the Primary Applicants who were living with other family members (184 in Wave

1) or other families (70), and paying board; the six people who were in employer-provided accommodation; and the 19

“others” who could not be classified.

When we look at the households in which the

Primary Applicants live as distinct from their

families, as expected we find that fewer have

low (especially zero) incomes and more have

higher ($578 or more) incomes. For example,

whereas 56 per cent of Wave 1 families had

incomes that exceeded $578 per week, 71 per

cent of the households in which they lived had

these higher incomes. When they first arrive,

there is a clear positive correlation between the

income of the household and the cost of housing.

The exception is the substantial number of

Primary Applicants who had high household

income and initially have zero housing costs.

The clear inference from a comparison of the

two tables is that for most in this situation the

high income is received by household members

other than the migrating unit.


30

Table 6.5b Percentage of Primary Applicants (and their families) with given levels of

housing costs for each level of Household income

Household Income Weekly

Rent/Mortgage

Payment

Cohort

Wave Zero < $309 $309-$577 $578-$961 >$961 Total

% % % % % %

Zero C2W1 19 20 16 17 36 26

C2W2 20 15 15 15 19 17

< $100 C2W1 18 22 10 7 7 9

C2W2 4 30 13 7 3 8

$100-$149 C2W1 12 16 24 26 10 17

C2W2 8 20 30 18 12 17

$150-$199 C2W1 14 23 35 27 14 22

C2W2 24 24 22 31 18 22

30 16 12 18 18 17 $200-$299 C2W1

C2W2 24 9 14 25 26 23

$300 or more C2W1

C2W2

7

20

3

3

2

5

5

4

16

21

9

13

(number) C2W1 (57) (240) (515) (648) (1318) (2778)

C2W2 (25) (172) (414) (602) (1265) (2478)

Notes:(1) Household income is defined as the sum of the incomes of the Primary Applicant plus any migrating spouse plus any current spouse who did not migrate as part of the migrating unit plus any other adult in the household. In some cases, the income of other household members has had to be estimated. (2) We have excluded from this table the Primary Applicants who were living with other family members (184 in Wave 1) or other families (70), and paying board; the six people who were in employer-provided accommodation; and the 19 “others” who could not be classified.

6.2 Difficulties Experienced in

Getting Housing

Overall, in Cohort 2, Wave 2, the vast majority

of migrants (89%) did not experience any

problems renting their first dwelling, nor did 92

per cent have any trouble purchasing their

current dwelling. Multiple responses were

permitted to the question of what specific

problems people experienced renting

accommodation. Despite this, very few problems

were reported. The Humanitarian and

Preferential family/family stream migrants were

more likely than the others to report problems in

getting housing. The problems revolve around

high rents, difficulty getting finance and finding

bond money.


31

Similarly, hardly any migrants in Cohort 2 Wave

2 cite problems purchasing their dwelling,

though there are more cases reported among the

Independent visa category than any other. Of

those 26 migrants who did report having

difficulties purchasing a dwelling , two thirds

stated that they had trouble getting a loan. A

handful also had trouble getting the deposit.

6.3 Mobility

It appears that, by and large, migrants tend to

settle where they first arrive. After eighteen

months, over half of Cohort 2 (60%) have not

moved house since their arrival, while 35 per

cent have moved once and five per cent have

done so twice. This figure is likely to understate

the true degree of mobility. Between Waves 1

and 2 of Cohort 2, 475, or 15 per cent, of

Primary Applicants were lost to the survey.

Either they could not be traced, or they declined

to complete the Wave 2 questionnaire. It is

highly likely that these non-respondents were

more mobile than were the migrants who could

be traced.

A large percentage of those who did move in

Cohort 2 Wave 2 (82%) moved to better quality

housing relative to their most recent

accommodation, while 13 per cent experienced

little difference in the quality and less than five

per cent find themselves worse off.

Relative contentment is reflected in the intention

of most (76%) to remain settled in the area or

State in which they currently live, while 12 per

cent expect that they will move again and the

same number are uncommitted.

6.3.1 What is it that Prompts Mobility

and Long Distance Moves?

Overall, Table 6.6 illustrates that for 18 per cent

of respondents the main reason for choosing the

suburb or town that they last moved to, is

primarily for the “preferred” lifestyle that it

affords. Almost as many (17% each) are

prompted by existing employment and a

community of family and friends. For ten per

cent it is a hope that it will provide more job

opportunities. Among the ‘Other’ reasons for

relocating, some seven per cent wish to take

advantage of more affordable accommodation.

Among the visa categories however, the picture

is a mixed one and even though the numbers of

responses are not large we can detect some

differences. The Concessional family/skilled

Australian-linked and Humanitarian groups are

more likely to move to be near family and more

of these groups nominate this reason ahead of

employment opportunities. The Concessional

family/skilled Australian-linked are more likely

than Humanitarian migrants to have

employment, and they are also more likely to

have nominated moving to be near their

employer and to pursue a “preferred lifestyle” as

additional reasons for moving.

The situation for the Independent visa category

group is similar in these respects. They move to

be where their employer is and to pursue job

opportunities, while lifestyle is also a factor

motivating their relocation.

We might expect that the Business

skills/employer nomination scheme visa

category are more confident about their

employment prospects and certainly few go to be

with an employer, while none of them indicate

that they are pursuing job opportunities. Nor do

they seek out family. However, they do want to

enjoy a preferred lifestyle and they nominate this

as their primary reason for moving. For some,

being near their friends is also important.

The Preferential family/family stream entrants

also nominate lifestyle as a main reason for

moving, and their other primary motivations are


32

evenly distributed between family, the location

of their employer and job opportunities.

Without speculating on what constitutes a

“preferred lifestyle” for each individual, the

responses suggest that factors such as work,

employment opportunities and a community of

family and friends coalesce to provide one sense

of what this might mean. Particular features of

the accommodation and its location can provide

another. Here, we will explore these by looking

at what motivates people to move shorter

distances, defined in the questionnaire as a move

that did not change the place one sent one’s

children to school or the place one usually

shopped.

6.3.2 What Motivates Shorter

Distance Moves?

Respondents were able to nominate multiple

reasons for moving relatively short distances and

the primary motivation centres around wanting

their own home and independence (30% of

responses). Purchasing a dwelling accounted for

19 per cent of responses followed by increased

space (17%), a better location, closer to

amenities (13%), cheaper and nicer

accommodation (each 12%), greater privacy and

being closer to work and education (each 11%).

Table 6.6 For those who moved, main reason for choosing current suburb/town

Main Reason %

Spouse, partner lived there 4

Employer is located here 17

Job opportunities 10

Family living here 13

Friends living here 5

Preferred climate 2

Preferred lifestyle 18

Only option provided 0.5

Affordable rent 7

Not my choice, housing commission provided 2

Liked the house 3

Convenient to shops, transport, amenities 2

Central location 4

Close to my particular ethnic community *

Liked the area 4

Better school, close to school 3

Close to university 2

Other 6

Total 100

Note: * = number of observations very small (n<5).


33

Looking behind the data in Table 6.7 we find the

different visa categories have somewhat

different priorities. For example, among the

Business skills/employer nomination scheme

entrants, 40 per cent responded that they moved

to purchase a dwelling while among the

Humanitarian group this accounted for only

eight per cent of responses. Looking at each of

the visa categories we can tease out their

primary reasons for moving.

As noted, the Business skills/employer

nomination scheme group are more likely to be

moving a short distance to purchase a dwelling.

In doing so, they seek independence, more

space, a nicer dwelling and wish to be better

located with respect to amenities and schools.

Affordability, on the other hand, is not a primary

concern, accounting for only three per cent of

their responses.

The Concessional family/skilled Australian-

linked group are the ones most likely to be

wanting independence in their own home (38%

of their responses) and have moved a short

distance to purchase one (20% of responses).

They too look for more space and a good

location. Like their Business skills counterparts,

affordability seems not to be of significant

concern (accounting for 4% of responses), but

unlike them, they wish to be closer to family and

friends and rate privacy more highly.

Table 6.7 Reasons for Moving a Short Distance, Cohort 2 Wave 2

Reasons %

Wanted own home/independence 30

Moved to better location, closer to amenities 13

Wanted more space 17

Moved to better location closer to school 7

Wanted more permanent housing 5

Wanted more privacy 11

Moved closer to place of work/education 11

Moved closer to family/friends 8

Moved in with family/friends 4

Purchase this dwelling 19

Cheaper more affordable dwelling 12

Nicer than previous dwelling 12

Previous house we were in was sold 2

Not my choice *

Marriage breakdown *

Housing provided 2

Security, safer area 2

Other 4

Note: * = number of observations very small (n<5).


34

The Independent entrants are more cost-

conscious than the Business skills/employer

nomination scheme and the Concessional

family/skilled Australian-linked visa group.

With housing affordability representing 14 per

cent of their responses, they resemble the

Humanitarian visa category in this respect. Their

motives for moving revolve around finding

independence (accounting for a quarter of their

responses) in a dwelling nicer than their

previous one, with more space and in a good

location with respect to amenities, schools and

work.

The Preferential family/family stream migrants,

like the Concessional family/skilled Australian-

linked group, primarily nominate independence

and their own home among the main reasons for

moving (34% of their responses). In 18 per cent

of cases they also moved to purchase a dwelling,

but unlike all other groups they appear little

concerned about their location (nominated in

only 1% of responses). However, they contradict

this somewhat by responding positively to the

specifics of work/education and family/friends

with these reasons for moving accounting for 11

per cent of their responses.

For the Humanitarian group, issues of space, a

nicer dwelling than their previous one and

affordability feature most frequently as their

reason for moving (28%, 18% and 15% of

responses respectively). They also refer to a

better location with respect to amenities and they

are motivated by a desire for independence. This

is the group least likely to be moving to

purchase a dwelling, yet they are the group most

likely to be seeking stability and permanent

housing.

6.4 Conclusion

In Cohort 2, Wave 2, we detect fewer large

households (comprising five or more persons)

than in previous waves and a move away from

shared accommodation to home ownership. This

confirms the tendency of migrants to go through

housing progression starting with shared

housing or public rental accommodation, before

moving on to private rental or purchase of a

house.

The quality of housing enjoyed by Cohort 2

remains high and the Independent and

Humanitarian visa category groups are happier

than they were at Wave 1 (although the latter

only marginally so). The majority of migrants

(60%) have not moved since they first arrived,

while for those who have, the move was likely to

be into better quality housing. There was little

evidence of overcrowding at Wave 1 in

Cohort 2. With sustained moves away from

shared accommodation, a reduction in the

numbers of large households and moves to better

quality housing, what crowding there was is

likely to have fallen between Waves 1 and 2 in

Cohort 2.

Work and employment opportunities, a preferred

lifestyle and a sense of community among family

and friends accounted for over 60 per cent of the

reasons nominated for choosing their town or

suburb, although there are some differences

among the visa category groups in the ranking of

their motivations.

Wanting one’s own home and independence

accounts for almost one-third of the motivations

for short distance moves. Again, there are

variations in the primacy of responses nominated

by the different visa category groups and, as we

might expect, independence rates highly for

those who tend to share accommodation on

arrival the Preferential family/family stream

and Concessional family/skilled Australian-

linked visa category groups.

Moving to purchase a dwelling is a major

motivation for the Business skills/employer

nomination scheme entrants and migrants


35

generally reflect the overall population in terms

of their aspirations. They move because they

want more space, in a nice dwelling, well

located, close to amenities and they want these

things at an affordable price.

At Wave 2 in Cohort 2, the overall picture is one

of reasonable contentment, considering that over

three-quarters of migrants intend to remain

settled in the area or State that they are currently

in.


36

7. English Proficiency

verall, there were improvements in English

proficiency between Waves 1 and 2 in

Cohort 2 that consolidate the better outcomes in

this area for Cohort 2 compared with those for

Cohort 1. By Cohort 2 Wave 2 more than three

quarters of all migrants said they could speak

English well. Independent and Concessional

family/skilled Australian-linked migrants lead

other visa categories in this respect. The

improvements in English proficiency for


stream migrants at Wave 2 in Cohort 2 appear

stalled, with little gain in proficiency over the

preceding 12 months. We refer here to the

experience of both Primary Applicants and

Migrating Unit spouses.

Among the various age groups, those showing

the most marked improvement between

Cohorts 1 and 2 and within Cohort 2 are the

young 15-24 year olds, with English posing

greater challenges for older migrants in the 55-

64 and 65+ age groups. In aggregate, proficiency

in reading and writing English also improved

between Cohorts 1 and 2, with more solid

improvements reported in reading skills than in

writing skills.

With the exception of migrants aged 65 and

over, of whom there are very few in the labour

force, we see that a positive relationship exists

between English proficiency and employment

outcomes across all other age categories. We

find that those migrants who speak English only

or best experience lower levels of unemployment

than those who speak another language plus

English well. Among all age groups, with the

exception of the 15-24 years olds (a number of

whom are likely to be studying), the majority of

those who do not speak English well or at all are

not in the labour force.

As we would hope, English language courses

lead to improvements in English proficiency.

Here, we turn our attention to an analysis of

those courses and their participants.

7.1 Analysis of English Language

Courses

7.1.1 Who Does the Courses?

Table 7.1 profiles the characteristics of people

doing English language courses and it is

encouraging to observe that those with greatest

capacity to benefit from them have taken up the

option of doing so, particularly the Humanitarian

(26% of all students) and Preferential

family/family stream (55%) migrants.

Those in the prime working age categories of

25-34 and 35-44 years comprise 69 per cent of

English language students, with almost twice as

many females as males availing themselves of

the opportunity to learn English. A majority of

participants at Wave 2 of Cohort 2 had low

levels of English proficiency and were not part

of the labour market. Thus, a typical English

language student is likely to be female, from the


in her late-twenties/early-thirties, who does not

speak English well and who is not in the labour

force.

O


37

Table 7.1: Characteristics those attending English courses at last interview or starting

a course since last interview, Cohort 2 Wave 2

Characteristics %

Visa Category

Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 4

Independent 8

Preferential family/family stream 55

Business skills/employer nomination scheme 6

Humanitarian 26

Gender

Male 34

Female 66

Age Group

15-24 13

25-34 42

35-44 27

45-54 11

55-64 3

65+ 3

Labour Force Status

Employed 32

Unemployed 9

Not in Labour Force 59

English Proficiency

English only or best 1

Other language + English well/very well 43

Other language + English not well/not at all 56

7.1.2 Why do Migrants Try to

Improve Their English Skills?

There are consistent patterns in the motivations

for learning English. For one third of migrants

their primary motivation is to ‘find work’, while

for around a quarter of respondents it is to learn

‘survival English’ (refer Table 7.2). The third

most significant driver is ‘social and family

reasons’. Thirteen per cent of all migrants learn

English so they can study.

Given the relatively large numbers of

Preferential family/family stream migrants

represented in these responses it is likely that

they have heavily influenced the aggregate

outcomes for this question. Thus, some

distinctions are worth noting. For example, more

Independent and Concessional family/skilled

Australian-linked visa category migrants try to

improve their English as an entree into work

(46% and 41% respectively) rather than to learn

survival English (9% and 15% respectively). The



38

Table 7.2: Characteristics of migrants who tried to improve English since last interview, Cohort 2, Wave 2

Characteristics %

Visa Category


Independent 16 Preferential family/family stream 53


Humanitarian 18

English Proficiency


Other language + English well/very well 53

Other language + English not well/not at all 44

Main reason to try to improve English

To learn survival English 24

For social or family reasons 23

To get work 34

For education and training purposes including schooling 13

To enable qualifications to be recognised 3

Other 3

entrants on the other hand, who we might expect

to already be in employment, are the least likely

to learn English in order to get work (15%),

while a larger percentage of them do so for their

life outside work (41% nominating social or

family reasons).

Not unexpectedly, prime aged migrants in the

35-44 age category hope to find work (42%) as a

result of improvements in English proficiency,

while older people (55+) tend to want to

improve in order to function in their new country

than for any other reason. At the other end of the

age spectrum, younger migrants (15-24 year

olds) are more likely than other age groups to

want to pursue further training and education

following improvements in their English.

7.1.3 What Types of Courses Do

They Undertake

Figure 7.1 identifies the extent to which formal

English courses have been used as the main

method of improving English language across

Waves 1 and 2 of Cohorts 1 and 2. At each

wave, in each cohort, we see that Adult Migrant

English Program (AMEP) courses are the main

formal courses undertaken, although this is less

pronounced at Wave 2 Cohort 2 (with AMEP

accounting for 29% of methods used and ‘Other’

formal courses, 28%). Embedded in these other

types of formal courses are TAFE and university

courses, work courses and various other special

language schools, classes or correspondence

courses.


39

The majority of Preferential family/family

stream migrants use AMEP courses as their main

method of learning English, followed by

language courses at TAFE (almost 60%

choosing AMEP and just over 20% choosing

TAFE). Humanitarian migrants choose similarly.

AMEP and TAFE courses are followed in

popularity for both these groups by special

English classes and general English classes at

school, although the numbers participating in

them are not large. These trends hold true for

both male and female Primary Applicants, male

and female spouses and for all age groups with

the exception of those in the 35-44 age groups.

In that group, although the numbers are not

large, university is the third most popular route

to English proficiency. These students are likely

to be from the Independent visa category who

placed university slightly ahead of TAFE as their

main method of learning English.

Figure 7.1 Migrants’ main method of learning English in Australia

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

Pe

r c

en

t o

f c

ou

rse

s

AMEP Other formal course Informal methods Other don’t know


40

7.1.4 What Problems Do They

Experience?

Given the propensity of Cohort 2 Preferential

family/family stream and Humanitarian migrants

to be in English language courses and in light of

the finding that improvement in English

proficiency appears stalled between Wave 1

and 2 for these two groups, we are interested to

know the sorts of problems that these groups

experience when attempting to improve their

English.

An intersection between poor English

proficiency and poor health outcomes emerges

for the Humanitarian and Preferential

family/family stream migrants in particular. The

long-term health conditions among these groups

have been commented on previously, and they

impact on these migrants’ ability to complete

their English language courses. They are also the

groups with the greatest need for higher levels of

English proficiency and, encouragingly, are the

most heavily represented at formal English

language classes. Yet, when isolating Cohort 2


stream migrant’s reasons for not completing the

classes we find that at Wave 2 ‘health’ is one of

the most common reasons given across these

visa groups (48% and 20% respectively). ‘Being

too busy working’(18% and 27% respectively),

‘problems with child care’(10% and 9%

respectively) and being pregnant or having a

baby (6% and 7% respectively) were also

consistently reported reasons for not completing

English language courses for migrants in both

visa groups. We also see that a high proportion

of Preferential family/family stream migrants

reported ‘looking after the family’(21%) as the

reason for not completing the course.

We see from the results above that work

commitments and caring responsibilities also

intersect to adversely impact on these migrants’

ability to complete their English courses and

they heavily influence the aggregate responses to

this question. Work intensification and the

capacity to care are increasingly sensitive issues

in the general community, especially where both

parents in a family are in paid employment. In

the case of women from non-English speaking

backgrounds, the absence of culturally

appropriate care has been identified as a major

concern. This concern is likely to influence their

involvement in a range of community activities,

English language classes among them.

Providers will be pleased that dissatisfaction

with the course accounts for less than ten per

cent of the reasons why they are abandoned.

Both AMEP and other types of courses are

found by some to be too easy and the pace too

slow and by others (especially for AMEP) to be

too hard and the pace too fast.

7.1.5 What are the Completion

Rates?

Of those attending an AMEP course at last

interview almost half (45%) completed their

course, while 24 per cent were still attending at

Wave 2 in Cohort 2. For other types of formal

courses the completion rate was somewhat

higher (68%) with eight per cent still attending.

(See Appendix Table A7.1.)

In Cohort 2 at Wave 2, among those who had

commenced an AMEP English language course

since their last interview, 17 per cent had

completed their course and 44 per cent were still

attending. The completion rates for other types

of formal courses are 32 per cent and 61 per cent

respectively.

Completion rates are one measure of success of

any course, but in the case of English language

courses for non-English speaking migrants,


41

Figure 7.2 Benefits of English language classes, Cohort 2 Wave 2 (per cent)

around a third who do not complete the course

tend to experience personal difficulties that

account for their withdrawal (refer 7.1.4 ). The

lower drop-out rate among other types of formal

courses is perhaps best explained by the fact that

those with the lowest levels of English

proficiency tend to use AMEP as their main

method of learning English, while those with

higher levels of English proficiency to begin

with, tend to use other types of formal courses.

Thus, the student population and the issues they

bring with them differ.

7.1.6 How Successful are the AMEP

Courses?

The LSIA questionnaire asked respondents if

they felt that the English courses had improved

their level of English proficiency and, as we

would hope, overwhelmingly they indicated that

this was the case. Over 90 per cent of those

attending a course at last interview or having

commenced one since reported this to be so.

Another measure of the success of AMEP and

other types of English courses is the extent to

which subsequent benefits are observed. Figure

7.2 illustrates the percentage of cases where a

range of benefits have been identified. The fact

that the courses have helped with ‘everyday

activities’ and ‘communicating with family,

social and community groups’ attests to their

success when we consider that learning survival

English and improving English for social and

family reasons were among the primary

motivations for almost half of those wishing to

improve their English.

Subsequently ‘getting a job’ can also indicate a

successful outcome and in 45 per cent of cases

for those attending AMEP courses (51% in other

types of formal courses), this was indeed an

0

20

40

60

80

100

Getting a

job/looking for

work

Getting

qualification

recognised

Getting into other

courses

Communicating

with family, social

or community

groups

Finding out about

other government

services

Everyday

activities

%

AMEP courses Other types of formal courses


42

identifiable benefit. Here, we might recall that

just over a third of those wishing to improve

their English did so in order to ‘get work’. At

the same time, we acknowledge that a range of

other factors influence labour market

participation and employment outcomes. ‘Other’

types of formal courses appear to have

somewhat better outcomes than AMEP courses

as an entrée into further training and as a means

of getting qualifications recognised.

Certainly AMEP courses are successful in

recruiting those with the greatest capacity to

benefit from them (the Preferential family/family

stream and Humanitarian entrants). Further, the

extent to which participants fail to complete the

courses largely reflect individuals’ own

circumstances rather than aspects of the course

itself. Nevertheless, as noted above, there are

some matters to do with matching the degree of

difficulty with students’ ability and other aspects

of teaching that may benefit from fine-tuning.

7.1.7 Other Benefits from the

Courses

Primarily, the other ways that English language

classes help migrants’ life in Australia revolve

around issues to do with improving their self-

confidence, making friends and having a better

understanding of Australian culture. These

outcomes represent around half of all benefits

identified in Figure 7.3.

They are particularly significant benefits for

students who do not have an opportunity to

practice English at home and who rely on

broader community involvement in order to

consolidate their English proficiency. The

courses also help improve reading ability (books

and street maps) and this in turn helps new

arrivals to get around the city and access

services, in particular by being able to fill out

various forms or applications.

Figure 7.3 Other ways English language courses help migrants, Cohort 2, Wave 2

0

5

10

15

20

Improves

self-confidence

Made friends

through

classes

Better

understanding

of Australian

culture

Able to read

books written

in English

Able to read

maps/get

around city etc

Writing letters

/improved

writing skills

Fill out

forms etc

Improves

pronunciation

& Australian

accent

Helps in job Work

experience

program

Other

%


43

7.1.8 Characteristics of Migrants

Needing Interpreting Services

Not surprisingly, those most in need of

interpreting services are those with the lowest

levels of English proficiency. Consequently

Appendix Table A7.2 bears a striking

resemblance to Table 7.1. The demographic

groups share similar characteristics with respect

to visa category, with the Preferential

family/family stream most commonly requiring

interpreting services, followed by the

Humanitarian group. Females and the younger

age cohorts are also heavily represented while

those not in the labour force and those who do

not speak English well, or at all, can be expected

to require the services of an interpreter.

7.2 Conclusion

A typical English language student is likely to be

a female migrant quite possibly from the


in her late-twenties/early-thirties who does not

speak English well, has had a need for

interpreting services and who is unlikely to be in

the labour force. The main reason for wanting to

improve English may well be to subsequently

find work but she is also motivated by a desire to

survive in her new land and communicate well

with family and the society in which she now

lives.

While there is a 60 per cent chance that the

course chosen would be an AMEP course soon

after arrival, by Cohort 2 Wave 2 it was just as

likely that some other type of course would be

pursued or that informal methods for improving

English have been settled upon. However,

having commenced English language classes

there are likely to be difficulties to overcome.

For some, either work commitments or family

caring responsibilities will overwhelm her ability

to complete the course. To the extent that there

is any dissatisfaction with the course itself it

probably arises from a mismatch between its

degree of difficulty and the student’s level of

ability on entering the course.

Our typical student is among the 90 per cent

whose English improves as a result of attending

classes. As a result, everyday activities

associated with settling into a new land are

likely to become easier and opportunities to find

a job or pursue further education are enhanced.

Other personal benefits conferred are associated

with improvements in self-confidence, making

new friends and a better understanding of their

new country.

There is an almost equal chance that the student

will have an opportunity to practice their

newfound language skills in an English speaking

household. Without this opportunity the

student’s emerging confidence and ability to get

out and about, access services and mix socially

within the Australian community will be

increasingly important to help consolidate the

improvements in English proficiency generated

by attendance at the course.

Thus, the targeting of English courses, the range

of types of courses on offer and the courses

themselves appear to be functioning well. It

remains that the Preferential family/family

stream and Humanitarian visa category students

experience difficulties and may benefit from a

more intensive or more specific set of support

services to allow them to complete their courses.

In particular, health services, flexible course

delivery and culturally appropriate family care

appear to be areas worth exploring further.


44

8. Qualifications

n this section we explore various facets of the

qualifications held by migrants. The extent to

which migrants are able to use their

qualifications is important because migrants who

quickly find work that makes use of their

qualifications are likely to be more productive

on the job, better paid for the work they do, and

happier about their degree of integration into

Australian society. The last part of our analysis

outlines the patterns of further study undertaken

by migrants after settlement, including who

studies, what they study, why they study, and

how successful they are in completing

Australian qualifications.

8.1 Assessment of Overseas

Qualifications

An important determinant of qualification usage

among migrants is whether training completed

overseas can be promptly and adequately

“assessed” – that is, judged for authenticity and

equivalence to local qualifications – by the

relevant agencies. Assessment processes in

Australia are well developed, and previous

analysis of the LSIA has found that very few

migrants have cited lack of recognition for their

qualifications as a barrier to employment.

Previous analysis of Wave 1 data for both

cohorts (Richardson et al, 2001) showed that 14

per cent of Cohort 1, and 18 per cent of

Cohort 2, sought assessment of their

qualifications prior to arrival in Australia. A

further eight and seven per cent of these groups

respectively sought assessment post-

immigration. By contrast, 36 per cent of

Cohort 1 and 40 per cent of Cohort 2 had not

sought assessment of their qualifications8.

Of the total number of migrants whose

qualifications had not been subject to assessment

at Wave 1, 15 per cent (for Cohort 1) and 10 per

cent (for Cohort 2) subsequently did seek an

assessment prior to Wave 2 interviews. Migrants

in this group were more likely to be young or in

the prime working age cohort, have moderate

English language skills and migrate under family

or humanitarian visa categories. As a proportion

of the number who did seek assessment after

Wave 1, the assessment was completed (by

Wave 2) for 63 per cent of those in Cohort 1,

and 78 per cent of those in Cohort 2.

Figure 8.1 indicates that the increase in the

completed assessment of migrants’ overseas

qualifications between the waves (6%) was the

same for both cohorts. Even by Wave 2, it is still

the case that there are many more migrants yet to

have their assessments completed than those

who have been assessed.

In the majority of cases, the Australian

assessment process recognised migrants’

qualifications at the same level as they were

originally awarded. In a very small number of

cases, the recommendation of the assessing

agency was that full re-training was required

before working at the level originally qualified

for. For Cohort 2 migrants, 17 per cent of

assessments reported at Wave 2 stipulated that

some further training would be required.

8 Forty-one per cent of Cohort 1, and 30 per cent of Cohort 2, had no post-school qualifications and were exempt from the analysis of assessment practices at Wave 1.

I


45

Figure 8.1: Migrants’ qualifications assessment

Note: Caution is needed when interpreting this figure as not all of the proportions from C1W2 are available from the data so it is estimated using wave one data. Due to inter wave attrition this will result in some bias, but it is suspected that this estimate will be conservative.

Three-quarters of those who were assessed as

needing further training or additional

requirements indicated that they had either

started, or were intending to start, the necessary

upgrading of their skills.

For both cohorts, the assessment process appears

to produce smaller proportions of “fully

recognised” qualifications as time goes on. Thus

if we look at the results for Cohort 2, 85 per cent

of completed assessments at Wave 1 recognised

the qualification at the same level as it was

awarded, while only 65 per cent of the

assessments completed after this time resulted in

full recognition. It is possible that greater

numbers of “difficult to assess” qualifications

are presented some time after initial settlement,

rather than immediately upon arrival, and thus

appear in the Wave 2 data instead of in Wave 1.

Most qualification assessments are completed

quickly. Table 8.1 shows that about half of all

assessments for Cohort 2 took one to four weeks,

another third took five to 12 weeks, and the

remainder took more than three months. It

appears that more of the assessments for

Cohort 2 migrants are being completed in shorter

time frames than was the case for Cohort 1.

The National Office of Overseas Skill

Recognition (NOOSR) conducts about a quarter

of all assessments of migrant qualifications, and

this is consistent across both cohorts. Other

agencies involved include the Institute of

Engineers (which conducted 9% of assessments

for Cohort 2 migrants), State Departments of

Education (7%), the (former) Department of

Employment, Workplace Relations and Small

0

20

40

60

Cohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

%

Assessed Not Assessed Not Applicable


46

Business (7%), and the Australian Nursing

Council (6%). About a quarter of assessments in

each cohort were undertaken by agencies not

listed on the LSIA questionnaire (i.e. “other-

Specify”).

A separate issue is migrants’ reasons for not

having their qualifications assessed. Substantial

proportions of qualified migrants (36% of

Cohort 1, and 40% of Cohort 2, at Wave 1) elect

not to have their qualifications assessed.

Some take the opportunity of “life in a new

land” to change career and pursue new skills in

Australia, and thus see no direct use for their

prior training. Others have no intention of

entering the labour force, and perceive no need

for assessment of their skills. Still others have

completed their qualifications in Australia, and

do not require further assessment. Table 8.1

shows that the most common reasons for non-

assessment are that it was not necessary in order

to get a job (between 14% and 20% said this),

because their qualification was readily accepted

by their employer (between 12% and 18% said

this), or because they were not intending to work

(between 9% and 14% said this).

Other frequently reported reasons were wanting

to learn English first (between 5% and 11% said

this), and simply “intended to but haven’t yet”

(up to 12% of migrants said this). Among

Cohort 2 migrants, five per cent at Wave 1 said

they had not sought assessment because their

qualification was gained in Australia, while 10

per cent gave this reason at Wave 2.

Table 8.1: Selected features of the assessment of migrants’ qualifications

Cohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % % %

Time taken to make assessment 1-4 weeks 43 44 53 49 5-12 weeks 33 17 34 26 13-52 weeks 16 16 9 18

Agency involved NOOSR 30 23 26 25 Australian Nursing Council 6 5 6 6 State Department of Education 5 13 7 7 Institute of Engineers, Australia 10 5 9 4 DEWRSB 7 5 7 2 Other 19 27 23 37

Reasons for non-assessment Intend to, but haven’t yet 12 12 10 7 Want to learn English first 9 8 11 5 Qualification gained in Australia 3 - 5 10 Assessment was not needed

To get a job 14 20 16 20 Employer accepted qualification 12 17 18 17 Planning to change career 4 4 6 5 Not intending to work 9 14 7 7


47

Figure 8.2: How qualifications assessed (per cent of total assessed)

Note: Percentage who sought qualification assessment at C2W2 are those who did not seek recognition earlier, i.e. the

comparison is not with exactly the same group

8.2 Use of Qualifications

Across all the cohort/waves, around one-third of

qualified migrants are not using their

qualifications very frequently. Almost all who

are in this situation say it is because their

qualifications are not relevant to their present

employment. The “not relevant” explanation is

given by fully 95 per cent of the Cohort 2

migrants who said at Wave 2 that they used their

qualifications “rarely” or “never”, and by 89 per

cent of the Cohort 1 migrants who reported

using their qualifications “rarely”, “never”, or

“only sometimes”.

For both cohorts, the proportion who used their

qualifications often or very often scarcely

changed between Wave 1 and Wave 2. However,

at 62 per cent it was higher for Cohort 2 than for

Cohort 1 (at 49%). In both cohorts, the migrants

most likely to make frequent use of their

qualifications are those in the Independent and


visa categories. At Wave 2, nearly three-quarters

of both groups in Cohort 2 were employed in

jobs that used their qualifications most or all of

the time. This was little changed across the

waves.

In contrast, the proportions of Cohort 2 migrants

in the Concessional family/skilled Australian-

linked and Preferential family/family stream

categories who use their qualifications

frequently have both risen noticeably since

Wave 1 (5% for the former and 7% for the latter

group). In comparison, the Concessional

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

%

At same level (fully recognized) At a lower level

As requiring some training As requiring full training


48


family/family stream migrants in Cohort 1 had

little to no improvement in the utilisation of their

qualifications between Wave 1 and Wave 2. By

the second wave of interviews, 58 per cent of


migrants and 50 per cent of Preferential

family/family stream migrants in Cohort 2 were

in jobs that used their qualifications often or

very often. After the same period of time in

Australia, their counterparts in Cohort 1 reported

frequent qualification usage in only 45 per cent

and 34 per cent of cases, respectively. Young

people in Cohort 2 are doing especially well

compared to Cohort 1.

Sixty-one per cent of Cohort 2 migrants aged 15-

24 years reported using their qualifications

frequently at Wave 2; roughly half of this

proportion (31%) of 15-24 year olds in Cohort 1

were doing the same. Cohort 2 migrants in other

age groups have an advantage too, but the

differences are not as large as those reported by

the younger group.

Table 8.2: Percentage of qualified migrants who use their qualifications “Often” or

“Very Often” in their main job

Qualification UsageCohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % % % Visa category Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked

45 45 53 58

Independent 61 63 72 71 Preferential family/family stream 32 34 43 50 Business skills/employer nomination scheme

78 70 73 73

Gender Male 50 52 62 63 Female 49 43 58 59

Age Group 15-24 years 34 31 49 61 25-34 years 49 50 61 62 35-44 years 53 52 65 64 45-54 years 60 42 50 54

English proficiency English only or best 56 56 67 68 English well and other language 43 44 57 57

Total 49 49 60 62

Notes: We have not reported results for Humanitarian migrants, migrants aged over 55 years, or migrants with limited English ability, because only small numbers of these groups possess qualifications.


49

8.3 Patterns of Further Study in

Australia

We have explored in a previous report the nature

of qualifications possessed by migrants, the

extent to which they use them in their

employment, and the value they derive from

them in the labour market and their subsequent

earnings. The remaining question, to be

addressed in this section, is whether migrants

pursue study and training in Australia after

settling here. Following from this are more

specific questions to do with study participation:

which migrants are more likely to study; what

types of study do they take, and in what fields;

how many complete their studies; what are their

reasons for studying; and how many would like

to pursue further study but have not in fact yet

done so?

Just seven per cent of Cohort 1 migrants were

undertaking further study at Wave 1. Those who

were studying were mostly in university (38%),

or in a technical college or TAFE (35%), and

were most likely studying towards either a

certificate or diploma (40%), or a higher degree

(22%). Despite low levels of actual participation

in further study by Cohort 1 migrants at that

time, half (49%) said that they intended to study

further at a later time.

By Wave 2, these aspirations were beginning to

be played out. Of the 371 migrants who said that

they were doing post-secondary study at Wave

1, 39 per cent were still doing that study at Wave

2. Of those who were not, 83 per cent had ceased

studying because they had successfully

completed the requirements of the qualification

they were working towards. Sixty migrants from

Cohort 1 said they were doing secondary school

study at Wave 1, and just under half (47%) of

those were still at school at Wave 2.

The major change, however, was that 16 per cent

of migrants9 reported having undertaken some

further post-secondary study since Wave 1. Of

those who had, half commenced study at a

technical college or TAFE. Another quarter

studied at a university, and the remaining quarter

studied at some other educational institution

(e.g., employer training provided “in-house”, or

another vocational education institute beside

TAFE). Sixty per cent of those who had started

post-secondary study since Wave 1 were still

doing it at Wave 2, and 82 per cent of those not

still studying were in that position because they

had completed their study successfully.

Technical and professional diplomas or

certificates were by far the most common type of

qualification commenced by Cohort 1 migrants

since Wave 1; these accounted for 66 per cent of

the participation in further study. The next most

common levels of study were postgraduate and

undergraduate tertiary, accounting for,

respectively, 10% and 9% of the total

participation in further study. Although

participation in training clearly increased among

Cohort 1 in the interim between Wave 1 and

Wave 2, it was interesting that the intention to

study further had diminished little – 46 per cent

of migrants still said they would like to take

further training at Wave 2 (compared to 49%

who said this at Wave 1).

How do the above patterns of participation

among Cohort 1 migrants compare to those

reported more recently by Cohort 2?

At Wave 1, 11 per cent of Cohort 2 migrants

were studying in a course, excluding those to

improve their English language skills. As was

9 This percentage is based on a total number of migrants that excludes those who were still studying in the same post-secondary course they had reported at Wave 1.


50

the case with Cohort 1 migrants, the bulk of this

further study was being done at university (41%)

or at a technical college or TAFE (31%).

Although 89 per cent of migrants in Cohort 2

were not studying at Wave 1, 48 per cent

expressed an intention to commence studying at

a future date. For the first time, the LSIA

questionnaire asked also about migrants’ reasons

for wanting to study. At Wave 1, 50 per cent of

Cohort 2 migrants who intended to study said

they would do so to get a better job, 38 per cent

said they would study to upgrade their

qualifications, and 30 per cent said they would

study for their general personal development10.

Eighteen per cent of Cohort 2 migrants then

started studying in a course (other than an

English language course) in the 12 months

between Wave 1 and 2. The migrants who

commenced further study of this kind were most

likely to be: from the Independent or Preferential

family/family stream, female, aged between 25

and 44 years, and highly competent in English.

A comparison of the study commencements of

migrants in the different visa categories, shows

that 24 per cent of those in the Independent

stream had started a course of study since Wave

1, while 23 per cent of those in the Concessional

family/skilled Australian-linked stream had done

so. Only nine per cent of Business

skills/employer nomination scheme migrants had

commenced further study. Similar proportions of

migrants from both sexes commenced further

study (19% of females, 18% of males), but it is

clear that young migrants are much more likely

to study – at least one-fifth of the migrants in all

three age categories below 45 years had started a

course of study since Wave 1, while less than

one-tenth of migrants in each of the categories

above this age level had done so. Migrants with

poor English skills are much less likely to

10 These percentages sum to more than 100 per cent, because some migrants nominate multiple reasons for wishing to undertake further study in Australia.

undertake further study towards a qualification

(3%) than are those with better proficiency

(23%), presumably because they are initially

drawn to English language courses.

Compared to the proportion of migrants who

have, or are, actually studying, much higher

proportions indicate that they intend to

undertake further study in the future. Just under

half (47%) of Cohort 2 migrants answered in the

affirmative when asked if they had any intention

to undertake further (post-secondary) study. At

the same time, 41 per cent of Cohort 2 said “no”

when asked the same question, while the

remaining 12 per cent were unsure. Over half of

the migrants in the Concessional family/skilled

Australian-linked and Independent visa streams

aspire to further study (54% and 51%,

respectively), while comparatively small

proportions of Business skills/employer

nomination scheme migrants (32%) intend to

study further (a fact that reflects their already

high levels of training). Men and women

migrants are just as likely to want to study

further, but, as expected, the proportion of

migrants who aspire to more study declines

steadily as we move through the age categories.

Sixty-five per cent of migrants aged 15-24 years

wish to do further study, as do 51 per cent of

those aged 25-34 years, 49 per cent of those

aged 35-44, and 30 per cent of those aged 45-54

years. Comparing migrants by English

proficiency, we see those with an intention to

study further are most likely to speak English

well and another language.

The most common reason for wanting to study is

to get a better job. Of the Cohort 2 migrants

intending to take on further study, 51 per cent

said they would do so to improve their

employment. The next most common reasons

were to get qualifications upgraded (40%), and

then for general personal development (32%). It

was less common for migrants to pursue further

study in order to change career (11%), and very


51

few saw study as a leisure activity (3%). A

disaggregation of these results by more specific

migrant characteristics reveals some interesting

differences in the motives for studying. Seventy-

two per cent of Humanitarian migrants said they

wanted to study further in order to get a better

job. In contrast, only 26 per cent of Business

skills/employer nomination scheme migrants

gave this reason. The business migrants were

much more likely to cite “general personal

development” as their motive for further study

(55% of them said this), a fact which again

reflects their superior existing levels of

qualification and employment. Men were more

likely than women to nominate “get

qualifications upgraded” as a reason for further

study (44% compared to 37%), and women were

more likely to cite “general personal

development (36% compared to 28% for men).

To get a better job was the main study motive

for migrants in all the age groups, but especially

those aged 15-24 years (of whom 68% gave this

reason for wanting to study further). Migrants

with English only or best were most likely to

study as a way of upgrading their qualifications

(49%), but those with less-developed English

skills are more likely to study as a means of

securing better employment.

For the first time, in Wave 2 interviews for

Cohort 2, migrants were asked to provide the

details of multiple courses (where applicable)

that they had studied since arriving in

Australia11. The LSIA questionnaire allows for

the collection of data about as many as three

separate study courses undertaken by migrants –

their “main” course at Wave 1, and a further two

courses commenced since that time. We collated

the results about different courses undertaken by

migrants to form an impression of the type of

study they pursue. At Wave 2, 44 per cent of the

Cohort 2 migrants who had undertaken further

11 Prior to this, the LSIA questionnaire asked only for the details of the main course undertaken since arrival.

study had done so at a technical college or

TAFE. A further 30 per cent of study was

undertaken at university, and another 17 per cent

at a vocational education and training (VET)

institution. The remainder was taken up by study

at secondary school (2% of the total

participation in further study), by employer-

provided training (2%), and by other non-school,

non-tertiary study (1%).

As to the type of qualification that migrants

studied, or were studying, towards, the most

common was a Certificate (particularly levels III

and IV). This is consistent with the above

paragraph showing the largest proportion of

migrant study is done at TAFE colleges.

Certificate level qualifications account for one-

quarter (24%) of the study that migrants in

Cohort 2 have undertaken. The next most

common qualification12 is postgraduate tertiary,

i.e., higher degrees such as doctorate and

Masters (16%). Undergraduate university

degrees account for seven per cent, advanced

diploma and diplomas represent six per cent of

study undertaken, and graduate diploma and

graduate certificates represent a further five per

cent.13

Of the preferred fields of study, business and

information technology courses appear to be

most popular with migrants14. Among Cohort 2,

courses dealing with computer science and IT

represented 24 per cent of all further study

undertaken. Courses that lead to qualifications in

“business administration”, “accounting”, and

12 Note that 42 per cent of the qualifications migrants studied towards were at an unknown level, or were coded only as “other course”. 13 Note that these figures represent only the types of study commenced by migrants since arrival in Australia, not the proportions of completed study. 14 This mimics the prevailing trend among students in the Australian population more generally, with vocational and tertiary courses in business management, commerce, finance, and IT capturing increasing proportions of the total enrolments.


52

Table 8.3: Selected features of migrants’ participation in further study (per cent)

Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 2

Characteristics of study undertaken

% % Location of study undertaken Secondary school - 2 Technical college or TAFE 50 44 University 25 30 Other institution 25 24

Type of study undertaken Higher degree 10 16 Graduate diploma or graduate certificate 6 5 Bachelor degree 9 7 Advanced diploma or diploma 28 6 Certificate 38 24 Other or unknown level 9 42 Course completion rates 82 83

Whether intending to study further Yes 46 47 No 41 42 Don’t know 13 12

Reason for studying (or intending to) To get a better job n.a. 51 To get qualifications upgraded n.a. 40 Change career n.a. 11 Leisure activity n.a. 3 General personal development n.a. 32

Proportion who undertook further study

Visa category Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 21 23 Independent 28 24 Preferential family/family stream 14 16 Business skills/employer nomination scheme 7 9 Humanitarian 10 11

Gender Male 18 18 Female 15 19

Age Group2 15-24 years 15 24 25-34 years 21 20 35-44 years 18 20 45-54 years 7 9

English proficiency English only or best 20 23 English well and other language 24 23 English not well or not at all 3 3

Note: We have excluded the two older age groups (55-64 years and 65+ years) as so few migrants in these groups undertake further study.


53

“banking and finance” represented a further 13

per cent.

At Wave 2, 47% of Cohort 2 migrants who had

undertaken further study were still studying in

their chosen course(s). The remaining 53% had

ceased their study, either because they had

completed the necessary training to achieve the

qualification they were working towards,

because they had left the course before

completion, or because they had deferred their

study to pursue other activities.

Of those who were no longer studying in the

course(s) they had commenced, 83% had ceased

studying because they had successfully

completed their course. This is a remarkably

high rate of completion. Its opposite is

impressive too: only 11% of those who had

commenced studying eventually “dropped out”.

The remaining five per cent had deferred their

study with the intention of resuming at a later

date.

8.4. Conclusion

This section has drawn together a range of topics

surrounding migrants’ qualifications, in

particular how they are assessed by Australian

agencies, and how frequently they are used by

migrants in their employment. We have also

explored the characteristics of further study

undertaken by migrants after arrival in Australia,

focusing in particular on who studies (and who

intends to), what courses are undertaken, what

motivates migrants to study, and whether they

complete their training successfully.

Our main findings are:

(1) A range of Australian agencies is

involved in assessing migrants’ qualifications.

The assessments are usually done quickly, and

most result in qualifications being recognised at

the same level as they were originally awarded.

Migrants who choose not to have their

qualifications assessed usually make this

decision because an assessment was not needed

to find a job, because they wanted to learn

English better first, or because they have simply

not got around to seeking assessment yet.

(2) Qualified migrants from Cohort 2 are

more likely to make frequent use of their

qualifications in their jobs than was the case for

Cohort 1, and this is particularly true for

females, younger workers, and those from the


and Preferential family/family stream visa

categories.

(3) Most migrants have not undertaken

further study since arriving in Australia, but the

proportion to do so rises between Wave 1 and

Wave 2 (for both cohorts). Of those who do

study, most attend courses at TAFE or

university, and over three-quarters go on to

successfully complete the qualifications they

have begun. About half of all the migrants in

each cohort intend to study in the future, with

most wanting to do so as a means of improving

their employment or upgrading existing

qualifications. There are few differences

between the cohorts in the characteristics of

those who undertake further study. Migrants in

the Concessional family/skilled Australian-

linked and Independent visa categories, in the

younger age groups, and with higher English

proficiency, are most likely to undertake further

study in Australia.


54

9. Finances

Earlier analysis showed that at Wave 1, only a

very small proportion of migrants had

transferred either money or assets out of

Australia. In this section, we examine in some

detail the flow of wealth both into and out of

Australia that is initiated by recent migrants.

These flows affect the current standard of living

of recent migrants and, if large, could have a

perceptible effect on Australia’s capital account.

9.1 Assets Transferred to Australia

– Post Arrival

Migrants were initially asked whether they had

transferred any assets to Australia, in the form of

funds, personal effects, or capital equipment.

The proportion of Cohort 1 migrants who

transferred assets to Australia, after they had

been in Australia for between 0-6 months (Wave

1) and after they had been in Australia for a

further 12 months (Wave 2) did not change, at

12 per cent. The proportion of Cohort 2 migrants

who transferred assets, post-arrival, increased

very slightly over time (from 16% to 18%).

Thus, in both cohorts, the great majority of

migrants did not report transferring any further

assets to Australia, beyond those that they

arrived with. However, Cohort 2 migrants were

somewhat more likely to do so than Cohort 1

migrants.

The aggregate proportions conceal important

differences between migrants with different

characteristics (Table 9.1). Looking first at visa

category, Business skills/employer nomination

scheme migrants were the most likely to transfer

assets to Australia post-arrival. At Wave 1, 48

per cent of Cohort 2 migrants in this visa

category (and 35% in Cohort 1) reported having

transferred assets to Australia since arrival.


migrants were unique among the visa groups in

having a greater proportion transferring assets

between Wave 1 and Wave 2 than did so in the

first six months of arrival. Two-thirds (66%) of

Cohort 2 Business skills/employer nomination

scheme migrants reported transferring assets to

Australia in the twelve months between

interviews (i.e., Wave 2), compared to 45 per

cent of these migrants in Cohort 1. The

significant difference in the fund transfer pattern

between Cohort 1 and 2 for Business

skills/employer nomination scheme migrants can

be more fully explained by the compositional

changes in the Business skills/employer

nomination scheme ratio, resulting from changes

to selection criteria that took place between

cohorts.

Male migrants were more likely than females to

transfer assets to Australia in all cohorts/waves,

but the differences were not large (less than 10

percentage points in all cases), and changed little

over time. One fifth of Cohort 2 male migrants

reported transferring assets to Australia in the 12

months between interviews, compared to 14 per

cent of female migrants.

Migrants with the best English skills were more

likely to make asset transfers to Australia,

especially at Wave 1. The proportion who spoke

“English only or best” who transferred assets to

Australia fell over time, for both cohorts. In

contrast, the proportion of migrants with

“English not well or not at all” making transfers

rose over time, particularly in Cohort 2.


55

Table 9.1: Selected characteristic of migrants who transferred funds,

personal effects or capital equipment to Australia per cent)

Cohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % % %

Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked

17 15 22 20

Independent 20 18 19 23 Preferential family/family stream

10 11 12 13


35 45 48 66

Humanitarian 1 2 * *


Age Group 15-24 years 5 4 8 3 25-34 years 12 11 15 17 35-44 years 16 16 18 19 45-54 years 17 22 23 32 55-64 years 10 16 15 26 65 or more years 13 11 19 15

English Proficiency English only or best 24 20 26 21 English well and other language 11 10 15 17 English not well or not at all 3 6 4 13

Total 12 12 16 18

Notes: (1) The values shown relate to the proportions of migrants who transferred assets to Australia since: (a) immigrating (for Wave 1 i.e. from 0-6 months after arrival), or (b) last interview (for Wave 2, i.e. a further 12 months after arrival). These data do not include assets that arrived with the migrant.

(2) ‘*’ = Number of observations very small (< 5)

There is a problem concerning the handling of

very high value transfers. A small number of

very valuable asset transfers (which we define as

being equal to or in excess of $100,000) easily

skews the average value upwards. We deal with

this by first reporting an average value that

includes these high “outliers”, and then showing

an adjusted average value that excludes them.

This permits an analysis of changes in the

adjusted average values over time, and between

cohorts.

A further complicating factor in this analysis is

the treatment of small and large value transfers.

Where migrants have transferred assets to

Australia of a value less than $500, the

questionnaire records a zero value. It is not

possible to distinguish migrants who transferred

assets with very small values from those who

transferred nothing at all. For instance, a single

migrant who reports transferring funds valued at

$400, personal effects valued at $200, and no

capital equipment, has all three values recorded


56

as zero in the data set. The practical treatment of

this is to assign a value of $250 to all “zero”

transfers (i.e., the mid-point of the range $0-

$500).

Figure 9.1 shows the adjusted average values of

assets transferred to Australia by migrants in the

three different forms (funds, personal effects,

and capital equipment). Most of the assets

transferred to Australia by migrants is in the

form of funds. Indeed, for Cohort 2 migrants, 95

per cent of the assets transferred to Australia

between waves was in the form of funds. Table

A9.1 shows that, for both cohorts, the total value

of funds transferred to Australia by migrants

increased between Wave 1 and Wave 2. In all

cases, it is clear that the value of funds

transferred is non-trivial; at Wave 2, Cohort 2

migrants reporting transferring almost $50

million worth of funds into Australia. These

funds impact considerably on migrants’

standards of living, and on their levels of

consumption.

The average values transferred are calculated

with the number of migrants who transferred

assets to Australia in any form as the base

measure. In other words, 491 migrants in Cohort

2 said they had transferred assets to Australia in

some form (i.e., funds, personal effects, or

capital equipment) since arrival (Wave 1), and

471 said they had transferred assets to Australia

in the time between LSIA interviews (Wave 2).

Among Cohort 1, 619 migrants reported that

they had transferred assets to Australia in one of

the three forms since arrival (Wave 1), and 542

transferred assets to Australia in the time

between interviews (Wave 2).

When considering an average based on all

transfers (see Table A9.1), a) the average value

of funds transferred to Australia was

considerably higher in Cohort 2 than in Cohort

1, at both time periods; and b) the average value

of funds transferred to Australia rose over time

for both cohorts. However, when we use

adjusted average values, the magnitude of

difference between cohorts, and within the same

cohort over time, is considerably muted. There is

still an increase between waves in the average

value of funds transferred to Australia, for both

cohorts, but the change is much more modest in

the adjusted average than in the ordinary

average. Similarly, Cohort 2 migrants do still

appear to transfer higher average amounts of

funds to Australia than Cohort 1, in both Wave 1

and Wave 2, but the margins are much smaller

(in absolute and relative terms). At Wave 2, the

adjusted average value of funds transferred to

Australia by Cohort 2 migrants was 14 per cent

higher than at Cohort 1.

Figure 9.1 and Appendix Table A9.1 also shows

transfers of other types of assets – personal

effects and capital equipment. Assets transferred

in the form of personal effects account for the

next highest proportion of the total value of

assets transferred by migrants to Australia, after

funds. However, the proportion of total value

represented by personal effects is well below

that of funds – varying from, at most, 19 per

cent, in Cohort 1 Wave 1, to as little as 3 per

cent, in Cohort 2 Wave 2.

Unlike funds, the total value of personal effects

transferred to Australia by Cohort 2 migrants

was lower than reported by Cohort 1 migrants,

for both Wave 1 and 2, and particularly for

Wave 2. Also unlike funds transfers, the value of

assets transferred as personal effects fell over

time, for both cohorts, and particularly for

Cohort 2.


57

Figure 9.1: Value of assets transferred to Australia, Adjusted average value

Note: The denominator used in calculating average values is the number of migrants who said that they had transferred assets to Australia in any one of the three forms (i.e., funds, personal effects, or capital equipment), with transfers valued at $100,000 or more excluded to calculate the adjusted average values.

In the second cohort, the average value of

personal effects transferred fell by 37 per cent

over time, from $6,637 to $3,713 per “asset

transferring migrant”. This was not the case for

Cohort 1 migrants, whose average transfer value

for personal effects was stable between waves.

The adjusted average values tell a slightly

different story. These show that, at both points in

time, the value of personal effects transferred to

Australia by Cohort 2 was about half of what it

was in Cohort 1.

The final type of asset transfer is capital

equipment. Migrants were least likely to transfer

assets to Australia in this form, but were more

likely to do so after an initial period of

settlement (i.e., between Wave 1 and 2).

9.2 Assets Transferred From

Australia

Migrants were initially asked whether they had

transferred any assets, in the form of funds (or

remittence if on a regular basis), personal

effects, or capital equipment) from Australia. At

the time of Wave 1 interviews, identical

proportions of migrants from Cohorts 1 and 2

reported having transferred assets from Australia

in at least one of these forms since arriving in

Australia. The percentage of all migrants who

had transferred assets from Australia at Wave 1

was very small – under three per cent for both

cohorts.

In the intervening 12 months between

interviews, however, the transfer practices of the

two cohorts diverge. By Wave 2, the proportion

of Cohort 2 migrants who had transferred assets

from Australia was more than double the

proportion from Cohort 1 to have done so. The

proportion of Cohort 2 who had transferred

assets approached one in every ten migrants

(9%), while for Cohort 1 the proportion was

fewer than one in twenty (4%). The acceleration

in the number of Cohort 2 migrants making

transfers abroad may be evidence that the second

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2

Funds Adjusted average value Personal effects Adjusted average value Capital equipment Adjusted average value


58

cohort has, on the whole, “found its feet” in

Australia more quickly than the first, and is thus

able to transfer more of its wealth overseas.

Alternatively, the increase in transfer rate may

indicate that more migrants from Cohort 2 are

positioning themselves to leave Australia in

future by moving their assets overseas. However,

since the total number of migrants transferring

assets from Australia continues to be a relatively

small fraction of the total migrant population,

the vast majority of resources generated and

owned by migrants appear to be staying in

Australia.

In terms of the characteristics of those making

asset transfers abroad, a few differences between

the cohorts should be noted (refer to Table 9.2).

The first is that the gender distribution has

become more balanced in Cohort 2. The asset

transfers in Cohort 1 were predominantly made

by males at Wave 1 (60%), and the gender

disparity became slightly more pronounced as

time passed (rising to 62% male by Wave 2). In

contrast, Cohort 2 contained marginally more

transfers initiated by females at Wave 1, and as

time has elapsed the gender bias has disappeared

altogether. By Wave 2, the transfers from Cohort

2 were just as likely to be made by either male or

female migrants.

For both cohorts, asset transfers from Australia

are most likely to be made by Independent

migrants or by those from the Preferential

family/family stream. In combination, these two

groups accounted for over three-quarters of

those in both cohorts who had transferred assets

from Australia at Wave 2. In particular, the

proportion of Preferential family/family stream

migrants to have done so rose to 10 per cent for

Cohort 2; well above the proportion who did so

in Wave 1 (3%), and in Cohort 1 at the same

time after arrival (4%). Very small numbers of

Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked,

Business skills/ENS, and Humanitarian migrants

transferred any assets from Australia.

Table 9.2: Asset transfers – selected features

Percentage who Transferred AssetsCohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Visa Category Independent 8 3 7 Preferential family/family stream 4 3 10

Gender Male 5 2 9 Female 3 3 10

Age Group 25-34 years 5 3 11 35-44 years 5 3 7

English Proficiency English only or best 5 3 11 English well and other language 4 4 9 English not well or not at all 4 1 7

Total 4 3 9


59

Asset transfers from Australia were made most

often by those aged between 25 and 44 years.

This reflects both the concentration of migrants

in these age groups, and the generally higher

number of employed persons in these age

groups. The proportion of 25-34 year olds who

transferred assets from Australia doubled

between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.

In addition to the number of migrants who

transfer assets abroad, the financial value of

those transfers is also important. Assets

transferred from Australia by migrants are

almost exclusively made in the form of “funds”.

The number of migrants who have transferred

assets from Australia in the form of either

“personal effects” or “capital equipment” is so

small that we omit them from further analysis in

this section. Our comparison of average asset

transfers between the cohorts (and at different

stages in their settlement) therefore deals only

with assets transferred abroad as funds.

We must first acknowledge the potentially

distorting effects of exceptional (i.e., very

valuable) asset transfers. For Cohort 2, the

average value of funds transferred abroad is

skewed at Wave 1 by the presence of six

“outliers” – migrants who each reported

transferring funds to the value of $100,000.

These six migrants alone accounted for more

than three-quarters of the total value of funds

transferred from Australia by Cohort 2 migrants

in their first six months after arrival in Australia.

A similar situation exists, but to a slightly lesser

degree, in the Wave 2 data for Cohort 1. Among

this group there was one migrant who reported

transferring funds abroad to the value of

$200,000, and another two who reported

transferring funds to the value of $100,000 each.

Combined, these three migrants accounted for 43

per cent of the funds transferred from Australia

by Cohort 1 in the 12 months between

interviews. It is interesting to note that, for

Cohort 1, these “exceptional” transfers occurred

between Wave 1 and Wave 2, while for Cohort

2, they occurred in the first six months of arrival

(i.e., by the time Wave 1 interviews took place).

Our analysis is highly variable, depending on

how we deal with these exceptional values, by

which we are referring to those valued at

$100,000 or more. For the sake of brevity results

are with outliers excluded.

At the time of Wave 1 interviews, there was

little difference in the average amount of funds

transferred from Australia between the cohorts

(although the Cohort 1 average is slightly

higher). In the next 12 months leading up to

Wave 2 interviews, the average value of assets

transferred from Australia increased by 16 per

cent for Cohort 1, and by 43 per cent for Cohort

2. The net result, 18 months after arrival in

Australia, is that funds transfers from Cohort 2

are, on average, 20 per cent more valuable than

transfers from Cohort 1 (Figure 9.2).

9.3 Remittances-Funds Sent From

Australia on a Regular Basis

Apart from the different kinds of asset transfer

described above, the LSIA questionnaire asks

migrants whether they have sent any money to

relatives or friends overseas on a regular basis,

or as occasional payments. Unlike the earlier

forms of asset transfer, these monies are more

likely to be sent by migrants solely for the

purpose of supporting family members who live

outside of Australia as they are generally regular

payments. A greater proportion of migrants in

both cohorts send money overseas to relatives or

friends than transfer assets from Australia.

In Cohort 1, 22 per cent of migrants reported

having sent money overseas at Wave 2. This

compares with a slightly smaller proportion – 20

per cent – of Cohort 2 migrants who had sent

money after the same period (i.e., Wave 2). In

this sense, the experiences of the two cohorts

after 18 months in Australia are quite similar.


60

Figure 9.2: Average value of assets transferred by migrants in the form of funds

Note: Outliers have been excluded

In contrast, only nine per cent of the second

cohort reported having sent money when asked

earlier in Wave 1 interviews.

As for the particular characteristics of those who

send money overseas, migrants from the


represent the majority in each instance. As a

proportion of all migrants in this category, 21

per cent of both cohorts had sent money

overseas at Wave 2. The proportion of all


migrants who had sent money at Wave 2

increased from 20 per cent in Cohort 1 to 24 per

cent in Cohort 2. Conversely, the proportion of

all Independent migrants to have sent money

overseas at Wave 2 declined from 25 per cent for

Cohort 1 to 18 per cent for Cohort 2. A striking

29 per cent of Cohort 1 Humanitarian migrants

had sent money overseas at Wave 2, although

the number fell away to 23 per cent for Cohort 2.

This fall in the proportion sending money

overseas is probably due to the fall in

employment rate for this visa category between

cohorts: it was 25 percent in Cohort 1 but only

16 percent in Cohort 2. The number of Business

skills/ENS migrants who send money is

generally too small to report.

More men sent money overseas in Cohort 1, but

this appears to have been reversed for Cohort 2.

In the early months of settlement (i.e., Wave 1),

a greater proportion of women (10%) sent

money overseas than men (8%). By 18 months

after arrival, however, the margin between the

genders has decreased – at Wave 2, there is less

than one percentage point difference in the

proportions of men and women to have sent

money overseas.

As was the case for the earlier forms of asset

transfers, most of the migrants who sent money

overseas are in the prime working ages (i.e.,

between 25 and 44 years). Migrants of these

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2


61

ages accounted for 80 per cent of the total

number of Cohort 2 migrants who had sent

money overseas at Wave 2. Quite high

proportions of the youngest migrants send

money overseas as well: fully one-quarter of

migrants aged 15-24 years (in both cohorts) had

sent money overseas at Wave 2. It is also

noteworthy that the proportion of each age

bracket sending money accelerates most quickly

between waves for younger migrants. There was

an increase of 17 percentage points between

waves in the proportion of 15-24 year olds

sending money overseas.

The calculation of the average value of money

sent overseas by migrants is complicated by the

way the information is recorded by the various

LSIA questionnaires. The questionnaire for

Cohort 1, Wave 2, for instance, assigns values to

specific “dollar bands” (e.g., $1-$1,000, $1,001-

$5,000, more than $50,000). In contrast, the data

collected from Cohort 2 migrants records the

value of their transfers as a continuous variable

(rounded to the nearest thousand). In order to

derive an average value from the dollar bands

used in Cohort 1, Wave 2, we assumed that

within each value range, transfer amounts were

distributed evenly across the value intervals.

Using this assumption, we assigned the mid-

point of each range to all transfers that fell

within that range. For example, a transfer value

of $2,500 was assigned to all transfers that fell

within the “$1,001-$5,000” range, and so forth.

.

Table 9.3: Remittances, selected features

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 20 11 24 Independent 25 10 18 Preferential family/family stream 21 9 21 Business Skills/Employer Nomination Scheme Humanitarian 29 7 23

Gender Male 24 8 20 Female 20 10 21

Age Group 15-24 years 25 7 24 25-34 years 25 11 23 35-44 years 23 10 19 45-54 years 16 5 15


Total 22 9 20


62

For the most part, migrants send only small

amounts of money overseas. At Wave 2, 70 per

cent of Cohort 1 migrants who had sent some

money, and 63 per cent in Cohort 2, reported

sending an amount less than $1,000. An even

higher proportion (80%) of Cohort 2 migrants

who sent money in their first six months of

settlement (i.e., Wave 1) remitted an amount less

than $1,000. Excluding five remittances valued

at $100,000 each, the average remittance amount

for this group was $1,064. It is interesting to see

that both the total value of remittances, and the

number of migrants sending money, is lower in

Cohort 2 than in Cohort 1, although this partly

reflects the smaller sample size for the LSIA in

Cohort 2. The most useful comparison we can

make is between the two separate cohorts at the

time of their Wave 2 interviews. Figure 9.3

shows the average remittance value rose from

$1,593 to $1,975 per remitting migrant (an

increase of 24%), although the total remittance

amount, and the number of remitting migrants,

declined between the two cohorts.

9.4 Financial Help Received

Just as some migrants are able to establish

themselves in Australia and send money

overseas to support family and friends, some

also require financial support to assist their

settlement. Migrants in both cohorts are slightly

more likely to receive financial help in their first

six months of settlement (i.e., Wave 1 data), than

in the subsequent twelve months (Wave 2). Of

the migrants in Cohort 2, 39 per cent reported

receiving some financial help at Wave 1. The

proportion fell to 34 per cent by Wave 2. Among

Cohort 1 migrants, 32 per cent said they had

received financial help by Wave 1, while 29 per

cent were helped between Wave 1 and Wave 2.

Figure 9.3: Average value of money sent overseas by migrants

Note: Outliers have been excluded.

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2


63

The main source of financial help for migrants

was other family members, in particular those

who also reside in Australia. At Wave 1, 23 per

cent of migrants in Cohort 2, and 18 per cent of

those in Cohort 1, had received some financial

help from family in Australia. However, the

proportion of migrants who received help from

this source declined over time, for both cohorts.

At Wave 2, 14 per cent of Cohort 2 reported

receiving some help from family in Australia, as

did 11 per cent of Cohort 1. This reinforces the

impression that financial help received from

family in Australia is predominantly an

“establishment support” for migrants.

The next most common source of financial help

was family overseas. In contrast to help from

family in Australia, the proportion of migrants

who received help from family overseas

increased with time, although not by very much

(from 6% to 11% for Cohort 2).

As Table 9.4 shows, Preferential family/family

stream migrants were most likely to receive help.

Among Cohort 2, half of the Preferential

family/family stream migrants received help in

their first six months of arrival, and 41 per cent

received help in the time between interviews.

These proportions were much higher than

reported by Preferential family/family stream

migrants in Cohort 1 (35% at Wave 1, and 31%

at Wave 2). The proportions of Cohort 2’s


and Business skills/employer nomination scheme

who reported receiving financial help at Wave 2

were also higher than for the same groups in

Cohort 1. In contrast, Cohort 2 Humanitarian

migrants were less likely to report having

received financial help at Wave 2 than their

Cohort 1 counterparts (22% compared to 27%).

Except for Cohort 2’s first six months of arrival

in Australia, there is little separating the genders

in terms of the propensity to receive financial

help. At Wave 1, 34 per cent of male in Cohort 2

had received financial help, compared to 44 per

cent of women. These proportions declined for

both sexes in the time between LSIA interviews,

but especially for women. The result was that,

by Wave 2, 31 per cent of Cohort 2 males said

they had received some financial help since their

last interview, compared to 36 per cent of

females.

Of the migrants in Cohort 2, those in the

youngest and oldest age groups were the most

likely to receive financial help. Sixty-four per

cent of 15-24 year olds in Cohort 2 had received

help at Wave 1, as had 72 per cent of migrants

aged 65 years or more. In both cohorts, the

proportion of migrants in each age group who

received help was lower at Wave 2 than at

Wave 1. The exception was the oldest age group,

who were more likely to get financial help in the

twelve months between interviews than in their

first six months of settlement.

9.5 Conclusions

In this section we have examined four distinct

elements of migrant finances: asset transfers to

Australia, asset transfers from Australia,

remittances (monies sent to relatives or friends

overseas), and financial help received from local

and overseas sources.

The vast majority of migrants did not transfer

any funds, personal effects or capital equipment

to Australia, but those in Cohort 2 are slightly

more likely to have done so than those in

Cohort 1. The migrants most likely to transfer

assets to Australia were: in the Business

skills/employer nomination scheme visa group,

male, middle-aged, and good English speakers.

The interpretation of the average value of assets

transferred to Australia by migrants is greatly

affected by the treatment of low and (especially)

high values in the analysis. Using adjusted


64

Table 9.4: Financial help, selected Features

Cohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

$ $ $ $

Value of help received

Number who received help 1,479 1,006 1,040 706 Average value of help received 3,203 6,454 4,169 11,485 Adjusted average value2

3,203 6,454 3,400 7,915

Proportion of migrants who

received help from % % % %

Friends Overseas <1 1 1 1 Family Overseas 6 7 6 11 Government Overseas 1 3 3 3 Friends in Australia 4 3 3 2 Family in Australia 18 11 23 14 Employer 1 1 1 <1 Community or Religious Group 2 1 1 1

Proportion who received help by ..

Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked

30 25 38 32

Independent 27 25 24 24 Preferential family/family stream 35 31 50 41 Business skills/employer nominationscheme

19 17 16 23

Humanitarian 33 27 31 22


Age Group 15-24 years 38 28 64 54 25-34 years 33 28 37 33 35-44 years 26 22 28 26 45-54 years 28 18 29 20 55-64 years 29 42 53 35 65 or more years 42 65 72 93

English Proficiency English only or best 30 31 35 33 English well and other language 30 25 40 35 English not well or not at all 37 31 43 33

Total 32 29 39 34

Notes: (1) The values shown relate to the proportions of migrants who received help since: (a) immigrating (for Wave 1), or (b) last interview (for Wave 2).

(2) The adjusted average values are calculated by excluding transfers valued at $100,000 or more


65

amounts that exclude very large transfers, we

showed that the average value of funds transfers

(on a per migrant basis) was higher in Cohort 2

than in Cohort 1, and rose for both cohorts over

time. The majority of assets transferred to

Australia were in the form of funds. The average

value of personal effects transfers was about

double in Cohort 1 what it was in Cohort 2, at

both points in time. The average value of capital

equipment transfers reported by Cohort 2

increased more quickly between waves than for

Cohort 1.

There is a small increase in the rate migrants

transferred assets from Australia from Wave 1 to

Wave 2, but the total proportion of migrants who

make asset transfers abroad is still very small

(fewer than one in ten). Those who do transfer

assets from Australia are likely to be from the

Independent or Preferential family/family stream

visa categories, and of prime working age (25-44

years). The asset transfers abroad that do occur

are almost exclusively in the form of funds.

Excluding a handful of high value outliers, the

average value of transfers from Australia

increases for both cohorts between Wave 1 and

Wave 2, and the rate of increase in value is faster

for Cohort 2.

A slightly smaller percentage of Cohort 2

migrants send money overseas to relatives and

friends than was the case for Cohort 1. However,

those migrants from Cohort 2 who do make

remittances, on average, send larger amounts.

There is quite clear evidence that more time in

Australia increases the proportion of remitting

migrants. The vast majority of remitting migrants

are of prime working age. Given what we know

about the superior qualifications of working age

migrants in Cohort 2 relative to Cohort 1, and

the improved economic conditions that have

accompanied the second cohort’s settlement in

Australia, it is likely that those who choose to

make remittances are simply in a better position

to send more than their counterparts in Cohort 1

could afford.

Migrants mostly turned to their family for

financial help. They were most likely to receive

help from family in Australia, but the proportion

who accessed this source of help fell from

Wave 1 to Wave 2. In contrast, the proportion

who received help from family overseas, the next

most likely source, rose with time. Very small

proportions of migrants received financial help

from government overseas, from their employer,

from friends, or from community groups. The

total value of financial help received by migrants

increased over time, but the number receiving

help fell. Migrants in the Preferential

family/family stream visa group were most likely

to receive financial help, and the proportion of

these migrants who received help in Cohort 2

was higher at both time periods than for

Cohort 1. Female migrants were slightly more

likely to receive financial help, as were migrants

at either extreme of the age spectrum.


66

10. Sponsorship of Relatives

n this section we compare the levels and

changes in assistance provided by sponsors

(analysis is restricted to Cohort 2, as questions

relating to this issue did not appear in the Cohort

1 survey). We also consider the levels and

changes to the sponsorship intentions towards

Primary Applicants’ overseas relatives between

Cohorts 1 and 2 (Wave 2). This gives an

interesting perspective on the extent to which

Australia experiences ‘chain migration’, where

the arrival of an initial Primary Applicant leads

to subsequent applications for family members

to follow.

10.1 Assistance Provided by

Sponsor

In Cohort 2, 58 per cent of all Primary

Applicants were sponsored, and 60 per cent of

the sponsored applicants were female. Of the

total of 1,810 sponsored families there were

1,582 in the Preferential family/family stream

category (2.6% of this visa category reported

that they were not sponsored suggesting that

those respondents may not have understood the

question, as sponsorship was a visa

requirement). There were 57% in the


category and just 20% in the Humanitarian

category.15 The analysis of sponsored

immigrants is, therefore, dominated by the

Preferential family/family stream visa

category.16

15 In Wave 2, four Independent PAs reported they received assistance from their sponsor – this small number is not considered material. 16 On a weight-adjusted basis.

This sub-section considers the levels and

changes between Waves 1 and 2 of Cohort 2 in

the proportions of sponsored families who

received assistance from their sponsor. The data

support our expectation that, generally,

assistance falls (in total and for specific types of

assistance) with the passage of time as

immigrants become more settled and informed,

and their employment situation improves.

The five major types of sponsor assistance

available are: General information and advice

and help in using services; Providing food,

clothing or household goods; Providing or

finding accommodation; Financial assistance;

and Providing work or assistance with finding

jobs. There was a decrease in the use of

sponsors’ assistance between Waves 1 and 2 of

Cohort 2. As Figure 10.1 indicates,17 the

smallest decrease was in providing or finding

employment, down seven per cent, compared to

a fall of 26 per cent in finding accommodation.

In both waves, finding work was the domain in

which least help was received. For the four other

types of assistance, at least half of the sponsored

immigrants were still receiving assistance at

Wave 2, but those receiving no assistance had

increased from four per cent to 15 per cent. 18

There was a decrease in use of assistance by

immigrants in all visa categories, except in

assistance providing or finding employment.

17 Questions regarding access to sponsor’s assistance are multiple response and Primary Applicants could, and generally did, indicate assistance received of more than one kind. 18 Since the increase in no assistance is simply a corollary of the decrease in use of other forms of assistance it is not considered further.

I


67

Figure 10.1: Assistance received from sponsor, Cohort 2, (per cent of sponsored families)

Note: The figure is based on a multiple response tables and hence total does not sum to 100%.

Table 10.1 shows that assistance with

employment fell substantially for the


(down from 40% to 17%), remained unchanged

for the Preferential family/family stream, but

increased for the Humanitarian category (11% to

16%). These changes are consistent with the

view that skilled immigrants can more rapidly

enter employment (Appendix Table A10.1), with

a consequential reduction in use of sponsors’

assistance.19

19 Although there was a larger increase in the proportion of those employed in the Preferential family/family stream (up 29% compared to 23% for the Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked) by Wave 2 over three-quarters of the Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked were employed compared to just over half for the

Females had a greater proportional reliance on

sponsors’ assistance than males in both Waves 1

and 2 (Appendix Table A10.2). This was

particularly true for the provision of food,

clothing and household goods (55% higher than

males in Wave 1, and almost double the male

rate in Wave 2) and for financial assistance

(about 100% and 160% higher in Waves 1 and 2

respectively).

Preferential family/family stream. There was a substantial increase in employment in the Humanitarian group, and this, coupled with the relatively low initial use of assistance, helps explain the rise in access to assistance in the category (although numbers are small).

0

20

40

60

80

100

GeneralInformation

Food, Clothing,Goods

FindingAccommodation

FinancialAssistance

Work/Assistance inFinding

None of the above

%

Wave 1 Wave 2


68

Table 10.1: Assistance received from sponsor, by visa category (per cent of sponsored families)

Assistance Received

Cohort

Wave

Concessional

family/skilled

Australian-

linked

Preferential

family/family

stream Humanitarian

% % %

General C2W1 84 83 89

Information C2W2 46 72 61

Food, Clothing, C2W1 50 73 67

Household Goods C2W2 24 63 37

Finding C2W1 67 76 80

Accommodation C2W2 33 58 44

Financial C2W1 26 60 47

Assistance C2W2 13 55 23

Provided Work or C2W1 40 30 11

Assistance in Finding C2W2 17 30 16

Note: These are multiple response tables and hence do not sum to 100%.

Interestingly, in Wave 1, females’ use of

assistance with providing or finding employment

was nine per cent lower than males’, but this was

reversed in Wave 2 with females’ access about

60 per cent higher than that for males. This

could indicate a greater pressure on men to find

work rapidly, and labour force status data

provides some evidence for this. By Wave 2,

only 18 per cent of sponsored male Primary

Applicants were not in the labour force (NLF)

compared to 50 per cent of females.

People who were fluent in English received less

assistance than other immigrants in both waves,

which is hardly surprising. Nonetheless, even

those who were proficient in English were still

receiving substantial assistance at Wave 2,

including in finding accommodation. The overall

fall in the use of assistance between waves was

less pronounced for those who spoke English not

well or not at all for all types of assistance, but

particularly so for employment and financial

assistance (Appendix Table A10.3).

Generally, use of assistance was higher for the

younger age groups, for all types of assistance,

although there was a tendency for use to increase

in the 65-plus age group. This is consistent with

the view that the need to access assistance is

strongly influenced by labour force status. It is

also indicative of the higher likelihood that older

migrants are supported by their Australian

families and are not in the labour force (86% of

the 55-plus group are not in the labour force

compared 41% of the 15-54 age group).


69

10.2 Composition of Family

Members Overseas

This sub-section analyses the composition of

immigrants’ overseas family members. We

consider the make up of, and changes to,

composition between Waves 1 and 2 (for Cohort

2, as relevant questions were not included in the

questionnaire for Cohort 1).20 A preliminary

warning on comparisons is required however.

Wave 1 Primary Applicants were asked simply

whether they or their husband/wife/partner had a

spouse, child/children, brothers/sisters, parents,

other relatives or none of these. In Wave 2, the

question was far more explicit, specifying 26

possible relationships. This greater enumeration

probably acted as a memory aid not provided at

Wave 1, and hence a comparison between the

waves can be treated as indicative only.21

Despite this complication, the message of the

data in Table 10.2 is that there was virtually no

change between waves, as would be expected.

Not surprisingly, most respondents had siblings

or parents, but not a spouse or child/children,

overseas in Cohort 2.

Because of the small numbers for the groups

“spouse” and “no relatives”, the remaining

discussion in this sub-section is confined to the

three major groups of overseas relatives: parents,

brothers/sisters, and other relatives, with some

discussion of child/children where numbers

warrant inclusion.

We draw attention to two points associated with

visa category that confirm expectations for

Cohort 2 (Appendix Table A10.4). First,

20 Other than to ascertain whether or not Primary Applicants had any relatives overseas without reference to the relationship with that relative. 21 More problematical, the category ‘others’ is probably enhanced by the nine different choices in Wave 2 in comparison to the all encompassing ‘other relatives’ in Wave 1 (as data in the Table demonstrate).

Independent immigrants had a greater proportion

of parents overseas (96% compared to the

average of about 87%) whilst those in the

Humanitarian category have the lowest (about

70%), and Preferential family/family stream

(about 84%) have less than the average. Second,

children overseas are predominantly found in the

Business skills/employer nomination scheme and

Humanitarian categories (both about 16% in

Wave 1, with falls to about 11% and 15% for


Humanitarian respectively by Wave 2), with

little change in other categories.22

The data confirm (Appendix Table A10.5) that,

as expected, the older Primary Applicants are

less likely to have a parent overseas but more

likely to have a child/children; the middle-aged

groups tend to have the highest proportion of

siblings; the younger age groups tend to have

more other relatives overseas than other groups.

Examination of English language proficiency

indicates a general pattern (Appendix Table

A10.6). Those most proficient in English had a

greater proportion of parents and siblings

overseas. This suggests that there is a difference

in family composition of immigrants based on

source country, i.e. English speaking immigrants

are less likely to have parents or siblings in the

immigrant family group or already in Australia.

The response to the question regarding other

relatives (excluding spouse and children)

demonstrates the ‘memory aid’ difference in

questions between Waves 1 and 2.

22 Concessional and Independent category numbers are too small to analyse.


70

Table 10.2: Overseas relatives of Primary Applicants, Cohort 2, Waves 1 & 2

Type of Relative Wave 1 Wave 2

% %

Spouse(s) 2 2

Child/Children 9 8

Brothers/Sisters 92 92

Parent(s) 87 86

Other relatives1 84 89

No relatives 1 1

Note - Questions in the two waves of Cohort 2 are not equivalent. This may produce some inaccuracy in this comparison.

10.3 Sponsorship Intentions

This sub-section discusses, for Wave 2 in

Cohorts 1 and 2, actions or intentions for

sponsoring overseas relatives and reasons why

recent immigrants had not, or did not plan to

sponsor relatives.

10.3.1 Successful and Outstanding

Applications to Sponsor

As Table 10.3 indicates, there was a fall in

sponsorship activity undertaken between

Cohorts 1 and 2. Total applications to sponsor

relatives fell from 15 per cent to five per cent

between cohorts. This was partly due to the

reduction in the share of Humanitarian

immigrants in Cohort 2 and the decline in their

propensity to sponsor (down from 31% to 22%

between cohorts, although the Humanitarian

category had by far the highest proportion of

applications). There was little change to the

small proportions in all other visa categories.

Nonetheless, the fall in the number of

applications to sponsor was balanced somewhat

by the change in intentions to sponsor,

increasing from 25 per cent in Cohort 1 to 41 per

cent in Cohort 2. If intentions were carried out

there would be little difference between the two

cohorts (but the data does not provide such

information).

Successful sponsorship proportions are quite low

(4% in Cohort 1 and just 2% for Cohort 2), with

the largest percentage fall in the Humanitarian

category. Analysis by other major variables

provides little additional information.

10.3.2 Sponsorship Intentions

Sponsorship intentions changed noticeably

between Cohorts 1 and 2, as shown in Table

10.3, with the biggest impact coming from the

Preferential family/family stream category.

Those intending to sponsor a relative increased

from 25 per cent in Cohort 1 to 41 per cent by

Cohort 2. This substantial change is surprising.

There was a marked change in the makeup of the

immigrants between cohorts due to changes in

visa requirements, which resulted in an increase

in the economically independent. This may

suggest an increase in the likelihood of

sponsoring relatives, possibly confirmed by the

fall in those indicating insufficient money as the

Ta

ble

10

.3:

Sp

on

so

rsh

ip o

f R

ela

tiv

es

, p

er

ce

nt

of

Pri

ma

ry A

pp

lic

an

ts

Sp

on

sors

hip

In

ten

tio

n o

r

Act

ion

Co

ho

rt

/Wa

ve

Co

nce

ssio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-l

ink

ed

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loyer

no

min

ati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Ap

pli

ed t

o s

po

nso

r*

C1

W2

8

5

5

+

3

1

15

C2

W2

7

4

3

+

2

2

5

Su

cces

sfu

lly s

po

nso

red

*

C1

W2

4

3

2

+

1

1

4

C2

W2

4

2

1

+

3

2

Inte

nt

to s

po

nso

r an

y

C1

W2

2

7

23

2

3

15

4

1

25

(

mo

re)

C2

W2

5

4

42

3

6

33

6

5

41

Nei

ther

sp

on

sore

d n

or

C

1W

2

65

7

2

73

8

3

28

60

i

nte

nd

to

**

C

2W

2

27

5

3

59

6

4

4

44

No

te:

* Q

ues

tio

ns

in t

he

two

co

ho

rts

req

uir

ed m

anip

ula

tio

n t

o o

bta

in c

om

par

ativ

e re

sult

s.

*

* C

alcu

late

d a

s a

resi

du

al (

Bu

sin

ess

adju

sted

fo

r em

pty

cel

ls)

‘+

’ =

Nu

mber

of

ob

serv

atio

ns

ver

y s

mal

l (<

5)


72

reason a relative has not yet been sponsored

(from 28% in Cohort 1 to 8% in Cohort 2, see

later discussion and Appendix Table A10.8).

Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that this was

sufficient to generate the very substantial

increase between cohorts reported in Table 10.3.

An examination of sponsorship intentions by

visa category indicates changes between cohorts

in all five categories, in some cases intention

being about double for Cohort 2 (see Table

10.3). Not surprisingly, the Humanitarian

category had the highest intent, it and the


were above the average in both cohorts, and the


category had the least intention of sponsoring a

relative. The link between visa categories and

access to income and/or employment is strong,

and economic success may be, to some extent at

least, a prerequisite for sponsorship of relatives.

It is not surprising that Humanitarian immigrants

have the strongest desire to sponsor relatives.

This group is highly likely to have family

overseas who are living in distressed

circumstances.

The most fluent English speakers are less likely

than other groups to intend to sponsor a family

member. In Cohort 1, 12 per cent of those who

spoke English only or best intended to sponsor a

relative compared to 31 per cent of those

speaking English not well or not at all (this gap

had narrowed by Cohort 2 to 35% for English

only or best compared to 44% for English not

well or not at all, Appendix Table A10.7). To

some extent, the correlation between English

language proficiency and sponsoring intentions

is mediated by the link between language

proficiency and visa category. Humanitarian

immigrants are the strongest example of this

link, with low English proficiency and a higher

propensity to sponsor overseas family members.

Those who come from English speaking

countries are likely to have relatives who feel

under no economic pressure to migrate.

There is no distinct pattern when considering

intent to sponsor and age, except that the 15-24

age group has the highest intent to sponsor (34%

and 49% in Cohort 1 and 2 respectively), and the

65+ group has the lowest intent (7% and 18%

respectively). Examination by age and visa

category indicates that in all age groups it was

the Humanitarian visa category that had the

highest proportion of immigrants who intend to

sponsor relatives, and Business skills/employer

nomination scheme the lowest.23

Notwithstanding the discussion above, the data

do not provide an explanation for the quite

substantial increase in intent to sponsor relatives

between Cohorts 1 and 2.

It appears that the change in profile of

immigrants between Cohorts 1 and 2, a

consequence of policy changes, could flow

through to future immigrants. It remains to be

seen however whether the intentions of the

higher skilled, more independent immigrants in

Cohort 2 will translate to increased chain

immigration.

10.3.3 Why Relatives Have Not Yet

Been Sponsored

There were distinct changes to the reasons given

by the Primary Applicants who intended to

sponsor as to why they had not yet done so

(Appendix Table A10.8). In Cohort 1 the major

reason was “Insufficient money/can’t afford it”

(28% of PAs). Although none of the Business

skills/employer nomination scheme category

gave this reason other visa categories ranged

from 19 per cent in Concessional family/skilled

23 In terms of numbers however, it is those in the 15-24 and 25-34 age groups in the Preferential family/family stream visa category that accounts for the majority of those who intend to sponsor relatives.


73

Australian-linked to a maximum of 33 per cent

for the Humanitarian category. The second most

cited reason was “Can’t yet, haven’t been

resident long enough” (25% of PAs, ranging

from 22% in the Humanitarian category to 33%

of Independent migrants).

In Cohort 2, the predominant reason given was

“Relatives not interested yet” (48%), with

Humanitarian the lowest at 17 per cent and the

Business skills/employer nomination scheme the

highest at 59 per cent. The second most

numerous reason given was “Can’t yet, haven’t

been resident long enough” at 18 per cent. In

contrast to Cohort 1, “Insufficient money/can’t

afford it” was given by only 8% (but 20% of the

Humanitarian PAs nominated this as a reason).

As expected following the change in

immigration policy, the more independent

Cohort 2 immigrants are less constrained by

financial considerations, but have backgrounds

that suggest less dissatisfaction with their source

country, and hence their relatives are also less

dissatisfied and less keen to immigrate.

For major reasons for not sponsoring any more

overseas relatives, see Appendix Table A10.9.

10.4 Conclusions

In the LSIA only immigrants in the Concessional

family/skilled Australian-linked, Preferential

family/family stream and Humanitarian visa

categories were sponsored, and the different visa

categories displayed different needs for

sponsors’ assistance. The Preferential

family/family stream category dominates the

data analysis as they accounted for over 85 per

cent of sponsored families (in Cohort 2).

As expected, the use of sponsors’ assistance falls

with time. In Cohort 2, there was a reasonably

rapid decrease in the use of assistance, with the

proportion of those not using any assistance

increasing three-fold by Wave 2, although use of

employment and direct financial assistance did

not fall as rapidly. Interestingly, female use of

assistance with finding employment was the only

type of assistance that increased between waves

for either sex.

Higher English proficiency suggested lower

levels of use of assistance. There remained,

however, substantial use of assistance by Wave

2 with over 50 per cent of immigrant families

receiving at least one of the following forms of

assistance - food, clothing and household goods;

financial assistance; and assistance with finding

accommodation.

Consistent with the fact that use of assistance is

strongly influenced by labour force status, use of

assistance was lowest for the age group 25 to 44,

and assistance with employment fell below 10

per cent for the 65-plus age group (indicative of

the higher likelihood that older migrants are not

in the labour force).

Intentions to sponsor overseas relatives

increased quite substantially between Cohorts 1

and 2 (doubling in some visa categories). The

Humanitarian category had the highest intent,

and Concessional family/skilled Australian-

linked migrants were also well above the

average of about 40 per cent. The more fluent

English speakers are less likely to sponsor

relatives, but age and sex do not provide further

insights. On balance, the data do not appear to

provide a complete explanation for the very

substantial increase between cohorts.

Interestingly, the change in profile of immigrants

between Cohorts 1 and 2 appears to have had an

impact on sponsorship activity prior to the Wave

2 survey. The number who had undertaken

sponsoring activities in Cohort 2 (5%) were a

third of the number for Cohort 1, and the number


74

of successful sponsorships was down by half (to

just 2%).

The major reason immigrants had not yet carried

out sponsorship intentions switched between

Cohort 1 and 2 from “Insufficient money” to

“Relatives not interested”. This is consistent

with the change in profile of immigrants:

Cohort 2 immigrants are, on average, less

financially constrained but their relatives are less

keen to immigrate. Further, “Relatives not

wanting to come to Australia” was the

predominant reason given by Cohort 2 as to why

there was no intention to sponsor any (more)

relatives.

Whether the attempts or intentions to sponsor

relatives (chain migration) are successful will

depend on the attributes of the potential

immigrants, and the preparedness of recent

immigrants to follow through with their stated

intentions.


75

11. Satisfaction With Life In Australia

n this section we investigate how satisfied

new migrants are with life in Australia.

Satisfaction matters because those who are

happy with their initial migrant experience will

be more likely to become productive and active

members of Australian society. It is also

important, of course, for the wellbeing of the

migrants themselves. Further, it is positive for

Australia as a country to have new people move

to Australia and like living here. The word-of-

mouth of satisfied migrants may also be a

powerful tool in attracting further migrants to

Australia.

The LSIA surveys asked a number of questions

which provide indicators of satisfaction with life

in Australia, including: whether they felt they

had made the right decision moving to Australia,

if they would encourage others to come to

Australia, their overall satisfaction, what their

likes and dislikes of Australia are, and whether

they intended to become Australian citizens or

intended to emigrate elsewhere.

With these indicators, comparisons between

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 at Wave 2 are made,

along with an assessment of changes over time

between Waves 1 and 2 of Cohort 2. It must be

noted however that this data may overestimate

the extent of life satisfaction reported by the new

settlers. Those immigrants who were the least

satisfied with their life in Australia may have

been amongst the two per cent of Cohort 1 and

Cohort 2 migrants who emigrated out of

Australia during the survey period, and are thus

not included in the sample considered here. In

Section 11.4, further information on those who

had emigrated elsewhere by Wave 2 is reported.

11.1 General Satisfaction with Life

in Australia

When the migrants were asked at each interview

to rate their overall satisfaction with life in

Australia, the resulting picture was a

resoundingly positive one (see Figure 11.1). The

vast majority of migrants reported being either

‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ when asked ‘how

do you feel about your life in Australia?’. The

migrants most likely to report being ‘not

satisfied’ with life in Australia (responses of

‘neither satisfied or dissatisfied’, ‘dissatisfied’ or

‘very dissatisfied’), were Independent migrants

from Cohort 1 Wave 2 (14%), and Concessional

Family/skilled Australian-linked migrants in

both Cohort 1 Wave 2 and Cohort 2 Wave 1

(13% and 15% respectively). By Wave 2,

Cohort 2 migrants were more likely to be

satisfied with life in Australia than Cohort 1

migrants (94% versus 89%). This greater

satisfaction in Cohort 2 remained regardless of

demographic breakdown by visa group, gender,

English proficiency or age. There was a slight


of Cohort 2 (91% to 94%). This pattern was seen

in most demographic groups, however in the two

older age groups and the Business

skills/employer nomination scheme and

Humanitarian migrants, there was no change

over time. (See Appendix Tables A11.1 to A11.5

for age-related information and a three-point

breakdown of life satisfaction).

In line with the findings on overall satisfaction,

almost all the migrants reported believing they

had made the right decision to move to Australia

(see Appendix Table A11.6). As with

I


76

satisfaction, Cohort 2 migrants were slightly

more likely than Cohort 1 to say they had made

the right decision to move to Australia (95%

versus 92%). This finding remained regardless

of demographic breakdown, with the exception

of the English only or best and English well and

other language groups (in which there was no

difference between the cohorts). For Cohort 2,

Wave 2 were slightly more likely to report

making the right decision to move to Australia

than Wave 1, with an increase from 92 to 95 per

cent over time. This pattern existed in most

demographic groups, however in Humanitarian

migrants and the three older age groups, there

was little change over time. This increase in

satisfaction over time suggests that it is not the

case that migrants record high levels of

satisfaction soon after arrival because they are

reluctant to conclude they had made a mistake in

coming to Australia. Rather, it seems that

satisfaction is genuine and increases slightly

with further time to settle into their new lives.

Although the percentages are not quite as high as

for the above two satisfaction measures, overall

a majority of migrants still reported that they

would encourage others to migrate to Australia

(two-thirds to four-fifths). Table 11.1 shows

Humanitarian entrants were one of the groups

most likely to encourage others to come to

Australia, and surprisingly, Preferential

family/family stream migrants were one of the

groups least likely to encourage others to come

to Australia.

Table 11.1 Percent ‘Very Satisfied’ or ‘Satisfied’ with Life in Australia, by Selected Factors

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Visa Category


Independent 86 91 93




Gender

Male 88 91 94

Female 89 92 95

English Proficiency




Total 89 91 94


77

As with the findings discussed above, Cohort 2

were considerably more likely than Cohort 1 to

say they would encourage others to migrate to

Australia (81% versus 68%). This finding was

the same for all age groups, English proficiency

levels and visa groups, and both genders. It was

also particularly noticeable in the Business

skills/employer nomination scheme entrants,

with Cohort 2 being 22 per cent higher than

Cohort 1. The percentage of Cohort 2 migrants

reporting they would encourage others to come

to Australia increased from Wave 1 to Wave 2.

This increase occurred in most demographic

groups, with the exception of migrants aged 65+,

in which there was a small decrease in

encouragement from Wave 1 to Wave 2.

Table 11.2: Percent that would encourage others to migrate to Australia, by

selected factors

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Visa Category






Gender

Male 69 80 83

Female 68 74 80

English Proficiency




Age Group

15-24 77 78 84

25-34 68 76 80

35-44 67 78 82

45-54 74 79 87

55-64 65 82 85

65+ 56 70 65

Total 68 77 81


78

11.2 Intention to Apply for

Australian Citizenship

The general picture of high levels of satisfaction

with life in Australia is reinforced by migrants’

attitudes to citizenship. The vast majority of

migrants reported intending to apply for

Australian citizenship (see Table 11.2). Groups

more keen to become citizens were those who

spoke English not well or not at all and

Humanitarian entrants (there is, of course, some

overlap between these two categories). Those

least interested in becoming a citizen were the


migrants, which perhaps reflects the greater

options available to these migrants. The need to

retain citizenship in their former country of

residence may also be particularly relevant to

skilled migrants. The need to retain citizenship

also varies depending on the country of origin of

each migrant. Overall, there was little difference

between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 in the percentage

who intended to apply for Australian citizenship.

There was a small increase in the proportion

who intended to apply for citizenship for Cohort

2 migrants at between Waves 1 and 2, from 78 to

84 per cent.

Regardless of gender, visa group, English

proficiency and age, migrants were more likely

to report intending to apply for Australian

citizenship at Wave 2 than at Wave 1. The only

exceptions to this were Humanitarian migrants,

where virtually all intended to become citizens

soon after arrival, and migrants aged 55-64, in

which there was no change over time.

Migrants were asked about their reasons for their

citizenship intentions (see Tables A11.7 and

A11.8 in Appendix). For all cohort waves, the

single most commonly reported reason for

wanting to be an Australian citizen given by

those wishing to do so was to stay in Australia

permanently (42%-47%). In Cohort 1 the second

most common reason for gaining citizenship was

to belong to and feel Australian, whereas for

Cohort 2 the second most common reason was

because they liked Australia and had a better life

here (there may in practice be little difference

between these two reasons). This reason was

given by Cohort 2 migrants at triple the rate of

Cohort 1 migrants, and was the second most

common reason given at both waves of Cohort 2.

Overall, relatively few cited job opportunities as

a reason for citizenship.

A desire or need to retain citizenship in their

former country was by far the most frequently

cited reason for not wanting Australian

citizenship, with about half reporting this reason

in each cohort wave (see Table A11.8 in

Appendix). Cohort 2 migrants were considerably

more likely to report this reason than Cohort 1.

For Cohort 2, there was little change over time

between Waves 1 and 2 in the percentage

reporting this reason. Overall, the second most

commonly reported reason for not applying for

Australian citizenship was related to the first –

the desire to retain their current passport. This

reason was also cited more frequently in

Cohort 2 than in Cohort 1, and within Cohort 2,

it was reported slightly less frequently in

Wave 2.


79

Table 11.3: Percentage of migrants intending to apply for Australian

citizenship, by selected factors

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Visa Category






Gender

Male 85 80 85

Female 82 77 82

English Proficiency




Age Group

15-24 90 80 85

25-34 80 76 81

35-44 86 84 88

45-54 91 77 86

55-64 86 84 84

65+ 68 66 76

Total 83 78 84

Notes: For Wave 2 of Cohorts 1 and 2, intention to apply for Australian Citizenship also included those who had

already applied for citizenship and those who were already Australian Citizens.


80

11.3 Major Likes and Dislikes of

Australia

At each interview, open-ended questions asked

the migrants about their major likes and dislikes

of Australia. As can be seen in Table 11.3,

across all three cohort waves, the most

commonly reported aspect migrants liked about

Australia was the country and environment (e.g.,

the beach, scenery, lack of overpopulation), with

almost half of all migrants reporting this as a

positive characteristic of Australia. Australia’s

friendly people were also frequently reported by

all three cohort waves as a positive aspect. Thus

it appears that non-material aspects played a

bigger role in influencing what migrants liked

about Australia than did material factors.

Table 11.4: What migrants liked about Australia

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Friendly people 30 38 41

Climate/weather 26 33 33

Quiet, peaceful and safe 29 26 39

Lifestyle/social 29 35 47

Education/employment 36 33 36

Country/environment 47 45 49

Services and facilities 23 26 29

Better place and opportunities 9 15 24

Political freedom/no war 29 22 33

Family here 4 7 3

Standard of living/living costs/economy 18 13 11

Everything 4 1 3

Nothing 1 0 0

Other 4 4 3

Notes: (1) Responses have been grouped into general categories to establish comparability between Cohort 1 Wave 1 and Cohort 2 Waves 1 & 2.

(2) Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to five responses were given in Cohort 1 Wave 2, up to nine responses in Cohort 2 Wave 1, and up to 10 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 2 (causing the total percentage of cases to be more than 100 per cent). Some caution must be used in drawing comparisons from this data as a result.

(3) Percentages for Cohort 2 Wave 1 are different from those reported in the “Life in a New land’ report due to recoding of the responses.


81

Of the material factors, education and

employment were consistently the most

frequently liked aspects of Australia. Having

family in Australia was not frequently cited as

something migrants liked about Australia. Most

of the positive attributes mentioned by migrants

were reported more frequently by the second

wave of interviews and by Cohort 2 than

Cohort 1. The major likes of Cohort 2 migrants

at Wave 2 for each visa group are shown in

Appendix Table A11.9. It can be seen that the

profile of responses by Humanitarian migrants is

different from the other groups. They were much

more likely to report liking that Australia was

politically and war free, and were more likely to

say they liked everything about Australia.

Humanitarian migrants less frequently reported

liking lifestyle, environmental or climate related

factors. Independent migrants were considerably

more likely to report liking the lifestyle and

social aspects of Australia. Business

skills/employer Nomination Scheme migrants

more frequently report liking employment and

education aspects in Australia.

When migrants were asked what they disliked

about Australia, the outstanding response was

nothing – this was by far the most frequent

response in every cohort wave, with about one-

third of all migrants stating this (see Table 11.4).

There was little difference between the cohort

waves in the percentage reporting they disliked

nothing about Australia. Of the specific dislikes

nominated, the most common dislikes differed

between the cohorts. The economy and

expensive costs, and employment difficulties,

were the most frequently cited dislikes in

Cohort 1. The most common specific dislikes of

Australia at both waves of Cohort 2 were

lifestyle and social factors, followed by services

and facilities. For Cohort 2, lifestyle/social

factors was the most common dislike, followed

by crime/lack of discipline and

services/facilities.

Cohort 2 migrants were less likely than Cohort 1

migrants to report people being racist (5% versus

11%). This perhaps may indicate a more racially

tolerant society existing in Australia at the turn

of the Millennium than in the mid-1990’s, or that

the characteristics of people selected under the

new immigration program make them less likely

to notice or complain about racism than those

from the previous program. Fewer people

reported disliking employment opportunities in

Cohort 2 than in Cohort 1, which may also be

due to a greater percentage of skilled migrants in

Cohort 2. Cohort 2 migrants at Wave 2 were

twice as likely to report disliking the politics and

government in Australia than they were at

Wave 1 or Cohort 1 migrants at Wave 2. The

major dislikes of Cohort 2 migrants at Wave 2

for each visa group are shown in Appendix

Table A11.10. Humanitarian and Business

skills/Employer Nomination Scheme migrants

reported disliking racism in Australia slightly

less than the other visa groups. Humanitarian

migrants were also less likely to report disliking

the economy, Australian services/facilities and

politics/government. However, they more

frequently reported disliking the crime and lack

of discipline than the other visa categories, and

were also slightly more likely to report disliking

nothing about Australia. Independent migrants

were the most likely to report employment

difficulties, and Preferential Family/Family

stream migrants did so the least, with Business

skills/Employer Nomination Scheme migrants

falling in the middle.

In order to develop an understanding of what

migrants who were happy with life in Australia,

like about Australia, migrants who reported (a)

being satisfied with their life in Australia, or (b)

reported making the right decision to move to

Australia, were selected out and the attributes

they liked about Australia investigated (see

Tables A11.11 and A11.12 in Appendix).


82

Table 11.5: What migrants disliked about Australia (per cent)

Cohort 1 Wave 2

Cohort 2 Wave 1

Cohort 2 Wave 2

% % %

Nothing 32 32 30

Climate 10 7 8

Services and facilities 13 14 15

Other 10 8 6

Employment difficulties 14 10 9

Crime, lack of discipline 7 8 15

Economy, expensive 15 12 12

Geographic isolation and environmental factors 11 10 12

Lifestyle, social factors 10 19 19

Language barrier 4 5 2

People racist 11 3 5

Politics, government 5 5 10

People unfriendly 4 1 4

Notes: (1) Responses have been grouped into general categories to establish comparability between Cohort 1 Wave 1 and Cohort 2 Waves 1 & 2.

(2) Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to five responses were given in Cohort 1 Wave 2, up to nine responses in Cohort 2 Wave 1, and up to 10 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 2 (causing the total percentage of cases to be more than 100 per cent). Some caution must be used in drawing comparisons from this data as a result.

(3) Percentages for Cohort 2 Wave 1 are different from those reported in the “Life in a New land’ report due to recoding of the responses.

The pattern found was almost identical when

selecting out those satisfied compared to when

selecting out those who felt they had made the

right decision. For people happy with life in

Australia, it was found that the most commonly

liked aspect of Australia was the country and

environment, with about half mentioning this

attribute. This finding held across each cohort

and wave. Lifestyle and social aspects also was

one of the three most frequently reported aspects

of Australia that happy migrants from all cohort

waves liked. In Cohort 2 at both Waves 1 and 2,

the friendly people in Australia were frequently

mentioned as well. Cohort 1 Wave 2 however

mentioned education and employment more

commonly than friendly people. Cohort 2 more

frequently mentioned liking almost all of the

listed attributes than Cohort 1, and within Cohort

2, Wave 2 was more likely than Wave 1 to

report liking most of the attributes.

To complement the section above, we

investigated what migrants unhappy with life in

Australia dislike about Australia. Migrants who

reported (a) being not-satisfied with their life in

Australia, or (b) reported regretting their

decision to move to Australia, were selected out

(see Tables A11.13 and A11.14 in Appendix).


83

The dislikes reported differed for each cohort

wave. Two attributes however were in the three

most frequently reported dislikes for all cohort

waves, namely lifestyle/social factors and

employment difficulties. When the more specific

dislikes that make up each category were

examined, it was found that the single most

commonly reported aspect of Australia that

migrants from all cohort waves disliked was

unemployment. Interestingly, racism was not

frequently reported.

In Cohort 1 Wave 2, the most frequently

reported dislike by those not satisfied in

Australia was employment difficulties, followed

by lifestyle and social factors. In Cohort 2 Wave

2 the order was reversed. It is also important to

note that despite being dissatisfied with life in

Australia, 10 per cent of Cohort 1 and 13 per

cent of Cohort 2 still reported disliking nothing

about Australia. When looking at changes over

time within Cohort 2, it can be seen that the three

most commonly reported dislikes of Australia by

those not satisfied with life in Australia were the

same – services and facilities, employment

difficulties, and lifestyle/social factors.

When selecting only those from the small

number who regretted moving to Australia (e.g.

about 2 percent of the total in Cohort 1 Wave 2

but less than one percent in Cohort 2 Wave 2), as

with those not-satisfied, the dislikes differed for

each cohort wave (see Appendix Table A11.14) .

The only attribute that was one of the three most

frequently reported dislikes in all cohort waves

was employment difficulties. In Cohort 1 Wave

2, the most frequently reported dislike by those

regretting migration was employment

difficulties. In Cohort 2 Wave 2 lifestyle/social

factors were the most disliked factor, with

Cohort 2 migrants being almost five times more

likely to report disliking lifestyle and social

factors than Cohort 1. Additionally, Cohort 2

migrants were almost three times more likely to

report disliking unfriendly people than Cohort 1.

Cohort 2 however were considerably less likely

than Cohort 1 to report people being racist,

which was nine per cent higher in Cohort 1 than

Cohort 2, and rarely mentioned by Cohort 2

Wave 2. When looking at changes over time

within Cohort 2, it can be seen that at Wave 1

employment difficulties were the most

commonly disliked factor by those who regretted

moving to Australia, whereas by Wave 2 lifestyle

and social factors became the most disliked

factor. By Wave 2 there was also an increase in

migrants reporting they disliked the unfriendly

people in Australia. There was also a

corresponding decrease over time in those

reporting they disliked nothing about Australia.

In all this, it is important to recall that the

number regretting their decision to migrate was

very small.

11.4 Emigration Intentions

Primary Applicants’ thoughts about permanently

leaving Australia were investigated in each

cohort wave. Overall, only a very small number

of migrants reported intending to permanently

leave Australia (see Table A11.15 in Appendix).

At Wave 1 of Cohort 2, the number considering

leaving Australia was so small (0.4% or 11

migrants), that it was not possible to investigate

their demographic composition. Nonetheless, it

can be seen that there was a small increase over

time from Wave 1 to Wave 2 of Cohort 2 (0.4%

to 3%) in the number of migrants intending to

leave Australia. Of those who did intend leaving,

about four-fifths of both cohorts wanted to return

to their former home country, and the others

wanted to emigrate to another new country. Of

all groups, Business skills/employer nomination

scheme migrants appeared to be the most likely

to plan to leave Australia permanently (in

Cohort 1).


84

There was little difference between Cohort 1 and

Cohort 2 in the percentage who intended to

emigrate elsewhere (3% versus 4%). Because of

the small numbers involved it is difficult to

assess demographic differences between

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 on the intention to leave.

There was little apparent difference between the

groups. Also in Table A11.15 is information

about participants who had emigrated elsewhere

by the Wave 2 survey. A total of two per cent

from both Cohorts had emigrated elsewhere by

Wave 2. Again small numbers pose difficulties

in comparing migrants with different

characteristics. Humanitarian migrants appear

the least likely to permanently leave Australia.

Migrants who wanted to return to their former

home country were asked their main reasons for

this intention. The two most common reasons for

both cohorts were feeling homesick and wanting

to go back for family reasons (the former being

the most frequently cited reason in Cohort 1 and

the latter the most common in Cohort 2). Very

few reported wanting to return home because of

reasons to do with Australia, such as the

Australian economic situation. The small

number of migrants who wanted to move to

another country were also asked their main

reasons for this intention. The most common

reason in both cohorts was believing there were

better job opportunities in other countries.

Having family or friends in another country was

the second most commonly reported reason (see

Tables A11.16 and A11.17 in Appendix for

reasons given).

It was also interesting to investigate the level of

satisfaction with life in Australia for those

intending to leave Australia permanently (see

Table A11.18 in Appendix). It appears that

although the percentage not satisfied was

considerably higher than that for all the migrants

combined, many of those migrants who intended

to leave were actually satisfied with life in

Australia.

11.5 Conclusions

Overall, Cohort 2 were more satisfied with life

in Australia than Cohort 1, and there was an


of Cohort 2. It is likely that the higher levels of

employment and income of Cohort 2 have

contributed to their greater reported life

satisfaction. Satisfaction may also be greater at

Wave 2 because migrants have had more time to

settle in and get used to their new life in

Australia. Corresponding well to the findings on

satisfaction, most of the migrants intended to

apply for Australian citizenship, however the

greater satisfaction of Cohort 2 migrants did not

translate into greater citizenship intentions

compared with Cohort 1. When migrants were

asked what they liked about Australia, non-

material aspects such as the country and

environment and the friendly people were the

most frequent responses. When asked what they

disliked, the most common response was

nothing, which is consistent with the high level

of satisfaction that migrants reported.

Those happy with life in Australia generally

liked the country/environment and

lifestyle/social aspects, whereas those unhappy

with life in Australia frequently reported

disliking lifestyle/social factors and employment

difficulties. Only a small number of migrants

either intended to leave Australia permanently or

had already done so.

Those intending to leave mostly wanted to

because they missed their home country and

family, but job opportunities were the major

factor for those wanting to try a new country.

Not liking Australia did not seem to play a major

role in migrant’s intentions to leave. Overall,

these findings paint a positive picture of life in

Australia for most, but not all, new migrants.


85

12. Social Indicators

he discussion presented in this section

extends our previous discussion of

satisfaction with life in Australia. We begin

with an examination of migrants’ perceptions of

life in Australia, with reference to crime levels,

racial and religious tolerance and discrimination,

rewards for work, the ability to influence the

government, and educational opportunities.

These perceptions are compared with migrants’

views about the same factors in their former

countries of residence (as reported in Wave 1

interviews).

Our analysis continues by looking at whether,

and how, migrants maintain their “cultural links”

to their former countries of residence. We then

examine the flip-side of this – what activities

migrants participate in that help them to

integrate into the Australian community. In this

section we explore in particular issues of social

isolation, by focusing on migrants who live

alone, and, where possible, comparing their

characteristics with those of sole-person

households in the broader Australian

community.

The final section considers the degree to which

migrants are aware of Australia’s “multicultural”

policy, and includes a discussion of some of the

characteristics of those migrants who do know of

the policy.

12.2 Perceptions of Life in Australia

12.2.1 Levels of Crime

Forty-six per cent of migrants in Cohort 1

thought that there was a “lot” of crime in their

former country, while a slightly smaller

proportion of Cohort 2 migrants (39%) felt the

same. These statistics compared with migrants’

perceptions about crime in Australia are much

more favourable (see Table 12.1). Twenty per

cent of Cohort 1 migrants felt there was a “lot”

of crime in Australia, while again a smaller

proportion of Cohort 2 migrants had this

impression (14%). The biggest improvement

occurred among Preferential family/family

stream migrants (falling from 23% to 14%

between cohorts).

The proportion of migrants who perceived

“little” crime in Australia also fell between

cohorts (from 50% to 35%), with the largest

change occurring among Independent migrants

(falling from 58% to 33%). On the other hand,

the proportion of migrants who felt that there

was “some” crime24 in Australia roughly

doubled between the cohorts (from 26% to

48%), with migrants in the Concessional

family/skilled Australian-linked visa stream

(from 27% to 55%), and younger migrants (19%

to 45%), reporting the biggest changes (see

Appendix Table A12.1 for a demographic

breakdown).

12.2.2 Religious Tolerance and

Discrimination

There were few differences between the cohorts

in terms of migrants’ perceptions of religious

tolerance in their former countries of residence.

Just under half of both groups felt that there was

a “lot” of religious tolerance in their former

country, while about one fifth of each cohort felt

24 Labelled “not a lot, but more than a little” in Cohort 1 but “some” in Cohort 2.

T


86

there was “little” religious tolerance. These

perceptions were largely unchanged when

migrants thought about their new situation in

Australia. Exactly half of Cohort 2 thought there

was a “lot” of religious tolerance in Australia,

compared to 44 per cent of Cohort 1. A higher

proportion of migrants said there was “little”

religious tolerance in their former country than

said so about Australia, for both cohorts (see

Table 12.1). The perceptions of Business

skills/employer nomination scheme migrants

improved the most between cohorts (from 47%

to 57% who reported a “lot” of religious

tolerance).

Very few migrants perceived a “lot” of religious

discrimination in Australia, although about one

in five Cohort 2 migrants felt there was “some”,

and two-thirds felt there was a “little”, but

responses would also be influenced by the

migrant’s religion. The migrants who reported

“some” religious discrimination were most likely

to be from the Independent visa category (24%),

in the younger age groups (23% for 25-34 year

olds), and to have high levels of English

proficiency (26%). It is important to point out

that migrants with these characteristics are able

to perceive levels of religious discrimination

differently and perhaps more accurately than

migrants who do not have personal attribute of

this type. Migrants who have good language

skills and have high social mobility have an

added advantage when mixing socially with the

Australian community and as such may be able

to better grasp the tacit meanings operating in

the Australian community.

12.2.3 Inter-Racial and Inter-Cultural

Contact, Tolerance and Discrimination

Australia’s multiculturalism is reflected in

migrants’ perceptions about the levels of inter-

cultural and inter-racial contact. When thinking

about their former countries of residence, 36 per

cent of migrants in Cohort 1, and 39 per cent of

Cohort 2, thought there was a “lot” of inter-

cultural contact. When thinking about Australia,

however, 45 per cent of Cohort 1, and 52 per

cent of Cohort 2, felt there was a lot of contact

between people from different cultures and

countries. Just 10 per cent of Cohort 2 migrants

felt there was “little” inter-cultural contact in

Australia (see Table 12.1).

Among Cohort 2 migrants, the biggest increases

in perceptions of inter-cultural contact between

their former country and Australia were

experienced by Independent migrants (37% to

53% reporting a “lot” of contact), Humanitarian

migrants (33% to 51%), migrants aged 45-54

years (43% to 56%), and those with superior

English (46% to 57%). The increase in contact

with other cultures and nationalities that

migrants perceive in Australia is likely to be

both a cause and effect of higher levels of

perceived religious and racial tolerance,

especially among Cohort 2.

As well as the amount of perceived contact

between persons from different backgrounds,

migrants were also asked about their perceptions

of inter-racial and inter-cultural tolerance. The

patterns that can be observed in the data are

similar to those reported above for religious

tolerance. That is, migrants’ perceptions of racial

tolerance tend to be higher for Australia than for

their former countries of residence, and higher in

Cohort 2 than in Cohort 1. 44 per cent of

Cohort 2 reported a “lot” of racial tolerance in

Australia, up from 38 per cent for Cohort 1, and

slightly higher than their former country of

residence. The proportion of Cohort 2 migrants

who reported only a “little” racial tolerance in

Australia fell to 9 percent in Cohort 2 (from 13

per cent in Cohort 1), and this compared to 17

per cent for their former countries of residence

in Cohort 2 (see Table 12.1, and Appendix Table

A12.2 for a demographic breakdown).


87

Looking finally at migrants’ perceptions of

racial discrimination, we see that, as was the

case with religious discrimination, very few

migrants perceived a “lot” of racial

discrimination in Australia. However, 40 per

cent of migrants felt there was “some” racial

discrimination in Australia, and another 50 per

cent felt that there was a “little”. The migrants

who reported “some” racial discrimination in

Australia were similar in character to those

migrants who reported there to be “some”

religious discrimination in Australia. They were

most likely to be from the Independent visa

stream (51%), in the younger age groups (46%

for those aged 25-34 years), and to have well-

developed English skills (51%). Thus we again

see that attributes such as good language skills

and high social mobility appear to affect these

migrants’ perceptions of racial tolerance, or lack

thereof, in the Australia community.

12.2.4 Influence over Government

Migrants felt they had much more power to

influence the Australian government than they

had to affect the decisions of governments in

their former countries of residence. More than

half the migrants in both cohorts said they had

“little” influence over the governments in their

former countries (59% of Cohort 1, and 54% of

Cohort 2). In contrast, the proportion of migrants

who felt they had a “great” deal of influence

over the Australian government was, for both

cohorts, at least double the proportion who

perceived a “great” deal of influence over their

former countries’ governments (see Table 12.1).

We should note, however, that among both

cohorts the largest proportion of migrant

responses were from those who felt only

“moderate” influence over the Australian

authorities (43% of Cohort 1, and 44% of

Cohort 2). See Appendix Table A12.3 for a

demographic breakdown.

12.2.5 Rewards for Work

The data quite clearly show that, on the whole,

migrants believe the rewards for work in

Australia are better than they were in their

former countries of residence. This is perhaps

most dramatically displayed in the proportion of

migrants who felt that the rewards for their work

were “poor”. When considering their former

countries of residence, fully one-third of the

migrants in both cohorts felt that the rewards for

work were poor. When thinking about Australia,

however, less than one-tenth (7%) of migrants in

both cohorts said the same. For the migrants in

Cohort 2, 84 per cent felt their work was “well”

or “moderately” rewarded in Australia, while

only 65 per cent believed this to be the case in

their former country.

Those who thought that work was “well”

rewarded were most likely to be from the

Preferential Family/Family Stream (33%), or in

the youngest age bracket (41% of those aged 15-

24 years) – refer to Appendix Table A12.4 for a

demographic breakdown.


88

Table 12.1: Perceptions held by migrants about aspects of life in their former

country of residence and in Australia

Cohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2 Proportion of Each Cohort/Wave (%)

Former Country

Australia Former Country

Australia

% % % %

Levels of Crime Lot 46 20 39 14 Some 25 26 31 48 Little 27 50 28 35

Religious Tolerance Lot 45 44 46 50 Some 29 33 34 36 Little 23 13 17 8

Religious Discrimination Lot n.a. 2 n.a. 2 Some n.a. 17 n.a. 20 Little n.a. 66 n.a. 67

Race/Culture/Nationality Tolerance Lot 39 38 40 44 Some 35 44 40 44 Little 24 13 17 9

Racial Discrimination Lot n.a. 6 n.a. 4 Some n.a. 40 n.a. 41 Little n.a. 48 n.a. 50

Influence over Government Great 10 22 12 26 Moderate 27 43 30 44 Little 59 18 54 16

Contact between Cultures/Nations Lot 36 45 39 52 Some 29 35 31 36 Little 33 18 29 10

Monetary Reward Well 24 34 23 30 Moderately 35 48 42 54 Poorly 37 7 33 7

Educational Opportunities Excellent 25 36 29 40 Good 50 53 49 53 Poor 23 3 20 2

Note: The perceptions reported by migrants at Wave 1 relate to their Former Countries of Residence, while those

reported at Wave 2 are for Australia.


89

12.2.6 Educational Opportunities

The final major dimension of migrants’

perceptions about life in Australia is their

thoughts on educational opportunities. For both

cohorts, migrants’ favourable perceptions of the

Australian education system are 11 percentage

points higher than their perceptions of the

systems in their former countries (25% to 36%

for Cohort 1; 29% to 40% for Cohort 2). Again,

perhaps the most immediate indicators of

migrants’ favourable perceptions of Australia are

in the proportions who report “poor” educational

opportunities. One-fifth of the migrants in both

cohorts said that educational opportunities were

poor in their former countries of residence, while

just three per cent of Cohort 1, and two per cent

of Cohort 2, said the same about Australia.

12.3 Maintenance of Cultural Links

The majority of migrants place value on

retaining contact with the culture, language, or

news of their former country. Thirty-eight per

cent of Cohort 2 migrants indicated that it was

“very important” for them to do so, when they

were asked at Wave 2. A further 45 per cent said

it was “important” for them to remain in contact.

In contrast, 17 per cent of migrants said that the

maintenance of cultural links was “not

important” to them. The migrants most likely to

place high importance on maintaining cultural

links were those in the Preferential family/family

stream (41%), and those in the youngest age

group (44%). The migrants who were least

likely to place a high importance on the

maintenance of cultural links were those with the

most English proficiency, those in the 55-64

year age group, and those from the Concessional

family/skilled Australian-linked stream.

By far the most common way for migrants to

maintain contact with their former countries is to

regularly “keep in touch” with people still

residing there, through letters, emails, or

telephone calls. Nearly all the migrants in

Cohort 2 (94%) indicated at Wave 2 that they

had regularly kept in touch with people they still

knew in their former country of residence. After

this, the next most common means of

maintaining contact25 for migrants was to

regularly follow the news about life or culture in

their former countries. Seventy-two per cent of

migrants had maintained their cultural and

language ties to their former home countries

through contact of this kind. Next most common

(55%) was indirect contact, maintained through

association with people who themselves keep in

touch with the culture of the former country.

Forty-one per cent of migrants said that they had

used their knowledge of the culture or business

practices in their former country of residence for

the benefit of Australian business or services.

12.4 Participation in the Community

12.4.1 Organised Activities

What community activities do migrants

participate in once they have settled in

Australia? Questions about migrants’ regular

participation in their communities were first

asked of Cohort 2, in Wave 2, and we report on

the results here.

Migrants were most likely to regularly attend

activities organised by people from their country

of origin. Thirty-five per cent of migrants had

participated in an activity of this kind,

suggesting that migrants have a preference, first

of all, to engage in activities closely associated

with their previous homes and cultures. Thirty-

three per cent reported having regularly attended

activities arranged by a religious organisation,

which again suggests that migrants feel most

comfortable building their social networks in

familiar cultural contexts. The next most

25 Respondents to the LSIA questionnaire were able tonominate more than one form of contact.


90

common forum for regular community

participation by migrants is activities organised

by local schools (22%). Twenty per cent of

migrants had also regularly attended activities

arranged by local community or council

organisations in their neighbourhoods, but this

appears to be their least preferred means of

seeking engagement with the wider community.

12.4.2 Contact with Neighbours

Another important way for migrants to develop

social networks is through their contact and

friendship with neighbours in their street of

residence, or nearby. Migrants were first asked

to estimate the number of people that they talk to

who live in the same street or immediate

neighbourhood, and then to nominate how many

of these they would actually consider to be

friends (suitable for looking after each others’

children, for instance).

In their responses to the first question – how

many people they speak to – migrants reported

anything from zero to one hundred persons. It

was interesting to note that the most frequently

reported answer was in fact “zero” – about one

sixth of the Primary Applicants in Cohort 2 had

not spoken to anyone in their street. At the other

end of the spectrum, three migrants said they had

spoken to 97 or more people in their nearby

residential area. The average migrant had

spoken to six neighbours.

When we link those migrants who reported

having had contact with the people who live in

the same street or in the immediate

neighbourhood with the type of dwelling those

migrants live in, we find that migrants who live

in a house or flat attached to a shop or office

report the highest rate of contact, talking on

average to 13 neighbours. Migrants living in a

flat, unit or apartment in a four (or more) story

block and those who live in a flat attached to a

house report on average having spoken to 10

neighbours, whilst those migrants who live in a

separate house report on average speaking to six

neighbours. Those migrants who report on

average having had below typical contact with

neighbours live in semi-detached/row, terrace or

town house or a flat, unit or apartment in a three

story block. These migrants on average have

spoken to only four of their neighbours.

There was also a variety of responses to the

question how many friends migrants count

among the neighbours they have spoken to.

About one-third of the Primary Applicants

(35%) said that none of the people they had

spoken could be considered friends. Twenty per

cent said they would consider two people to be

friends, and a further four per cent of migrants

counted 10 friends among their immediate

neighbours. The average migrant had three

friends in their neighbourhood – half the number

that the average migrant had spoken to at Wave

2. This suggests that, once some initial contact

has been made, the average migrant from Cohort

2 has a reasonable chance of making friends

from the contacts available in their street or

neighbourhood.

12.4.3 Sole Person Households

Migrants who live alone once they settle in

Australia are an important sub-group of each

cohort. Although a majority of migrants are

married on arrival or marry shortly after moving

to Australia, those who continue to live alone

may be more susceptible to the malaise that

accompanies homesickness and social isolation.

It is therefore important that we know about the

specific situation of migrants who live in “sole

person households”. In particular, we can know

about how they perceive their living situation in

Australia generally (according to the

“satisfaction with life” measures), and also how

their characteristics compare with the wider

population of Australians who live alone.


91

12.2: Characteristics of sole person households, migrants compared to the

general Australian community.


Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

Australian

Population

% % % %

Gender1 Male 57 72 60 45 Female 43 28 40 55

Age 15-24 years 5 5 + 6 25-34 years 55 59 63 14 35-44 years 18 26 25 14 45-54 years 5 7 5 15 55-64 years 9 + + 14 65 or more years 9 + + 22

Labour Force Status 2 Employed 63 76 87 44 Unemployed 9 4 5 4 Not in the Labour Force 28 20 8 52

Weekly Income 3 Less than $155 15 13 7 14 $155 to $481 41 21 21 39 $482 to $961 23 32 41 25 $962 or more 18 34 30 15

Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 9 10 15 n.a. Independent 38 61 51 n.a. Preferential family/family stream 28 5 15 n.a. Business skills/employer nomination scheme 7 12 6 n.a. Humanitarian 19 13 13 n.a.

English Proficiency English only or best 49 53 60 n.a. English well and another language 36 36 36 n.a. English not well or not at all 15 11 4 n.a.

Number of Sole-Person Households 243 120 119 1,616,213 As a Proportion of All Households 5% 4% 5% 23%

Notes: (1) Comparative figures for the ages and genders of persons living alone in the general Australian population are drawn from the 2001Census of Population and Housing, “Selected Social and Housing Characteristics” (ABS Catalogue No. 2015.0). (2) Comparative labour force status information for sole person households in the general Australian population is drawn from the ABS publication “Labour Force Status: Families” (Catalogue No. 6224.0), June 2000.

(3) The calculation of income for sole-person households in the general Australian population includes some “group households” that could not be separated using published sources. The income distribution shown for the Australian population should be treated as an approximate estimation. (4) ‘+’ = Number of observations very small (n < 5).


92

Migrants living alone represent only very small

proportions of each cohort (see Table 12.2). At

Wave 2, just five per cent of the migrants in

each cohort were living alone.26 This contrasts

dramatically with the general Australian

community, where 23 per cent of households are

made up of persons living alone; a total of 1.6

million people.

Most of the migrants who live alone hold an

Independent visa, are male, and most speak

English very well or well. In the second cohort,

the male share of sole person migrant

households declines between Wave 1 and 2

(from 72% to 60%). However, this is

exaggerated by the small absolute numbers

involved. When we compare the migrant cohorts

to the general Australian community, we see

that, in the latter, females represent the majority

of sole person households (55% versus 45% for

males, in 2001). This is partly explained by the

superior life expectancy of women in Australia,

and the fact that females aged over 50 years are

much more likely to live alone in Australia than

are men (while the opposite is true of persons

under 50 years).

The majority of migrants living alone are aged

between 25 and 44 years of age, and this

changes little over time, or between the cohorts.

In part this is to be expected, given that around

three quarters of migrants in Cohort 2 are aged

in this range. In Australia, on the other hand, the

largest proportion of sole person households are

aged 65 years or more (22%).

Employment and income are the two areas in

which sole person migrant households are

clearly doing better than those in the Australian

community at large. At least three quarters of the

Cohort 2 migrants who were living alone

(indeed, 87% at Wave 2), were working. Less

26 Calculated as a proportion of Primary Applicants ineach cohort.

than half of the Australian population living

alone in 2001 had a job. In the general

Australian population, the largest proportion of

sole-persons households were those with persons

not in the labour force – a fact that again reflects

the large numbers of older Australians who live

alone (52% of persons living alone in Australia

were aged over 55 years).

The differences in employment status are clearly

reflected in the incomes of migrants living alone

when compared to Australians in the same

situation. Australians living alone were twice as

likely as migrants to have a weekly income of

between $155 and $481 (i.e., less than the

minimum wage), but were half as likely as

migrants living alone to have a weekly income

of over $962.

Given the characteristics of migrants who live

alone, are they any more satisfied with their lives

in Australia than other migrants in their

respective cohorts? At Wave 2, 95 per cent of all

the Primary Applicants in Cohort 2 believed that

their decision to migrate to Australia was the

correct one. Eighty per cent of Cohort 2 said at

that time that they would encourage others to

move to Australia, and 42 per cent were “very

satisfied” with their life in Australia (a further

52% were merely “satisfied”). In contrast, 99 per

cent of Cohort 2 migrants living alone at Wave 2

said their decision to immigrate was the right

one; 82 per cent said they would encourage

others to move; and 46 per cent said they were

“very satisfied” with their life in Australia. In

short, for these migrants their satisfaction with

life in Australia has not been adversely affected

by the fact that they live on their own.

12.5 Awareness of Multicultural

Policy

Over three-quarters (80%) of Cohort 2 migrants

were aware of the existence of Australia’s

“multicultural” policy, when asked at Wave 2.


93

The remainder were either unaware of the policy

(13%) or had difficulty comprehending the

question (7%).

Those from the Business skills/employer

nomination scheme visa stream were the most

aware, some 90 per cent of these migrants knew

of Australia’s multicultural policy. Those who

were least aware were Humanitarian (73%) and

Preferential family/family stream (74%)

migrants. Male migrants were slightly better

informed than females (83% compared to 76%),

and middle-aged migrants (those aged 35-44

years) were much more likely to be aware of

Australia’s multi-cultural policy (84%), than

their younger counterparts (64%). Migrants with

high levels of English proficiency were more

frequently aware of the policy (85%), than those

with poor language skills (67%).

12.6 Conclusion

On every major social indicator, migrants had

superior perceptions of Australia than of their

former countries of residence. In particular, they

perceived lower levels of crime, greater personal

influence over government, greater contact

between persons of different racial and cultural

backgrounds, better monetary reward for hard

work, and better education opportunities. The

perceptions held by Cohort 2 migrants also

tended to be more favourable than those reported

by Cohort 1, especially in terms of perceived

levels of crime, racial tolerance, religious

tolerance, and inter-cultural interaction.

Whilst holding favourable perceptions about

social life in Australia, the vast majority of

migrants considered it important that they

maintain cultural ties to their former country of

residence. Young migrants and those from the

Preferential family/family stream visa group

were most likely to want to maintain their

cultural ties. Most migrants said they either kept

in touch with people still living in their former

country of residence, or followed news programs

reporting on their previous home.

Migrants were able to engage with their new

communities in Australia by attending organised

activities and through informal contact with

neighbours. Migrants were most likely to attend

activities organised by either people from their

country of origin or by a religious organisation,

which suggests they feel most comfortable

building their social networks in familiar cultural

contexts. The average migrant has spoken to six

people in his/her immediate neighbourhood, and

would consider three of these to be friends.

Migrants who live on their own after arrival in

Australia are most likely to be male, of prime

working age, in the Independent visa stream, and

good or very good speakers of English. Migrants

in sole-person households have, on the whole,

higher rates of employment and income than

persons living alone in the Australian

community at large, and are even more likely to

be satisfied with their lives in Australia than

migrants who have other living arrangements.


94

13. Support Services

he process of settlement and integration

into a foreign country is not an easy one.

New migrants are faced with a myriad of

problems that the ‘average’ Australian is

unlikely to experience. There are a number of

government and non-government organisations

that offer support for new migrants to help ease

the difficulties associated with settling into an

unfamiliar country. Support services have the

potential to play an important role in the

successful integration of new migrants into the

Australian community.

The following section provides an analysis of

the types of support sought and received by

migrants, the organisations that provided the

support and the perceived quality of the support

services used. Questions regarding support

services were asked only of Primary Applicants.

The analysis compares support services utilised

by Cohort 2 Wave 2, with Cohort 1 Wave 2 and

identifies any changes in these aspects of

support between Waves 1 and 2 of Cohort 2.

13.1 Types of Support Received

The survey asked Primary Applicants if they had

received assistance from any of the services

listed within 17 different areas of support. Of

these 17, the most important across both cohorts

were help looking for work, assistance with

learning English and help relating to health

services. Apart from help with learning English

(used by about one-third of migrants), services

that are specifically targeted at migrants were

used by only a small minority. It is interesting to

note that when a comparison is made between

Cohort 1 Wave 2 and Cohort 2 Wave 2 migrants,

the former made less use of most of the support

services listed. Aside from help received looking

for work, the support received from social

security benefits and assistance learning English,

there is an overall increase in the proportion of

migrants who received assistance in all other

forms of support listed as we move from

Cohort 1 to Cohort 2. This is consistent across

both genders; all visa categories, all ages and

levels of English proficiency.

Cohort 2 Wave 2 when compared with Wave 1,

displays an overall decline in the proportion of

migrants who received assistance in the listed

areas of support. As indicated in Tables 13.1 and

13.2, 33 per cent of migrants in Cohort 2 Wave 1

received help looking for work, while this figure

fell to 27 per cent by Wave 2. Thirty-five per

cent of migrants in Cohort 2 Wave 1 received

help with taxation, while only 28 per cent

reported receiving support with taxation in

Wave 2. The greatest decline reported in the

support migrants received was assistance with

finding housing/accommodation and help

concerning health services and insurance. The

decline was apparent for most forms of support.

The exceptions were financial matters and

torture/trauma counselling, which remained

constant at 21 per cent and one per cent

respectively, and small increases in use of child

minding, legal advice, information about

immigration/sponsorship and a category

identified as ‘other’.

These trends were consistent across all visa

categories, all age groups, levels of English

proficiency and both genders. Support sought for

child minding and legal advice increased by only

two per cent, whilst support in finding out about

immigration/sponsorship presented a more

T


95

significant increase of five per cent. This

increase is consistent with earlier observations

reported in Richardson et al (2002), suggesting

that the high percentage of migrants reporting

they have close relatives overseas gives ‘… an

indication of the potential of new migrants to

sponsor family in the future (pg. 35).’

13.1.1 Gender

Table 13.1 indicates that men were more likely

than women to receive assistance. This is true

for both cohorts, with the exceptions of

assistance sought in education and training,

learning English, interpretation and translation

services, health services and health insurance

and child minding. The percentage of females

seeking support in these areas was mostly only

slightly higher than for males. Assistance to

learn English was the one type of support that

was consistently sought at a higher level by

females from Cohort 1 and 2 (both waves) than

males, on average by about seven per cent.

Within Cohort 2, whilst Wave 2 migrants have a

lower usage of support services than Wave 1

migrants, this decline is not as marked amongst

women migrants as it is amongst men. For

example, 37 per cent of male migrants (Wave 1)

received help looking for work, whilst only 28

per cent of Wave 2 male migrants sought this

help, representing a decline of nine per cent. In

comparison, 29 per cent of female migrants

(Wave 1) received help looking for work and 27

per cent of Wave 2 sought this assistance,

representing a much smaller decline of two per

cent. This trend is also evident in seeking

assistance with housing and accommodation,

health services and insurance support.

We conclude that, whilst male migrants report

receiving assistance at higher levels than females

across both Waves 1 and 2 of Cohort 2, female

migrants tended to seek this support over a

longer period of time.

13.1.2 Visa Category

When a distinction is made between visa groups

Appendix Table A13.1 indicates that the

Humanitarian stream received the most

assistance across both waves of Cohort 2. This is

also evident when comparing Cohort 1 and 2,

Wave 2 migrants. This group received its highest

levels of support to learn English; from the

social security services and using

interpreting/translating services. This group was

virtually the only one to use torture/trauma

support services (11% for Cohort 2 Wave 2).

Humanitarian migrants were high initial users of

support services, but also had the greatest

decline in use between the waves of Cohort 2.

The decline in the level of assistance being

sought by Humanitarian migrants between the

waves of Cohort 2 (refer to Table 13.2) is

indicative of the importance of support services

in facilitating early integration into the

Australian community of those migrants for

whom such integration is likely to be the most

difficult. These results also highlight the

significance of the Australian Government’s

decision to exclude this visa category from the

reforms of the Australian Immigration program,

which restricted access to social security benefits

for other immigrants for their first 2 years in

Australia.

In general we see that all visa categories, with

the exception of the Business skills/employer

nomination scheme, received high levels of

support with help looking for work. This is true

for both cohorts and both Waves 1 and 2 of

Cohort 2. Help concerning health services and

health insurance was also received across all visa

categories at a consistently high rate, however

this trend was only clear for Waves 1 and 2 of

Cohort 2. At Wave 2 of Cohort 1, with the


96

Table 13.1: Support received (per cent of PAs)

Type of Support Cohort/Wave Male (%) Female (%) Total (%)

C1W2 32 23 27 C2W1 37 29 33

Looking for work

C2W2 28 27 27 C1W2 8 7 7 C2W1 24 18 21

Financial matters

C2W2 25 17 21 C1W2 15 6 11 C2W1 37 33 35

Taxation

C2W2 33 23 28 C1W2 10 9 10 C2W1 33 23 28

Housing/accommodation

C2W2 17 14 15 C1W2 14 10 12 C2W1 15 19 17

Education and training

C2W2 12 16 14 C1W2 7 4 6 C2W1 10 10 10

Qualifications recognition

C2W2 6 7 7 C1W2 28 33 30 C2W1 27 35 31

Learning English

C2W2 22 30 26 C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 12 14 13

Interpreting

C2W2 10 14 12 C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 9 8 9

Translate written documents

C2W2 6 8 7 C1W2 12 13 12 C2W1 n/a n/a n/a

Interpreting/Translating

C2W2 n/a n/a n/a C1W2 5 4 4 C2W1 3 4 3

Finding out about immigration/ sponsorship

C2W2 9 7 8 C1W2 4 2 3 C2W1 5 4 5

Legal advice

C2W2 9 6 7 C1W2 27 22 25 C2W1 17 14 16

Social security services

C2W2 15 13 14 C1W2 19 19 19 C2W1 56 56 56

Health services/health insurance

C2W2 39 47 43 C1W2 5 4 5 C2W1 4 4 4

Child minding

C2W2 5 7 6 C1W2 + <0.5 <0.5C2W1 + + +

Aged care

C2W2 + + + C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 1 1 1

Torture/trauma counselling

C2W2 1 1 1 C1W2 1 1 1 C2W1 3 3 3

Other

C2W2 4 3 4 Notes: n/a = not available, + = number of observations very small (n<5)


97

exception of the Business skills/employer

nomination scheme, we see that help concerning

social security services, was received at high

rates across all visa categories.

Help with financial matters and taxation was

received at high levels across both cohorts by

people migrating under the Concessional

family/skilled Australian-linked, Independent

and the Business skills/employer nomination

scheme groups. At Cohort 2 the Preferential

family/family stream along with migrants in the

Humanitarian group received high levels of

support with help learning English across both

waves.

Generally, more independent migrants sought

help with mainstream government services,

while more family and humanitarian migrants

made relatively high use of migrant-specific

services.

13.1.3 Age

Appendix Table A13.2 broadly indicates that

age does not have a major impact on the support

sought by immigrants for specific services, with

a few exceptions. Assistance to learn English for

example is a service that was highly sought by

Cohort 1 and 2 Waves 1 and 2 for migrant’s

aged 15 – 24. Older groups received support

relating to health services and health insurance

at a higher rate especially for Cohort 2 Wave 1.

Interestingly, Cohort 2 Wave 2 has a

significantly higher demand for health services

support than Cohort 1 Wave 2 across all age

groups. Cohort 2 migrants aged between 15 and

24 reported a 32 per cent increase in the support

received from health services compared with

migrants in Cohort 1 of the same age. Whilst the

increase is not as large for other age groups, it is

still the case that these migrants had a higher

demand for health services support than

Cohort 1. Cohort 2 migrants aged between 25

and 34 reported a 24 per cent increase, 35-44

year old migrants a 27 per cent increase, 45-54

year olds an 11 per cent increase and 55-64 year

olds a 13 per cent increase compared with

Cohort 1. More economic types of support

(financial matters, taxation) are sought by those

in the prime work-age groups. Migrants receive

those types of support that are non-migrant

specific relatively evenly across all ages.

13.1.4 English Proficiency

We see from Appendix Table A13.4 that the

more economic types of support (financial

matters, taxation) are sought at a higher rate by

those migrants with English only or best.

Migrant-specific types of support (learning

English, interpreting/translating) are sought at a

higher rate by those migrants who speak English

not well or not at all. Looking for work and

social support services are an exception, where

at Cohort 2 Wave 1 more migrants in the English

only or best category (35 %) and the “English

well” category (39 %) sought help looking for

work than the English not well or not at all

(24 %). Conversely the “English not well” or

“not at all” category sought help with social

security services more than both other English

proficiency categories. Many of these are

Humanitarian migrants.

The Australian immigration policy has moved

towards taking a larger proportion of skilled and

business migrants, and to increasing selection

requirements, to ensure the employability of

migrants entering Australia. Since 1997 there

have been changes to the eligibility criteria for

migrants seeking to enter Australia. These

changes have affected all streams in the

migration program, with the exception of the

Humanitarian stream. This has resulted in

substantial differences in the characteristics of

migrants between Cohorts 1 and 2. Richardson

et al (2002, p.5) provides a brief summary of

these differences in an earlier report and states

that “…compared with Cohort 1, Cohort 2 had a


98

higher proportion of people who were highly

educated, fluent in English, employed and reliant

on their own wage earnings.”

Corresponding to these changes in the migration

program we see a number of differences

observable in the types of support services

utilised by migrants in the two cohorts. One of

the trends most evident is the significant increase

in the support migrants sought with financial

matters and taxation between Cohort 1 and

Cohort 2 and, consequentially, a decrease in

migrants receiving support with social security.

This can arguably be seen to be indicative of the

success of the legislation changes of the

migration program which sought to improve the

employability of migrants entering Australia.

The results reported are for those respondents

who actually received help. There remains a

proportion of the migrating population who may

have sought help and not received it, or may

have needed help but did not know where to find

it. In Cohort 1 at Wave 2 the figures for migrants

who said they required support yet did not

receive it ranged from six per cent for help

looking for work to less than one per cent for

help with interpreting and translating. The

figures are marginally higher for migrants in

Cohort 2 Wave 2 with seven per cent of migrants

not receiving help with looking for work. This

figure however represents a significant decline

from those migrants in Cohort 2 Wave 1, of

whom 11 per cent did not receive help looking

for work but needed this assistance. We

conclude that overall, those migrants who

required help but did not receive it represented a

small percentage in both waves and both

cohorts. The highest figure for both waves and

cohorts were reported when help was required

looking for work.

13.2 The Organisations that are

Most Commonly Contacted

The questionnaire provided a total of 12

different organisations and asked respondents to

answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to whether they had

contacted each of the organisations listed. There

was no equivalent question asked for Cohort 1

Wave 2 migrants, so no comparisons can be

made.

The last column in Table 13.2 identifies the

percentages of Primary Applicants of Cohort 2

who contacted the organisation that provided the

support services needed. Overall it is clear that

the most widely used services are those provided

by the core Commonwealth Government

Agencies (Australian Taxation Office, DIMIA,

Centrelink, Medicare). Community services such

as religious and ethnic agencies and clubs, whilst

being of value to individual migrants, were

overall used by only small numbers of people.

This is evident for both waves of Cohort 2.

From Table 13.2, it is also clear that the overall

decline between Waves 1 and 2 of Cohort 2 in

the types of support sought by migrants is

reflected in the use migrants make of

organisations. Eighty-five per cent of migrants in

Cohort 2 utilised Medicare in the first six

months of their arrival in Australia, and this

drops at Wave 2 to 56 per cent. This still

however, makes it the organisation most

frequently contacted by migrants 18 months after

their arrival in Australia. The Australian

Taxation Office was another organisation that

was frequently contacted, in both waves.

Apart from Medicare and the Australian

Taxation Office, there was little change between

the waves in the rate of contact of specific

services. Centrelink services were used by 44


99

per cent of migrants in Cohort 2 Wave 1, and

this dropped only slightly to 41 per cent at Wave

2, representing a more consistent and long-term

level of usage of this service by migrants. The

Department of Immigration and Multicultural

and Indigenous Affairs and the services of

employment agencies were utilised by about

one-fifth of migrants at both dates of interview.

The pattern of use of specific agencies, by

gender, visa category, age and English language

capacity, matches that reported in the previous

section, since particular agencies can be matched

with the type of support that they provide. For

this reason, we do not report in detail on the

pattern of use of agencies. Details can be found

in Appendix Tables A13.4 to A13.6.

Table 13.2: Support services contacted by Primary Applicants (per cent)

Type of Support Cohort/Wave Male Female Total

% % %

C2W1 86 87 86 Medicare

C2W2 50 63 56

C2W1 62 52 57 Australian Taxation Office

C2W2 36 29 33

C2W1 47 41 44 Centrelink

C2W2 41 41 41

C2W1 21 21 21DIMIA

C2W2 19 20 20

C2W1 23 19 21 Employment Agency

C2W2 19 19 19

C2W1 10 9 9 Other Government Agency

C2W2 11 10 10

C2W1 7 5 6 Migrant Resource Centre

C2W2 5 5 5

C2W1 3 2 2 Embassy Of Former Country of Residence

C2W2 4 3 3

C2W1 2 2 2 Ethnic Club

C2W2 2 2 2

C2W1 2 1 1 Voluntary Welfare Agency

C2W2 1 1 1

C2W1 1 1 1Ethnic Welfare Agency

C2W2 1 <0.5 1

C2W1 1 <0.5 1 Torture/Trauma Counsel Services

C2W2 1 1 1

Note: There was no equivalent question asked for Cohort 1 Wave 2.


100

13.3 Satisfaction with Help

Received

The survey asked respondents whether or not

they were satisfied with the assistance that they

had received from the support services

providers. We use the answer to this question as

an indicator of the quality of the support

services, as viewed by those who used the

services.

The last column in Table 13.3 indicates that

levels of satisfaction with services received

ranged from just under three-quarters of clients

satisfied with Embassy of Former Country of

Residence to 100 per cent satisfaction with

services of Torture/Trauma Counselling (Cohort

2 Wave 1) and Ethnic Welfare Agency (Cohort 2

Wave 2). For the majority of other organisations

the percentage of migrants satisfied with the help

received from the support services ranged from

the low eighties to high nineties and generally

reflected high levels of satisfaction. When

comparing Cohort 2 Waves 1 and 2, we see that

there has been a general increase in the levels of

satisfaction for service. Comparison of Cohort 1

and 2 indicates generally consistent levels of

satisfaction except for the level of satisfaction

with Embassy of Former Country of Residence.

There was little difference between genders in

their reported levels of satisfaction except where

the absolute numbers were small. A similar story

unfolds when making distinctions across visa

categories, age and levels of English proficiency.

We draw attention to the very high levels of

satisfaction reported with help received from the

Australian Taxation Office and from Medicare.

13.4 Internet Use

Given the increasing importance of the Internet

in contemporary western society it is important

to explore the role played by the Internet in

facilitating migrant settlement into the

Australian community. Questions regarding the

use of the Internet were only asked of migrants

in Cohort 2 Wave 2. Table 12.4 indicates that

the majority of respondents had used the Internet

in the last six months. Male Primary Applicants

(73%) made use of the Internet significantly

more than female migrants (64%). Preferential

family/family stream (56%) and Humanitarian

(35%) migrants were less likely to use the

Internet than migrants from the more economic

visa categories. Those migrants aged between 25

and 44 reported using the Internet at higher rates

than those in the younger and older age cohorts.

Not surprisingly, migrants with high levels of

English proficiency used the Internet more than

those with no English or lower levels of English

proficiency. Of those migrants who did not use

the Internet, 42 per cent gave the main reason as

not knowing how to use the Internet, whilst 25

per cent did not have a computer. Preferential

family/family stream and Humanitarian migrants

were the most likely to report not knowing how

to use the Internet (46% and 41% respectively)

and not having a computer (23% and 32%

respectively) as the main reasons for not using

the Internet.

Migrants who used the Internet were asked to

record the purpose of their Internet usage. The

survey listed seven different types of Internet

use. Appendix Tables A13.7 to A13.10 indicate

the responses. One-third used the Internet to find

a job or to educate self or child, 25 per cent used

the Internet to find out about government

services and 21 per cent to find a home. Overall

it is men more than women who use the Internet

for these purposes (see Figure 13.1). It is

interesting that, in contrast to the high

percentage of migrants whose purpose of

internet use was to find a job, data collected

about the source of information used by migrants


101

Table 13.3: Primary Applicant satisfaction with help from support services

Type of Support Cohort/Wave Male Female Total

% % %

C1W2 96 100 98

C2W1 87 100 91 Ethnic Club

C2W2 100 92 96

C1W2 n/a n/a n/a

C2W1 100 83 93 Ethnic Welfare Agency

C2W2 100 100 100

C1W2 92 100 96

C2W1 88 100 92 Voluntary Welfare Agency

C2W2 81 100 88

C1W2 99 91 94

C2W1 88 91 90 Migrant Resource Centre

C2W2 93 94 93

C1W2 95 94 95

C2W1 91 82 87 DIMIA

C2W2 93 89 91

C1W2 95 98 96

C2W1 88 84 86 Centrelink

C2W2 90 93 92

C1W2 n/a n/a n/a

C2W1 77 74 76 Employment Agency

C2W2 81 82 81

C1W2 97 97 97

C2W1 97 94 96 Medicare

C2W2 98 95 97

C1W2 * * 67

C2W1 98 92 95 Embassy Of Former Country of Residence

C2W2 96 95 97

C1W2 n/a n/a n/a

C2W1 100 100 100 Torture/Trauma Counsel Services

C2W2 92 100 96

C1W2 98 98 98

C2W1 98 99 99 Australian Taxation Office

C2W2 99 99 99

C1W2 91 92 91

C2W1 90 83 87 Other Government Agency

C2W2 93 90 91

Notes: n/a = not available, * = number of observations very small (n<5)


102

to secure their current job indicated that only

four per cent of migrants obtained this

information from the Internet. The more

important source was friends (24%).

The use of the Internet for the purpose of finding

a job was more prevalent for migrants in the

prime working ages of 15-44 years. When a

distinction was made between visa categories,


Humanitarian visa categories made much less

use of the internet for finding a job than all other

visa categories. The low response of Business

skills/employer nomination scheme visa

category migrants is not surprising considering

that at Wave 1 over half of these migrants

reported either having arranged their current job

prior to their arrival in Australia (31%) or having

secured their job by directly approaching

employers (26%). At Wave 2 we see that 25 per

cent of these migrant go on to set up their own

business, own a company or to be self employed:

they thus are not looking for a job. It is still the

case however, that 24 per cent of migrants in the


report friends to be the source of information

used to secure their current job at Wave 2.

Figure 13.1 Primary Applicant Use of the Internet Cohort 2 (per cent)

0

20

40

60

80

100

General

Information

Food, Clothing,

Goods

Finding

Accommodation

Financial

Assistance

Work/Assistance

in Finding

None of the above

%

Wave 1 Wave 2


103

Table 13.4: Primary Applicants who used the Internet Cohort 2 Wave2, by

selected factors

Those Reporting Use of the Internet Cohort 2 Wave 2 (%)

Visa Category


Independent 91

Preferential family/family stream 58


Humanitarian 35

Gender

Male 73

Female 64

English Proficiency


English well and other language 76

English not well or not at all 27

Total 68

13.5 Conclusion

New migrants to Australia require assistance in a

number of different areas to help their successful

integration into a foreign country. Australia

provides a range of support services to new

migrants which help migrants significantly in

this process. These range from standard services

which provide support to all Australian

residents, such as Medicare and the ATO, to

more specific support tailored to meet individual

migrant needs, including learning English and

trauma counselling. Overall, a great deal of

support was received by migrants in the first six

months in Australia. By Wave 2 of Cohort 2

however, a general decline in the use of these

services was evident. Assistance received with

finding housing/accommodation and help

concerning health services and health insurance

saw the biggest decline whilst help received with

financial matters and torture/trauma counselling

was unchanged between Waves 1 and 2 of

Cohort 2.

Of particular interest was the general increase in

the proportion of migrants who received

assistance at Wave 2 of Cohort 2 compared to

Wave 2 of Cohort 1. Aside from help received

with looking for work, social security benefits

and learning English, a higher proportion of

Cohort 2 migrants received assistance than did

Cohort 1 at Wave 2.

It is interesting to note that whilst male migrants

reported receiving assistance at higher levels

than females across both Waves 1 and 2 of

Cohort 2, female migrants were more likely to

seek this support over a longer period of time.


104

Given the types of assistance sought by migrants

it was not surprising to find that most migrants

contacted the core government agencies. The

organisations that were most commonly

contacted to provide the assistance sought by

migrant were: The Australian Taxation Office

(ATO), Department of Immigration and

Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA),

Centrelink and Medicare. Fewer than five per

cent of migrants contacted ethnic, non-profit

welfare services or embassies.

Employment and training related organisations

were more likely to be used by migrants who

migrated under family visa categories, whilst

those who migrated under more economic visa

groups were more likely to use income related

organisations such as The Australian Taxation

Office. Those mainstream organisations that

provided standard services to all residents were

utilised by all visa categories at similar levels.

We also found that a large majority of migrants

were satisfied with the help that they received.

Levels of satisfaction ranged from just under

three-quarters of clients satisfied with Embassy

of Former Country of Residence to all clients

being satisfied with services of Torture/Trauma

Counselling (Cohort 2 Wave 1) and Ethnic

Welfare Agency (Cohort 2 Wave 2). Perhaps

more surprising, virtually all those who had

contact with the Australian Taxation Office were

satisfied with the service they received, as were

most who used Medicare.

Finally, we saw that a majority of migrants at

Wave 2 of Cohort 2 had used the Internet in the

last six months. One-third used the Internet to

find a job or to educate themselves or their

children. Overall it is men more than women

who used the Internet for these purposes. It was

interesting to note that, in contrast to the high

percentage of migrants who said they used the

Internet to find a job, data collected about the

source of information used by migrants to secure

their current job indicated that only four per cent

of migrants obtained this information from the

Internet.

Appendices

Table A5.1: Percentage who at assessed their health as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ by Selected Characteristics


Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian- linked

90 96 95

Independent 91 95 94 Preferential family/family stream 86 91 92 Business skills/employer Nomination scheme

92 95 95

Humanitarian 77 74 68 Gender Male 90 93 94 Female 83 91 89


Age 15-24 86 92 92 25-34 88 93 94 35-44 88 93 90 45-54 82 89 87 55-64 77 80 82 65+ 73 82 75

Total 86 92 91

Tab

le A

5.2

: S

elf

-ass

essed

healt

h s

tatu

s b

y v

isa c

ate

go

ry

Hea

lth

Sta

tus

Co

hort

/

Wa

ve

Co

nce

ssio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-

lin

ked

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loy

er

nom

ina

tio

n s

chem

e

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Ver

y G

oo

d

C1

W2

4

5

48

4

0

53

3

2

42

C2

W1

6

5

59

5

4

60

3

1

55

C

2W

2

53

5

4

48

5

1

28

4

9

Go

od

C

1W

24

5

43

4

6

39

45

45

C2

W1

3

0

37

3

8

35

4

3

37

C2

W2

42

40

4

4

44

41

42

Fai

r C

1W

2

8

8

12

7

17

11

C2

W1

4

4

7

4

1

6

6

C

2W

2

5

6

6

4

19

7

Po

or/

Ver

y P

oo

r C

1W

22

1

3

1

6

3

C

2W

1

+

1

2

+

9

2

C2

W2

+

1

2

+

13

2

No

te:

+ N

um

ber

of

ob

serv

atio

ns

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5

)

Table A5.3: Self-assessed health status by gender

Health StatusCohort/

Wave Male Female Total

% % %

Very Good C1W2 48 36 42 C2W1 61 50 55

C2W2 54 45 49

Good C1W2 42 47 45 C2W1 32 41 37

C2W2 40 44 42

Fair C1W2 8 14 11 C2W1 5 8 6

C2W2 4 10 7

Poor/ Very Poor C1W2 3 3 3 C2W1 2 2 2

C2W2 2 2 2

Table A5.4: Self-assessed health status by English proficiency


Wave

English Only or

Best

English Well and

Another

Language

English Not Well

or Not at all Total

% % % %

Very Good C1W2 54 44 26 42 C2W1 63 60 40 55

C2W2 53 53 35 49

Good C1W2 35 47 51 45 C2W1 32 35 44 37

C2W2 41 41 47 42

Fair C1W2 9 8 17 11 C2W1 4 4 11 6

C2W2 6 5 13 7

Poor/ Very Poor C1W2 2 2 5 3 C2W1 1 1 5 2

C2W2 0 (n=5) 2 6 2

Tab

le A

5.5

: S

elf

-assessed

healt

h s

tatu

s b

y a

ge

Hea

lth

Sta

tus

Co

hort

/

Wav

e 15

-24

25

-34

35-4

4

45

-54

55

-64

65

+

To

tal

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

V

ery

Goo

d

C1

W2

39

44

43

4

0

37

21

42

C2

W1

52

59

57

5

1

36

24

55

C

2W

2

51

52

48

4

7

30

25

49

Go

od

C

1W

247

44

45

4

2

40

52

45

C2

W1

39

34

37

3

8

44

58

37

C2

W2

41

42

42

4

1

52

51

42

F

air

C1

W2

11

9

9

15

16

22

11

C2

W1

7

5

6

6

15

17

6

C

2W

2

6

5

8

9

8

21

7

Po

or/

Ver

y P

oo

r C

1W

23

2

3

3

7

5

3

C

2W

1

2

2

1

5

4

+

2

C2

W2

2

1

3

4

10

+

2

No

te:

+ N

um

ber

of

ob

serv

atio

ns

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5

)

Tab

le A

5.6

: W

ave 2

self

-assessed

healt

h s

tatu

s b

y v

isa c

ate

go

ry

Hea

lth

Sta

tus

Co

hort

/

Wa

ve

Co

nce

ssio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-

lin

ked

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loy

er

nom

ina

tio

n s

chem

e

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Ver

y G

oo

d

C1

W2

4

5

48

4

0

53

3

2

42

C2

W2

5

3

54

4

8

51

2

8

49

Go

od

C

1W

24

5

43

4

6

39

45

45

C2

W2

4

2

40

4

4

44

4

1

42

Fai

r C

1W

2

8

8

12

7

17

11

C2

W2

5

6

6

4

1

9

7

Po

or/

Ver

y P

oo

r C

1W

22

1

3

+

6

3

C

2W

2

+

1

2

+

13

2

S

ignif

ican

ce

n.v

. (*

*)

**

**

*

n.v

. (n

s)

**

*

**

*

Note

: P

ears

on C

hi-

squar

e te

st:

+ N

um

ber

of

ob

serv

atio

ns

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5

), n

.v.

= t

est

not

val

id,

n.s

. =

not

sign

ific

ant,

*

**

= p

robab

ilit

y <

0.0

01

.

Tab

le A

5.7

: W

ave 2

self

-assesse

d h

ealt

h s

tatu

s b

y g

en

der

of

Pri

ma

ry A

pp

lic

an

t a

nd

Mig

rati

ng

Un

it S

po

us

e

Hea

lth

Sta

tus

Co

ho

rt/

Wa

ve

Ma

le P

rim

ary

Ap

pli

can

t

Fem

ale

Pri

mary

Ap

pli

can

t

Ma

le M

igra

tin

g

Un

it S

po

use

Fem

ale

Mig

rati

ng

Un

it S

po

use

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

Ver

y G

oo

d

C1W

2

48

36

5

0

36

42

C

2W

2

53

4

7

57

4

0

49

Goo

d

C1

W2

42

46

3

9

49

45

C2

W2

4

1

43

3

5

47

4

2

F

air

C1

W2

7

1

4

9

13

1

1

C

2W

2

4

8

6

12

7

Po

or/

Ver

y P

oo

r C

1W

2

3

3

2

3

3

C2

W2

2

2

+

2

2

S

ign

ific

ance

**

*

**

*

n.v

. (n

s)

n.s

. *

**

No

te:

Pea

rso

n C

hi-

squ

are

test

: +

Nu

mber

of

ob

serv

atio

ns

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5

), n

.v.

= t

est

not

val

id,

n.s

. =

not

sign

ific

ant,

*

**

= p

robab

ilit

y <

0.0

01

.

Table A5.8: Wave 2 self-assessed health status by age


Wave 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total

% % % % % % %

Very Good C1W2 39 44 43 40 37 21 42 C2W2 51 52 48 47 30 25 49

Good C1W2 47 44 45 42 40 52 45 C2W2 41 42 42 41 52 51 42 Fair C1W2 11 9 9 15 16 22 11 C2W2 6 5 8 9 8 21 7

Poor/ Very Poor C1W2 3 2 3 3 7 5 3 C2W2 2 1 3 4 10 + 2 Significance ** *** n.s. * * n.v. (ns) ***

Note: Pearson Chi-square test: + Number of observations very small (n<5), n.v. = test not valid, n.s. = not significant, * = probability < 0.05, *** = probability < 0.001.

Tab

le A

5.9

: W

ave 2

self

-asses

se

d h

ea

lth

sta

tus

by r

eg

ion

of

bir

th

Hea

lth

Sta

tus

Co

ho

rt/

Wa

ve

En

gli

sh S

pea

kin

g

Co

un

trie

s

Oth

er E

uro

pea

n

Co

un

trie

s

Asi

an

Co

un

trie

s O

ther

Cou

ntr

ies

Tota

l

%

%

%

%

%

V

ery

Goo

d

C1

W2

5

6

40

3

5

46

4

2

C

2W

2

49

4

5

50

4

9

49

Go

od

C

1W

23

4

45

4

9

44

4

5

C

2W

2

43

3

8

42

4

4

42

Fai

r C

1W

2

9

12

1

3

8

11

C2W

2

8

11

7

6

7

Po

or/

Ver

y P

oo

r C

1W

2

2

3

3

2

3

C2W

2

+

6

1

2

2

Sig

nif

ican

ce

n

.v.

(**

*)

**

*

**

n

.s.

**

*

No

te:

Pea

rso

n C

hi-

squ

are

test

, n

.s.

= n

ot

sig

nif

ican

t, *

= p

rob

abil

ity

< 0

.05,

**

* =

pro

bab

ilit

y <

0.0

01

.

Table A5.10: Wave 2 self-assessed health status by English proficiency


Wave

English only or

best

English well and

another

language

English not

well/not at all

and other

language

Total

% % % %

Very Good C1W2 54 44 26 42 C2W2 53 53 35 49

Good C1W2 35 47 51 45 C2W2 41 41 47 42 Fair C1W2 9 8 17 11 C2W2 6 5 13 7

Poor/ Very Poor C1W2 2 2 5 3 C2W2 0 2 6 2 Significance *** *** *** ***

Note: Pearson Chi-square test, n.s. = not significant, * = probability < 0.05, *** = probability < 0.001.

Table A5.11: Presence of long-term health conditions by selected characteristics


Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 2 Significance

% % %

Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian- linked

6 5 n.s.

Independent 3 5 n.s Preferential family/family stream 12 10 * Business skills/employer nomination scheme

6 5 n.s

Humanitarian 16 41 *** Gender Male Primary Applicant 8 11 ** Female Primary Applicant 12 9 ** Male Migrating Unit Spouse 15 11 n.s Female Migrating Unit Spouse 9 10 n.s Age 15-24 7 4 n.s 25-34 6 6 n.s 35-44 8 9 n.s 45-54 17 16 n.s 55-64 26 38 * 65+ 39 51 * Region of Birth English Speaking Countries 10 7 n.s Other European Countries 13 23 *** Asian Countries 9 8 n.s Other Countries 9 9 n.s

English Proficiency English only or best 8 6 ** English well and other language 7 8 n.s English not well or not at all 16 21 ***

Total 10 10 n.s.

Note: Pearson Chi-square test, n.s. = not significant, * = probability < 0.05, *** = probability < 0.001.

Table A5.12: Number of cases of long-term health conditions

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

No. No. No.

Have a long-term health condition 602 (10%) 352 (8%) 359 (10%)

Arthritis or Rheumatism 154 62 77 Hearing problem or deafness 77 25 29 Blindness or impaired vision 84 44 53 Nerves or stress problems 110 89 98 Heart Disorder 56 51 41 Loss of limb or any other part of the body 11 8 4 Diabetes 35 37 43 Hepatitis or other liver disorder 12 12 7 Asthma 72 54 45 Tuberculosis 7 0 1 Any permanent loss of memory or mental ability 7 6 12 Any other condition not listed above (inc. kidney disorder for cohort 2)

149 81 104

Do not have a long term health condition 5396 (90%) 3829 (92%) 3179 (90%)

Total Number 5998 4181 3538

Notes: Respondents could report having more than one condition. (up to 10 for Cohort 1 Wave 2, up to 6 for Cohort 2 Wave 1, and 7 for Cohort 2 Wave2).

Cohort 1 had one person with missing data on this question (total N would normally be 5999).

Tab

le A

5.1

3: N

um

be

r o

f h

ea

lth

ca

re v

isit

s i

n t

he

pa

st

4 w

ee

ks

by v

isa

ca

teg

ory

Nu

mb

er o

f v

isit

sC

oh

ort

/

Wa

ve

Co

nce

ssio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-

lin

ked

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loy

er

no

min

ati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Zer

o v

isit

s C

1W

2

74

7

4

65

7

8

59

6

7

C2

W1

7

6

69

6

4

85

5

1

68

C

2W

2

68

6

9

60

7

4

45

6

3

1 v

isit

C

1W

2

16

1

5

19

1

4

19

1

8

C

2W

1

17

2

2

23

1

1

21

2

1

C2

W2

21

2

1

25

1

9

25

2

3

2 v

isit

s C

1W

2

7

6

10

4

1

4

9

C

2W

1

4

5

7

2

14

6

C2

W2

7

7

9

4

1

6

8

3 o

r m

ore

vis

its

C1

W2

3

4

6

4

8

6

C2

W1

3

4

6

2

1

5

5

C2

W2

4

4

6

3

14

6

Table A5.14: Number of health care visits in the past 4 weeks by gender

Number of visitsCohort/

WaveMale Female Total

% % %

Zero visits C1W2 75 62 67

C2W1 74 62 68

C2W2 71 56 63

1 visit C1W2 15 20 18 C2W1 17 24 21

C2W2 19 26 23

2 visits C1W2 7 11 9 C2W1 4 8 6

C2W2 6 10 8

3 or more visits C1W2 4 7 6 C2W1 5 6 5

C2W2 4 7 6

Ta

ble

A5

.15

: N

um

be

r o

f h

ea

lth

ca

re v

isit

s i

n t

he

pa

st

4 w

ee

ks

by a

ge

Nu

mb

er o

f v

isit

sC

oh

ort

/

Wa

ve

15

-24

2

5-3

4

35

-44

4

5-5

4

55

-64

6

5+

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Z

ero

vis

its

C1

W2

6

0

70

7

0

66

6

5

49

6

7

C2

W1

6

4

66

7

0

75

6

5

58

6

8

C

2W

2

53

6

3

68

6

0

59

5

8

63

1

vis

it

C1

W2

1

9

16

1

8

17

1

8

33

1

8

C

2W

1

19

2

3

20

1

5

19

2

5

21

C2

W2

24

2

3

21

2

7

22

2

4

23

2

vis

its

C1

W2

1

5

8

8

12

9

1

3

9

C

2W

1

8

6

6

5

7

11

6

C2

W2

1

4

8

7

9

8

9

8

3

or

mo

re v

isit

s C

1W

2

6

6

5

5

7

5

6

C

2W

1

9

5

5

5

9

6

5

C2

W2

9

6

4

5

11

1

0

6

Ta

ble

A5

.16

: N

um

be

r o

f h

ea

lth

ca

re v

isit

s in

th

e p

as

t 4

we

ek

s b

y E

ng

lis

h p

rofi

cie

nc

y

Nu

mb

er o

f v

isit

sC

oh

ort

/

Wa

ve

En

gli

sh O

nly

or

Bes

t E

ng

lish

Wel

l a

nd

an

oth

er L

an

gu

ag

e

En

gli

sh N

ot

wel

l

or

No

t A

t A

ll

To

tal

%

%

%

%

Zer

o v

isit

s C

1W

2

74

6

8

61

6

7

C2

W1

7

2

68

6

2

68

C

2W

2

68

6

4

53

6

3

1 v

isit

C

1W

2

17

1

8

19

1

8

C

2W

1

22

2

0

20

2

1

C2

W2

22

2

2

26

2

3

2 v

isit

s C

1W

2

6

8

14

9

C2

W1

4

6

1

0

6

C2

W2

7

8

1

2

8

3 o

r m

ore

vis

its

C1

W2

4

6

7

6

C2

W1

3

6

8

5

C2

W2

4

6

9

6

Table A7.1: Completion rates for AMEP and other types of English courses, Cohort 2 Wave 2

AMEP Other

No. % No. %

Attending English language course at time of last interview Completed (not attending) 318 45 34 68 Not completed (not attending) 219 31 12 24 Still attending 171 24 4 8

Total 708 100 50 100

Commenced English language course since last interview Completed (not attending) 54 17 76 32 Not completed (not attending) 121 39 18 8 Still attending 135 44 145 61

Total 309 100 237 100

Table A7.2: Characteristics of those needing interpreting services

Characteristics of those needing servicesC2W2 C2W2

No. %

Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 40 3

Independent 68 7 Preferential family/family stream 593 57 Business skills/employer nomination scheme 63 6 Humanitarian 279 27 Total 1043 100 Gender Male 400 38 Female 643 62 Total 1043 100 Age Category 15-24 126 12 25-34 404 39 35-44 255 24 45-54 153 15 55-64 49 5 65+ 55 5 Total 1043 100 Labour Force Status Employed 313 30 Unemployed 106 10 Not in Labour Force 624 60 Total 1043 100 English Proficiency English only or best 3 + Other language + English well/very well 317 30 Other language + English not well/not at all 723 69

Total 1043 100

Note: + Number of observations very small (n<5)

Table A7.3: Reasons for not completing English courses by presence of long term health condition, Cohort 2 Wave 2

Reasons For Not Completing English courses Reported Long Term Health Condition

No (%) Yes (%)

Dissatisfied with some aspect of the course 5 n/v

English already adequate 4 n/v

Problems with child care 7 n/v

Location not suitable n/v n/v

Transport difficulties 2 n/v

Time not suitable n/v n/v

Too busy working 23 3

Class no longer offered/course finished n/v n/v

Health reasons 13 14

Changed to another course n/v n/v

Looking after the family 8 n/v

Started TAFE, university n/v n/v

Moved n/v n/v

Pregnant, had a baby 9 n/v

Other 4 2

Note: n/a = not available, n/v = not valid as number of observations very small (n<5)

Table A9.1: Proportions of migrants in each category who transferred funds, personal effects or capital equipment from Australia

Cohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % % %

Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 3* 3* 3* 11 Independent 5 8 3 7 Preferential family/family stream 2 4 3 10 Business skills/employer nomination scheme 5* 7* 2* 9* Humanitarian 3* 3* 2* 7* Gender Male 3 5 2 9 Female 2 3 3 10

Age 15-24 years 3 3* 2* 11 25-34 years 4 5 3 11 35-44 years 2* 5 3* 7 45-54 years 2* 3* 1* 8* 55-64 years 1* 2* - 9* 65 or more years - 1* - 1*

English Proficiency English only or best 4 5 3 11 English well and other language 3 4 4 9 English not well or not at all 3 4 1 7 Total 3 4 3 9

Notes: The values shown relate to the proportions of migrants who transferred assets to Australia since: immigrating (for Wave 1), or last interview (for Wave 2).

Values denoted by ‘*’ are based on fewer than 25 responses and should be treated with caution.

Table A9.2: Value of remittances

Cohort 1

Wave 1

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % % %

Total value of money sent overseas $481,000 $1,583,500 $794,750 $1,048,500 Number of migrants who sent money 402 994 282 531 Average value of money sent $1,197 $1,593 $2,818 $1,975 Adjusted average value $1,197 $1,593 $1,064 $1,975

Note: The adjusted average values are calculated by excluding transfers valued at $100,000 or more.

Table A10.1: Labour force status by visa category (per cent of sponsored families)

Labour Force Status Cohort Wave Concessional

family/skilled

Australian-linked

Preferential

family/family

stream

Humanitarian

% % %

Employed C2W1 68 42 4

C2W2 84 54 14

Unemployed C2W1 20 11 11

C2W2 4 8 17

Not in Labour Force C2W1 12 47 85

C2W2 13 39 69

Table A10.2: Sponsor assistance by gender (per cent of sponsored families)

Assistance Received Cohort

Wave

Male Female Difference

% % %

General Information C2W1 78 86 10%

C2W2 59 76 29%

% Change -24% -12%

Food, Clothing, Goods C2W1 53 82 55%

C2W2 37 73 97%

% Change -30% -11%

Finding Accommodation C2W1 64 83 30%

C2W2 41 66 61%

% Change -36% -20%

Financial Assistance C2W1 35 71 103%

C2W2 25 67 168%

% Change -29% -6%

Work/Assistance in Finding C2W1 32 29 -9%

C2W2 21 33 57%

% Change -34% 14%


Table A10.3: Sponsor assistance by English proficiency (per cent of sponsored families)

Assistance Received Cohort

Wave

English Best or

Only

English Well,

very well

English Not Well,

None

% % %

General Information C2W1 81 85 83

C2W2 63 69 76

Food, Clothing, Goods C2W1 50 74 83

C2W2 44 61 71

Finding Accommodation C2W1 66 75 83

C2W2 47 55 66

Financial Assistance C2W1 42 60 65

C2W2 35 57 59

Provide Work or Assistance C2W1 26 36 29

in Finding work C2W2 25 32 27


Tab

le A

10.4

: R

ela

tives o

vers

eas b

y v

isa c

ate

go

ry (

per

cen

t o

f P

rim

ary

Ap

pli

can

ts)

Rel

ati

ve

Ov

erse

as

Co

hort

/

Wa

ve

Co

nce

ssio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-l

ink

ed

Ind

epen

den

t P

refe

ren

tia

l

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loy

er

no

min

ati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Par

ent

C2

W1

9

1

96

84

89

7

4

87

C

2W

2

89

96

83

85

6

8

86

Bro

ther

/Sis

ter

C2

W1

9

0

95

9

0

98

9

1

92

C

2W

2

91

96

88

97

9

1

91

Ch

ild

/Ch

ild

ren

C

2W

1

7

2

11

1

7

16

9

C

2W

2

6

1

9

11

1

5

7

Oth

er R

elat

ive*

C

2W

1

87

87

82

85

8

4

84

C

2W

2

94

94

86

90

8

5

89

Note

: * T

he

ques

tio

n i

n t

he

two w

aves

of

Co

ho

rt 2

are

not

equ

ival

ent.

This

may

pro

du

ce s

om

e in

accu

racy

in

this

co

mp

aris

on

.

Tab

le A

10.5

: P

rim

ary

Ap

pli

can

ts w

ith

rela

tives o

vers

eas,

by a

ge

Rel

ati

ve

Ov

erse

as

Co

hort

/

Wa

ve

15

-24

25

-34

35-4

4

45

-54

55

-64

65+

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Par

ent

C2

W1

9

1

96

8

9

69

3

0

8

87

C

2W

2

92

94

8

8

70

20

+

86

Bro

ther

/Sis

ter

C2

W1

8

8

94

9

3

87

8

0

81

9

2

C

2W

2

85

93

9

4

88

82

69

91

Ch

ild

/Ch

ild

ren

C

2W

1

+

3

9

28

5

4

57

9

C

2W

2

+

1

7

21

5

1

56

7

Oth

er R

elat

ive*

C

2W

1

87

8

4

86

7

6

73

7

4

84

C

2W

2

95

90

9

0

84

72

69

89

Note

: * T

he

ques

tion

in

th

e tw

o w

aves

of

Coh

ort

2 a

re n

ot

equ

ival

ent.

Th

is m

ay p

rod

uce

som

e in

accu

racy

in t

his

co

mpar

iso

n.

+ N

um

ber

of

ob

serv

atio

ns

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5

)

Table A10.6: Relatives overseas by English proficiency (per cent of Primary Applicants)

Relative

Overseas

Cohort/

Wave

English Best or

Only

English Well,

very well

English Not

Well, None

Total

% % % %

Parent C2W1 91 91 78 87

C2W2 90 89 74 86

Brother/Sister C2W1 94 92 88 92

C2W2 94 91 88 91

Child/Children C2W1 7 5 15 9

C2W2 7 5 13 7

Other Relative* C2W1 85 86 81 84

C2W2 92 88 85 89

Note: *Questions in the two waves of Cohort are not equivalent and this accounts for inaccuracy in this comparison.

Table A10.7: Intent to sponsor overseas relatives by English proficiency (per cent of Primary Applicants)

Does intend to Sponsor Cohort/

Wave

English Best or

Only

English Well,

very well

English Not

Well, None

Total

% % % %

C2W1 12 31 31 25

C2W2 35 46 44 41

Tab

le A

10.8

: M

ajo

r re

aso

ns r

ela

tives n

ot

ye

t sp

on

so

red

by v

isa c

ate

go

ry (

per

cen

t o

f P

rim

ary

Ap

pli

can

ts)

Rea

son

C

oh

ort

/

Wav

e

Co

nce

ssio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-l

ink

ed

Ind

epen

den

t P

refe

ren

tia

l

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loyer

no

min

ati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Can

’t y

et,

wai

tin

g u

nti

l p

erm

anen

t re

sid

ent

C1

W2

16

1

4

11

+

11

1

2

C

2W

2

11

8

9

4

11

9

C

an’t

yet

, h

aven

’t b

een r

esid

ent

lon

g e

no

ug

h

C1

W2

32

3

5

23

30

22

2

5

C

2W

2

30

1

7

15

15

28

1

8

Rel

ativ

es n

ot

inte

rest

ed y

et

C1

W2

1

4

19

1

7

35

1

0

16

C2

W2

37

5

3

50

59

17

4

8

Do

n’t

th

ink

co

nd

itio

ns

in

Au

stra

lia

are

rig

ht

yet

C

1W

2

+

+

+

+

2

2

C

2W

2

+

1

1

+

+

1

Do

n’t

th

ink

th

ey w

ou

ld l

ike

it

C1

W2

+

+

+

+

+

+

C

2W

2

2

+

2

+

+

2

Insu

ffic

ien

t m

on

ey/c

an’t

aff

ord

it

C1

W2

1

9

22

2

9

+

33

2

8

C

2W

2

4

3

9

+

20

8

No

te:

+ N

um

ber

of

ob

serv

atio

ns

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5

)

Ta

ble

A1

0.9

: M

ajo

r re

as

on

s f

or

no

t s

po

ns

ori

ng

an

y (

mo

re)

ov

ers

ea

s r

ela

tiv

es

, b

y v

isa

ca

teg

ory

(p

er

ce

nt

of

Pri

ma

ry

Ap

pli

can

ts)

Rea

son

C

oh

ort

/

Wa

ve

Co

nce

ssio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-

lin

ked

Ind

epen

den

t P

refe

ren

tial

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loyer

no

min

ati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Nev

er i

nte

nd

to

*

C1

W2

1

4

9

9

12

1

1

10

C2W

2

+

5

3

+

+

3

Alr

ead

y s

pon

sore

d

C1

W2

3

+

2

+

10

3

ev

ery

on

e in

ten

ded

C

2W

22

+

1

+

+

1

Rel

ativ

es d

on

’t w

ant

to

C1

W2

5

7

72

6

8

73

2

6

64

C2

W2

6

2

66

6

9

71

3

6

67

Co

nd

itio

ns

no

t ri

gh

t in

C

1W

2+

+

1

+

3

1

A

ust

rali

a C

2W

2+

+

1

+

+

1

Do

n’t

th

ink

th

ey w

ou

ld

C1

W2

+

2

1

+

+

1

li

ke

it

C2

W2

+

4

2

+

+

2

Insu

ffic

ien

t m

on

ey/

C1

W2

11

6

1

3

+

38

1

3

ca

n’t

aff

ord

it

C2

W2

+

2

9

+

30

8

Note

: *

This

is

the

resp

onse

giv

en b

y t

hose

wh

o h

ad i

nd

icat

ed i

n a

pre

vio

us

ques

tio

n t

hat

th

ey i

nte

nd

ed t

o s

pon

sor

(more

) im

mig

rants

, it

is

no

t th

ose

th

at i

ndic

ated

in

a p

rev

iou

s qu

esti

on

that

th

ey d

id n

ot

inte

nd

sp

on

sors

hip

.

+

Num

ber

of

obse

rvat

ion

s ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5)

Table A11.1:Satisfaction with life in Australia by selected characteristics


Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 87 85 93

Independent 86 91 93 Preferential family/family stream 90 92 96 Business skills/employer nomination scheme 88 97 97 Humanitarian 91 93 93 Gender Male 88 91 94 Female 89 92 95


Age 15-24 94 95 98 25-34 89 91 94 35-44 87 89 94 45-54 91 91 93 55-64 90 96 96 65+ 88 96 96

Total 89 91 94

Tab

le A

11.2

: S

ati

sfa

cti

on

wit

h l

ife i

n A

ustr

ali

a b

y v

isa c

ate

go

ry

Ov

era

ll S

ati

sfa

ctio

n

Co

ho

rt/

Wav

e

Co

nce

ssio

na

l

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-l

ink

ed

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loyer

no

min

ati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Ver

y s

atis

fied

C

1W

2

29

2

8

37

3

6

40

35

C2

W1

32

3

8

41

4

3

39

39

C2

W2

47

4

0

41

4

3

36

41

Sat

isfi

edC

1W

258

5

8

53

5

2

52

54

C2

W1

53

5

3

52

5

4

54

53

C

2W

246

5

3

54

5

3

57

53

No

t S

atis

fied

C

1W

213

1

4

10

1

2

9

11

C2

W1

15

9

8

3

7

9

C

2W

2

8

7

4

4

7

6

Note

– T

he

‘no

t sa

tisf

ied

cat

egory

incl

udes

th

ey w

ere

‘nei

ther

sat

isfi

ed o

r d

issa

tisf

ied

’, ‘

dis

sati

sfie

d’

or

‘ver

y d

issa

tisf

ied’

Table A11.3: Satisfaction with life in Australia by gender

Overall Satisfaction Cohort/


% % %

Very satisfied C1W2 36 34 35 C2W1 42 36 39

C2W2 46 37 41

Satisfied C1W2 52 56 54 C2W1 49 56 53

C2W2 48 58 53

Not Satisfied C1W2 12 11 11 C2W1 9 8 9

C2W2 6 5 6

Note – The ‘not satisfied category includes they were ‘neither satisfied or dissatisfied’, ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’

Table A11.4: Satisfaction with life in Australia by English proficiency

Overall Satisfaction Cohort

Wave

English Only or

Best

English Well and

Another

Language

English Not Well

or Not at all Total

% % % %

Very satisfied C1W2 44 28 34 35 C2W1 47 32 35 39

C2W2 51 36 33 41

Satisfied C1W2 45 60 55 54 C2W1 44 58 58 53

C2W2 45 57 61 53

Not Satisfied C1W2 11 12 11 11 C2W1 9 10 7 9

C2W2 4 7 6 6

Note – The ‘not satisfied category includes they were ‘neither satisfied or dissatisfied’, ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’

Ta

ble

A1

1.5

: S

ati

sfa

cti

on

wit

h l

ife

in

Au

str

ali

a b

y a

ge

Over

all

Sati

sfact

ion

C

oh

ort

Wave

15-2

4

25-3

4

35-4

4

45-5

4

55-6

4

65

+

Tota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

V

ery

sat

isfi

ed

C1

W2

43

34

33

28

37

32

35

C

2W

1

40

48

37

44

55

40

39

C2

W2

39

40

43

40

47

50

41

Sat

isfi

ed

C1

W2

51

55

53

53

53

56

54

C

2W

1

55

54

53

48

41

55

53

C

2W

2

59

54

51

53

50

47

53

Not

Sat

isfi

ed

C1

W2

6

12

13

10

10

12

11

C

2W

1

5

9

11

9

4

4

9

C

2W

2

2

6

6

7

+

+

6

No

te:

Th

e ‘n

ot

sati

sfie

d’

cate

go

ry c

om

pri

ses

tho

se w

ho

ind

icat

ed t

hey

wer

e ‘n

eith

er s

atis

fied

or

dis

sati

sfie

d’,

‘d

issa

tisf

ied

’ o

r ‘v

ery d

issa

tisf

ied’.

+

Num

ber

of

obse

rvat

ions

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5)

Table A11.6: Feelings on the migration decision by selected characteristics


Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Visa Category


Independent 90 92 96 Preferential family/family stream 91 93 95 Business skills/employer nomination scheme 90 94 97 Humanitarian 95 97 97

Gender

Male 92 92 96 Female 91 92 94


Age 15-24 94 96 97 25-34 91 91 95 35-44 90 92 96 45-54 92 94 94 55-64 92 97 97 65+ 93 95 94

Total 92 92 95

Table A11.7: Main reasons given for wanting to be an Australian Citizen (per cent of those intending to apply who gave reason)

ReasonCohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

To stay here permanently 43 47 42 I like/love Australia/better life here 12 34 38 To bring children up here 7 27 22 Belong to/feel Australian 25 23 20 Spouse is Australian/family here 6 19 23 To have all the rights of an Australian 15 18 19 Feel safer in Australia/more secure 3 15 16 Job opportunities 5 14 12 A natural step/commitment to country 7 13 13 Feel safer on Australian passport 9 8 9 Easier to travel on return visits to former country 11 8 11 To be able to vote 12 7 10 Other 9 27 24

Note: Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to 12 responses were given in Cohort 1 Wave 2, up to 14 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 1, and up to 15 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 2 (causing the total percentage of cases to be more than 100 per cent). Some caution must be used in drawing comparisons from this data as a result.

Table A11.8: Main reasons given by migrants for not wanting to apply for Australian citizenship (per cent of those not intending to apply who gave reason)

Reason Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Want to retain citizenship of former country 40 54 53 Want to retain my current passport 15 32 26 Don’t think it’s really necessary 7 19 25 Don’t know whether will stay permanently in Australia 12 10 9 Haven’t thought much about it/too early to decide 10 12 5 Could lose financial/other assistance from former country

7 5 6

Family/friends still overseas 2 10 12 Other 18 22 12 Note: Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to 6 responses were given in Cohort 1 Wave

2, up to 5 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 1, and up to 6 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 2 (causing the total percentage of cases to be more than 100 per cent). Some caution must be used in drawing comparisons from this data as a result.

Ta

ble

A1

1.9

:Wh

at

mig

ran

ts l

ike

d a

bo

ut

Au

str

ali

a b

y v

isa

ca

teg

ory

(p

er

ce

nt

of

pe

op

le i

n C

oh

ort

2 W

av

e 2

wh

o n

om

ina

ted

th

is r

es

po

ns

e)

Th

ing l

iked

Con

ces

sion

al

fam

ily/s

kil

led

Au

stra

lia

n

Lin

ked

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

Fam

ily/f

am

ily

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loyer

nom

inati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

%

%

%

%

%

Fri

endly

peo

ple

30

42

43

42

36

Cli

mat

e/w

eath

er

32

40

30

35

18

Quie

t, p

eace

ful

and s

afe

40

42

37

55

26

Lif

esty

le/s

oci

al

45

60

42

46

26

Educa

tion/e

mplo

ym

ent

43

34

34

34

42

Countr

y/e

nvir

on

men

t 38

50

55

55

23

Ser

vic

es a

nd f

acil

itie

s 26

29

33

23

21

Bet

ter

pla

ce a

nd o

pport

unit

ies

33

29

18

23

23

Poli

tica

l fr

eedo

m/n

o w

ar

26

24

34

31

64

Fam

ily

her

e 0.4

(n=

2)

0.6

(n=

7)

5.4

(n=

80)

0.8

(n=

2)

1.3

(n=

4)

Sta

ndar

d o

f li

vin

g/l

ivin

g c

ost

s/ec

ono

my

13

13

11

6

5

Ever

yth

ing

4

0.2

(n=

2)

4

1

8

Noth

ing

0

0

0.2

(n=

2)

0

0.2

(n=

1)

Oth

er

5

4

2

3

4

Note

: R

esponse

s hav

e bee

n g

rouped

toget

her

for

mu

ltip

le r

esponse

anal

ysi

s -

up

to 1

0 r

esponse

s w

ere

giv

en i

n C

ohort

2 W

ave

2 (

cau

sin

g t

he

tota

l p

erce

nta

ge

of

case

s to

be

more

than

100

per

cen

t).

Ta

ble

A1

1.1

0:

Wh

at

mig

ran

ts d

isli

ke

d a

bo

ut

Au

str

ali

a b

y v

isa

ca

teg

ory

(p

er

ce

nt

of

pe

op

le w

ho

no

min

ate

d t

his

re

sp

on

se

)

Th

ing d

isli

ked

Con

ces

sion

al

fam

ily/s

kil

led

Au

stra

lia

n

Lin

ked

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

Fam

ily/f

am

ily

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loyer

nom

inati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

%

%

%

%

%

Noth

ing

28

25

32

34

38

Cli

mat

e 8

6

10

13

8

Ser

vic

es a

nd f

acil

itie

s 12

16

11

9

5

Oth

er

4

8

5

10

4

Em

plo

ym

ent

dif

ficu

ltie

s 9

15

6

10

9

Cri

me,

lac

k o

f dis

cipli

ne

12

15

14

5

32

Eco

no

my

, ex

pen

sive

13

18

11

12

4

Geo

gra

ph

ic i

sola

tio

n &

en

vir

on

men

tal

char

acte

rist

ics

10

11

12

11

8

Lif

esty

le,

soci

al c

har

acte

rist

ics

17

22

21

10

11

Lan

guag

e bar

rier

2

1

4

2

3

Peo

ple

rac

ist

6

6

5

2

1

Poli

tics

, gover

nm

ent

10

14

8

12

5

Peo

ple

unfr

iendly

4

5

4

4

2

Note

: R

esponse

s hav

e bee

n g

rouped

toget

her

for

mu

ltip

le r

esponse

anal

ysi

s -

up

to 1

0 r

esponse

s w

ere

giv

en i

n C

ohort

2 W

ave

2 (

cau

sin

g t

he

tota

l p

erce

nta

ge

of

case

s to

be

more

than

100

per

cen

t).

Table A11.11: What migrants satisfied with life in Australia liked about Australia

Thing liked Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Friendly people 31 38 41 Climate/weather 26 33 33 Quiet, peaceful and safe 29 27 40 Lifestyle/social 38 36 47 Education/employment 36 34 37 Country/environment 47 44 48 Services and facilities 22 26 29 Better place and opportunities 9 15 24 Political freedom/no war 30 23 33 Family here 4 7 3 Standard of living/living costs/economy 18 13 11 Everything 4 1 3 Nothing 0.6 (n=34) 0.1 (n=5) 0.0 (n=1)Other 3 4 3

Note: Responses have been grouped into general categories to establish comparability between Cohorts 1 & 2 Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to 5 responses were given in Cohort 1

Wave 2, up to 9 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 1, and up to 10 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 2 (causing the total percentage of cases to be more than 100 per cent). Some caution must be used in drawing comparisons from this data as a result.

‘Satisfied’ category comprises those who reported being ‘very satisfied’ and ‘satisfied’ with life in Australia .

Table A11.12: What migrants who felt they made the right decision to move to Australia liked about Australia

Thing liked Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Friendly people 31 38 41Climate/weather 26 33 32Quiet, peaceful and safe 29 27 39Lifestyle/social 36 38 41Education/employment 37 33 36Country/environment 47 43 49Services and facilities 23 26 30Better place and opportunities 9 15 24Political freedom/no war 30 23 34Family here 4 8 3Standard of living/living costs/economy 18 13 11Everything 4 1 3Nothing 0.8 (n=44) 0.2 (n=8) 0.0 (n=1)Other 3 4 3

Notes: Responses have been grouped into general categories to establish comparability between Cohorts 1 & 2 Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to 5 responses were given in Cohort 1


Table A11.13: What Migrants not Satisfied with Life in Australia Disliked about Australia

Thing disliked Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Nothing 13 2 10 Climate 7 4 5 Services and facilities 12 39 23 Other 12 2 12 Employment difficulties 34 32 27 Crime, lack of discipline 6 4 13 Economy, expensive 11 6 18 Geographic isolation and environmental characteristics 13 15 5 Lifestyle, social characteristics 16 36 31 Language barrier 6 1 6 People racist 9 0 5 Politics, government 7 10 17 People unfriendly 7 2 8 Notes: Responses have been grouped into general categories to establish comparability between Cohorts 1 & 2 Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to 5 responses were given in Cohort 1 Wave

2, up to 6 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 1, and up to 9 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 2 (causing the total percentage of cases to be more than 100 per cent). Some caution must be used in drawing comparisons from this data as a result.

The ‘not satisfied’ category comprises those who indicated they were ‘neither satisfied or dissatisfied’, ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’.

Table A11.14: What Migrants who Regretted Decision to Move to Australia Disliked about Australia

Thing disliked Cohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 1

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % %

Nothing 8 13 5 Climate 10 7 7 Services and facilities 19 16 8 Other 12 10 4 Employment difficulties 29 32 28 Crime, lack of discipline 9 7 8 Economy, expensive 13 21 15 Geographic isolation and environmental 20 8 8 Lifestyle, social characteristics 11 29 51 Language barrier 4 5 7 People racist 11 4 2 Politics, government 10 7 6 People unfriendly 14 3 39

Notes: Responses have been grouped into general categories to establish comparability between Cohorts 1 & 2 Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to 5 responses were given in Cohort 1


Table A11.15: Migrants’ expectations of emigration by selected characteristics

Characteristic

Intend to

emigrate

Cohort 1

Wave 2

Intend to

emigrate

Cohort 2

Wave 2

Have

emigrated

Cohort 1 Wave

2

Have

emigrated

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% % % %

Visa Category


4 2 1 (n=11) 2 (n=6)

Independent 6 5 2 (n=16) 3 (n=12) Preferential family/family stream 4 3 2 (n=40) 2 (n=33) Business skills/employer nomination scheme

8 + 1.5 (n=8) 2 (n=6)

Humanitarian 3 + + (0.4%, n=3) + (0.5%, n=3)

Gender

Male 4 4 - - Female 5 3 - -

English Proficiency English only or best 4 3 - - English well and other language 5 4 - - English not well or not at all 4 2 - -

Age 15-24 6 2 - - 25-34 5 5 - - 35-44 4 2 - - 45-54 + + - - 55-64 7 + - - 65+ + + - -

Total 4 (n=198) 3 (n=87) 2 (n=78) 2 (n=60)

Notes: Expectations for Emigration were assessed differently in each wave. In wave 1 they were asked if they were considering permanently leaving Australia, to which they could give an affirmative answer to . In wave 2 they were asked separate questions abut intentions to emigrate back to home country and intentions to emigrate to another country. Expectations for Emigration were assessed for each Cohort by asking separate questions abut intentions to emigrate back to home country and intentions to emigrate to another country. Responses to these 2 questions were then combined to determine whether participants had any intentions of permanently leaving Australia.

Figures based on Principal Applicants only as these questions were not asked of Migrating Unit Spouses at Cohort 2 Wave 2.

Data on participants who emigrated elsewhere is unweighted data.

Table A11.16: Main Reasons given for wanting to return permanently to home country at Wave 2 (per cent of those intending to return home who gave reason)

ReasonCohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% %

Disillusioned with Australia 4 + Homesick 52 27 Economic circumstances of my family in Australia have worsened/ general economic situation in Australia is worse than expected

5 7

Economic circumstances of family overseas or political situation in former country have improved/will improve

5 8

For family reasons 45 68 Other 15 24

Note: Based on Principal Applicants only as these questions were not asked of Migrating Unit Spouses at Cohort 2 Wave 2.

Questions regarding intentions to return to home country were not asked at Wave 1 for Cohort 2.

Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to 5 responses were given in Cohort 1 Wave 2, and up to 3 responses in Cohort 2 Wave 2 (causing the total percentage of cases to be more than 100 per cent). Some caution must be used in drawing comparisons from this data as a result.

Table A11.17: Main Reasons for wanting to emigrate to another country at Wave 2 (per cent of those intending to return home who gave reason)

ReasonCohort 1

Wave 2

Cohort 2

Wave 2

% %

Friends/family live there 32 32 Like another country better than Australia + + Better Job opportunities 36 37 Like to try life in another country + 26 Other 16 +

Note: Based on Principal Applicants only as these questions were not asked of Migrating Unit Spouses at Cohort 2 Wave 2. Questions regarding intentions to emigrate to a new country were not asked at Wave 1 for Cohort 2. Caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions from this data because it is based on a small number of responses.

+ Number of observations very small (n<5)

Table A11.18: Emigration intentions, by satisfaction with life in Australia

Satisfaction with Australian life

Intentions to emigrate Cohort/

Wave

Very

SatisfiedSatisfied

Not

SatisfiedTotal

% % % %

Intention to leave Australia: Intend to Permanently Leave Australia C1W2 22 50 28 4 Considered leaving Australia C2W1 <0.05 55 45 0.4

Intend to Permanently Leave Australia C2W2 17 67 15 3

Intention to return to former Home

Country:

Expect to return Home C1W2 24 48 28 3.8 C2W2 18 62 14 2.5 Intention to Emigrate to Another Country Expect to Emigrate to Another Country C1W2 + 60 30 0.7 C2W2 + 74 + 0.7

Note: Expectations for Emigration were assessed differently in each wave. In wave 1 they were asked if they were considering permanently leaving Australia, to which they could give an affirmative answer to . In wave 2 they were asked separate questions abut intentions to emigrate back to home country and intentions to emigrate to another country. Responses to these 2 questions were then combined to determine whether participants had any intentions of permanently leaving Australia.

The ‘not satisfied’ category comprises those who indicated they were ‘neither satisfied or dissatisfied’, ‘dissatisfied’ or‘very dissatisfied’.

+ Number of observations very small (n<5)

Ta

ble

A1

2.1

: P

erc

ep

tio

ns

of

cri

me

le

ve

ls b

y s

ele

cte

d c

ha

rac

teri

sti

cs

Coh

ort

1 W

ave

1

Coh

ort

1 W

ave

2

Coh

ort

2 W

ave

1

Coh

ort

2 W

ave

2

Ch

ara

cter

isti

cL

ot

So

me

Lit

tle

Lo

t S

om

e L

ittl

e L

ot

So

me

Lit

tle

Lot

So

me

Lit

tle

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Vis

a C

ate

go

ry

Co

nce

ssio

nal

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lian

-lin

ked

47

26

27

18

27

52

43

36

21

15

55

30

Ind

epen

den

t 48

29

23

13

27

58

33

37

29

15

52

33

Pre

fere

nti

al f

amil

y/f

amil

y s

trea

m

45

25

28

23

27

45

39

29

3

0

14

48

34

Busi

nes

s sk

ills

/em

plo

yer

nom

inat

ion

sch

eme

40

32

27

9

28

61

48

30

20

7

44

48

Hu

man

itar

ian

52

13

29

22

22

48

51

18

25

20

29

39

Gen

der

M

ale

45

24

29

19

24

53

41

31

26

15

46

38

Fem

ale

48

25

25

20

28

46

38

30

29

13

51

32

Age

15-2

4 y

ears

45

21

30

24

19

51

37

26

35

12

45

37

25-3

4 y

ears

45

27

26

19

29

50

35

35

28

14

51

33

35-4

4 y

ears

50

23

26

18

25

53

43

29

26

13

48

37

45-5

4 y

ears

48

20

29

20

25

47

47

23

25

17

44

34

55-6

4 y

ears

49

21

26

20

26

44

61

19

16

10

34

44

65 o

r m

ore

yea

rs

47

25

25

26

26

34

48

31

16

16

39

35

Engli

sh P

rofi

cien

cy

Engli

sh o

nly

or

bes

t 52

26

22

24

32

43

41

30

29

17

55

27

Engli

sh w

ell

and o

ther

lan

guag

e 40

27

33

18

25

54

34

36

29

12

52

36

Engli

sh n

ot

wel

l or

not

at a

ll

47

22

26

18

22

50

44

26

24

13

29

48

Tota

l 46

25

27

20

26

50

39

31

28

14

48

35

Note

: T

he

per

cep

tio

ns

rep

ort

ed b

y m

igra

nts

at

Wav

e 1

rel

ate

to t

hei

r F

orm

er C

oun

trie

s o

f R

esid

ence

, w

hil

e th

ose

rep

ort

ed a

t W

ave

2 a

re f

or

Au

stra

lia.

Ta

ble

A1

2.2

: P

erc

ep

tio

ns

of

race

/cu

ltu

re/n

ati

on

ali

ty t

ole

ran

ce

by s

ele

cte

d c

ha

rac

teri

sti

cs

Coh

ort

1 W

ave

1

Coh

ort

1 W

ave

2

Coh

ort

2 W

ave

1

Coh

ort

2 W

ave

2

Ch

ara

cter

isti

cL

ot

So

me

Lit

tle

Lo

t S

om

e L

ittl

e L

ot

So

me

Lit

tle

Lot

So

me

Lit

tle

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Vis

a C

ate

go

ry

Co

nce

ssio

nal

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lian

-lin

ked

40

39

20

34

50

13

45

43

12

44

45

9

Ind

epen

den

t 40

40

19

37

49

13

39

47

13

40

53

7

Pre

fere

nti

al f

amil

y/f

amil

y s

trea

m

39

34

25

35

47

14

40

39

1

8

43

40

11

Busi

nes

s sk

ills

/em

plo

yer

nom

inat

ion

sch

eme

38

38

21

34

52

12

38

41

19

50

42

6

Hu

man

itar

ian

36

26

30

52

30

11

37

25

33

57

29

7

Gen

der

M

ale

40

36

22

40

45

12

42

40

17

46

45

8

Fem

ale

36

33

27

37

43

14

38

41

18

43

42

10

Age

15-2

4 y

ears

40

32

25

37

45

13

31

45

20

31

47

13

25-3

4 y

ears

37

37

23

36

49

13

14

40

17

40

47

10

35-4

4 y

ears

39

34

26

40

42

14

10

44

14

48

44

7

45-5

4 y

ears

39

29

26

40

40

13

50

29

20

55

32

6

55-6

4 y

ears

42

34

22

44

34

14

39

36

21

53

32

6

65 o

r m

ore

yea

rs

42

32

20

43

28

7

40

29

23

55

31

7

Engli

sh P

rofi

cien

cy

Engli

sh o

nly

or

bes

t 34

46

19

31

51

15

38

48

13

41

49

9

Engli

sh w

ell

and o

ther

lan

guag

e 39

35

27

39

48

11

40

42

16

46

45

7

Engli

sh n

ot

wel

l or

not

at a

ll

42

26

25

45

33

14

42

28

24

46

33

11

Tota

l 39

35

24

38

44

13

40

40

17

44

44

9

Note

: T

he

per

cep

tio

ns

rep

ort

ed b

y m

igra

nts

at

Wav

e 1

rel

ate

to t

hei

r F

orm

er C

oun

trie

s o

f R

esid

ence

, w

hil

e th

ose

rep

ort

ed a

t W

ave

2 a

re f

or

Au

stra

lia.

Ta

ble

A1

2.3

: P

erc

ep

tio

ns

of

infl

ue

nc

e o

ve

r g

ov

ern

me

nt

by s

ele

cte

d c

ha

rac

teri

sti

cs

Coh

ort

1 W

ave

1

Coh

ort

1 W

ave

2

Coh

ort

2 W

ave

1

Coh

ort

2 W

ave

2

Ch

ara

cter

isti

cL

ot

So

me

Lit

tle

Lo

t S

om

e L

ittl

e L

ot

So

me

Lit

tle

Lot

So

me

Lit

tle

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Vis

a C

ate

go

ry

Co

nce

ssio

nal

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d A

ust

rali

an-

linked

11

35

54

22

45

22

13

37

50

31

51

9

Ind

epen

den

t 12

29

58

19

48

21

13

38

47

23

51

21

Pre

fere

nti

al f

amil

y/f

amil

y s

trea

m

12

29

55

2

1

43

18

13

29

5

4

27

37

16

Busi

nes

s sk

ills

/em

plo

yer

nom

inat

ion

sch

eme

17

33

49

22

49

19

13

26

58

34

48

7

Hu

man

itar

ian

2

10

84

29

33

14

5

9

78

22

36

12

Gen

der

M

ale

12

25

61

24

44

20

14

30

53

31

43

18

Fem

ale

9

29

57

20

42

17

10

30

54

23

42

13

Age

15-2

4 y

ears

9

27

58

20

42

16

10

26

57

29

36

11

25-3

4 y

ears

11

27

59

22

46

19

12

35

50

24

44

19

35-4

4 y

ears

10

25

62

22

41

21

12

26

59

28

48

13

45-5

4 y

ears

10

25

62

25

39

18

16

26

54

29

41

12

55-6

4 y

ears

9

29

58

25

37

15

18

15

63

31

34

14

65 o

r m

ore

yea

rs

12

34

47

16

35

12

7

20

68

26

33

14

Engli

sh P

rofi

cien

cy

Engli

sh o

nly

or

bes

t 14

35

49

17

45

26

14

38

46

27

49

18

Engli

sh w

ell

and o

ther

lan

guag

e 11

31

57

22

49

17

15

36

47

27

46

15

Engli

sh n

ot

wel

l or

not

at a

ll

7

17

69

26

34

12

7

14

72

25

31

12

T

ota

l 10

27

59

22

43

18

12

30

54

26

44

16

Note

: T

he

per

cep

tio

ns

rep

ort

ed b

y m

igra

nts

at

Wav

e 1

rel

ate

to t

hei

r F

orm

er C

oun

trie

s o

f R

esid

ence

, w

hil

e th

ose

rep

ort

ed a

t W

ave

2 a

re f

or

Au

stra

lia.

Ta

ble

A1

2.4

: P

erc

ep

tio

ns

of

mo

ne

tary

rew

ard

by s

ele

cte

d c

ha

rac

teri

sti

cs

Coh

ort

1 W

ave

1

Coh

ort

1 W

ave

2

Coh

ort

2 W

ave

1

Coh

ort

2 W

ave

2

Ch

ara

cter

isti

cW

ell

Mod

erat

e P

oor

Wel

l M

od

erat

e P

oor

Wel

l M

od

erat

e P

oor

Wel

l M

oder

ate

Poor

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Vis

a C

ate

go

ry

Co

nce

ssio

nal

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lian

-lin

ked

27

37

36

30

54

8

20

52

28

29

62

8

Ind

epen

den

t 28

43

29

30

58

8

27

49

23

26

63

8

Pre

fere

nti

al f

amil

y/f

amil

y s

trea

m

25

36

36

36

45

6

20

40

37

33

48

6

B

usi

nes

s sk

ills

/em

plo

yer

nom

inat

ion

sch

eme

49

37

13

30

53

6

51

34

14

32

54

5

Hu

man

itar

ian

11

21

62

33

40

7

11

25

59

24

42

5

Gen

der

M

ale

26

36

37

35

50

7

25

42

31

32

53

8

Fem

ale

23

35

38

32

46

6

20

42

35

32

50

6

Age

15-2

4 y

ears

18

34

41

40

45

4

15

44

38

41

41

6

25-3

4 y

ears

25

37

36

34

53

6

23

44

31

31

56

7

35-4

4 y

ears

26

37

36

31

49

9

23

41

34

26

58

8

45-5

4 y

ears

26

31

41

31

45

8

31

36

32

24

56

7

55-6

4 y

ears

23

31

43

37

33

3

34

30

34

31

38

- 65 o

r m

ore

yea

rs

33

30

32

30

23

3

21

40

36

26

32

-

Engli

sh P

rofi

cien

cy

Engli

sh o

nly

or

bes

t 33

46

20

37

50

6

32

51

17

29

62

7

Engli

sh w

ell

and o

ther

lan

guag

e 25

38

35

32

52

7

20

43

35

34

52

8

Engli

sh n

ot

wel

l or

not

at a

ll

17

24

53

32

41

6

15

30

51

25

43

6

Tota

l 24

35

37

34

48

7

23

42

33

30

54

7

Note

: T

he

per

cep

tio

ns

rep

ort

ed b

y m

igra

nts

at

Wav

e 1

rel

ate

to t

hei

r F

orm

er C

oun

trie

s o

f R

esid

ence

, w

hil

e th

ose

rep

ort

ed a

t W

ave

2 a

re f

or

Au

stra

lia.

Ta

ble

A1

3.1

: P

erc

en

tag

e o

f P

rim

ary

Ap

pli

ca

nts

wh

o r

ec

eiv

ed

su

pp

ort

by v

isa

cate

go

ry

Ty

pe

Of

Su

pp

ort

C

oh

ort

/

Wa

ve

Con

cess

ion

al

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lia

n-l

ink

ed

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loy

er

no

min

ati

on

sch

eme

Hu

ma

nit

ari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Loo

kin

g f

or

wo

rk

C1

W2

3

6

23

2

4

6

46

2

7

C

2W

1

54

3

4

33

7

2

0

33

C2

W2

3

6

22

2

9

8

35

2

7

Fin

anci

al m

atte

rs

C1

W2

1

1

10

6

1

2

6

7

C

2W

1

31

2

6

16

3

2

16

2

1

C2

W2

2

8

27

1

7

27

1

7

21

Tax

atio

n

C1

W2

1

4

19

9

2

6

5

11

C2

W1

5

0

38

3

2

45

1

7

35

C

2W

2

34

3

6

25

4

7

5

28

Ho

usi

ng/a

ccom

mo

dat

ion

C

1W

2

10

8

8

1

2

1

10

C2

W1

3

6

31

2

1

32

4

7

28

C

2W

2

24

1

5

12

1

6

26

1

5

Edu

cati

on

& t

rain

ing

C

1W

2

18

1

3

10

8

1

7

12

C2

W1

2

3

19

1

4

22

2

4

17

C

2W

2

17

1

5

12

1

5

20

1

4

Qu

alif

icat

ion

s re

cogn

itio

n

C1

W2

1

0

7

5

4

6

6

C

2W

1

17

1

9

6

6

6

10

C

2W

2

9

7

6

6

6

7

Lea

rnin

g E

ngli

sh

C1

W2

2

3

12

2

9

18

6

0

30

C2

W1

1

4

9

37

2

5

83

3

1

C2

W2

1

0

8

31

2

3

70

2

6

Inte

rpre

tin

g

C1

W2

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

C2

W1

3

1

1

6

9

48

1

3

C2

W2

3

1

1

5

9

37

1

2

Tra

nsl

ate

wri

tten

do

cum

ents

C

1W

2

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

C

2W

1

5

3

9

8

27

9

C2

W2

3

4

8

7

1

9

7

Inte

rpre

tin

g/T

ran

slat

ing

C

1W

2

8

3

12

3

2

9

12

C2

W1

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

C2

W2

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

Ta

ble

A1

3.1

co

nt:

Typ

e O

f S

up

po

rt

Co

hort

/

Wave

Con

cess

ion

al

fam

ily

/sk

ille

d

Au

stra

lian

-

lin

ked

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

fam

ily/f

am

ily

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loy

er

no

min

ati

on

sch

eme

Hu

man

itari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Fin

din

g o

ut

abo

ut

imm

igra

tio

n/s

pon

sors

hip

C

1W

2

4

5

3

4

9

4

C2

W1

2

2

4

3

4

3

C

2W

2

7

9

8

9

10

8

Leg

al a

dvic

e C

1W

2

4

5

2

10

3

3

C2

W1

5

6

2

2

3

+

5

C2

W2

9

8

5

2

3

6

7

So

cial

sec

uri

ty s

erv

ices

C

1W

2

26

2

0

21

8

4

6

25

C2

W1

1

9

12

1

1

4

64

1

6

C2

W2

1

6

10

1

2

3

48

1

4

Hea

lth

ser

vic

es/h

ealt

h i

nsu

rance

C

1W

2

16

1

6

18

1

4

30

1

9

C

2W

1

57

5

3

54

5

5

73

5

6

C2

W2

3

7

39

4

5

42

4

9

43

Ch

ild

min

din

g

C1

W2

7

9

2

6

6

5

C2

W1

7

7

2

4

5

4

C

2W

2

9

9

4

4

4

6

Ag

ed C

are

C1

W2

+

+

<

0.5

+

+

<

0.5

C2

W1

+

+

+

+

+

+

C

2W

2

+

+

+

+

+

+

To

rtu

re/t

rau

ma

cou

nse

llin

g

C1

W2

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

C2

W1

+

+

+

+

9

1

C

2W

2

+

+

<0

.5

+

11

1

Oth

er

C1

W2

+

1

1

1

1

1

C2

W1

5

+

3

5

3

3

C

2W

2

3

3

3

9

5

4

Note

: n/a

= n

ot

avai

lable

, +

= n

um

ber

of

obse

rvat

ion

s ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5)

Ta

ble

A1

3.2

: P

erc

en

tag

e o

f P

rim

ary

Ap

pli

ca

nts

wh

o r

ec

eiv

ed

su

pp

ort

by a

ge

Typ

e O

f S

up

port

C

oh

ort

/

Wave

15-2

4

25

-34

3

5-4

4

45-5

4

55-6

4

65

+

%

%

%

%

%

%

Loo

kin

g f

or

wo

rk

C1

W2

3

0

28

3

0

29

2

4

+

C

2W

1

32

3

8

34

2

4

11

+

C2

W2

3

0

29

2

9

22

9

+

Fin

anci

al m

atte

rs

C1

W2

3

8

1

1

7

4

4

C

2W

1

13

2

1

26

1

8

19

1

4

C2

W2

1

2

22

2

4

21

1

4

7

Tax

atio

n

C1

W2

6

1

2

11

1

3

3

10

C2

W1

2

6

38

3

5

36

2

8

27

C

2W

2

23

3

0

28

3

0

24

1

5

Ho

usi

ng/a

cco

mm

od

atio

n

C1

W2

7

8

1

1

14

1

9

7

C

2W

1

19

2

6

35

2

9

26

2

6

C2

W2

1

7

15

1

6

17

1

2

12

Edu

cati

on

& t

rain

ing

C

1W

2

14

1

2

14

1

3

4

+

C

2W

1

19

1

6

21

1

9

11

+

C

2W

2

20

1

3

15

1

3

+

+

Qu

alif

icat

ion

s re

cog

nit

ion

C

1W

2

3

7

7

6

+

+

C

2W

1

2

11

1

3

8

7

+

C2

W2

5

7

9

5

+

+

Lea

rnin

g E

ngli

sh

C1

W2

4

8

27

2

9

39

2

6

12

C2

W1

3

8

26

3

3

38

3

2

28

C

2W

2

42

2

2

27

2

4

29

3

6

Inte

rpre

tin

g

C1

W2

N

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

C2

W1

1

9

10

1

3

18

2

5

26

C

2W

2

17

1

0

10

1

7

23

2

0

Tra

nsl

ate

wri

tten

do

cum

ents

C

1W

2

N/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

C

2W

1

7

9

8

10

7

8

C2

W2

9

7

8

6

+

+

Inte

rpre

tin

g/T

ran

slat

ing

C

1W

2

16

1

0

14

1

6

16

1

4

C

2W

1

N/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

C

2W

2

N/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

Ta

ble

A1

3.2

co

nt:

Typ

e O

f S

up

port

C

oh

ort

/

Wave

15-2

4

25-3

4

35-4

4

45-5

4

55-6

4

65

+

%

%

%

%

%

%

Fin

din

g o

ut

abo

ut

imm

igra

tion

sp

on

sors

hip

C

1W

2

3

5

5

3

2

+

C2

W1

2

4

2

4

+

+

C

2W

2

8

10

7

6

+

+

L

egal

ad

vic

e C

1W

2

3

3

5

3

+

+

C

2W

1

2

4

5

11

+

+

C

2W

2

3

7

9

9

+

+

So

cial

sec

uri

ty s

erv

ices

C

1W

2

30

2

2

30

2

1

23

2

7

C

2W

1

10

1

3

23

1

8

23

1

4

C2

W2

1

9

11

1

8

15

1

9

7

Hea

lth

ser

vic

es/h

ealt

h i

nsu

rance

C

1W

2

19

1

7

18

2

6

27

2

7

C

2W

1

55

5

3

60

5

5

70

6

9

C2

W2

5

1

41

4

5

37

4

0

45

Ch

ild

min

din

g

C1

W2

2

6

5

+

+

+

C2

W1

+

5

7

+

+

+

C

2W

2

7

4

12

3

+

+

Ag

ed C

are

C1

W2

+

+

+

+

+

2

C2

W1

+

+

+

+

+

+

C

2W

2

+

+

+

+

+

+

To

rtu

re/t

rau

ma

cou

nse

llin

g

C1

W2

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

n

/a

n/a

C2

W1

+

+

1

2

+

+

C

2W

2

2

+

2

3

+

+

Oth

er

C1

W2

1

1

1

+

3

+

C2

W1

2

3

4

2

+

+

C

2W

2

3

3

3

7

+

+

Note

: n

/a =

not

avai

lab

le, +

= n

um

ber

of

ob

serv

atio

ns

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5)

Table A13.3: Percentage of Primary Applicants who received support by English proficiency

Type of Support Cohort/

Wave

English only

or best

English well

and other

language

English not

well or not

at all

% % %

Looking for work C1W2 16 32 33 C2W1 35 39 24 C2W2 23 33 25

Financial matters C1W2 13 5 5 C2W1 32 15 14 C2W2 29 18 12

Taxation C1W2 22 7 4 C2W1 42 33 28 C2W2 38 28 12

Housing/accommodation C1W2 6 9 14 C2W1 29 16 28 C2W2 16 15 14

Education and training C1W2 8 16 11 C2W1 14 22 15 C2W2 11 18 12

Qualifications recognition C1W2 7 9 2 C2W1 14 12 3 C2W2 7 7 5

Learning English C1W2 + 29 61 C2W1 1 28 70 C2W2 2 30 61

Interpreting C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 + 5 38 C2W2 + 8 39

Translate written documents C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 1 9 17 C2W2 1 9 14

Interpreting/Translating C1W2 <0.5 8 30 C2W1 n/a n/a n/a C2W2 n/a n/a n/a

Finding out about immigration/sponsorship C1W2 3 5 5 C2W1 3 3 3 C2W2 9 8 7

Table A13.3: continued


Wave

English only

or best

English well

and other

language

English not

well or not

at all

% % %

C2W1 7 3 3 C2W2 9 8 3

Social security services C1W2 12 26 36 C2W1 9 14 25 C2W2 9 14 24

Health services/health insurance C1W2 15 17 26 C2W1 51 55 62 C2W2 39 43 48

Child minding C1W2 6 4 4 C2W1 6 3 4 C2W2 8 5 4

Aged care C1W2 + + 1 C2W1 + + + C2W2 + + +

Torture/trauma counselling C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 + + 2 C2W2 1 1 3

Other C1W2 1 1 1

C2W1 3 3 3

C2W2 3 6 2

Notes: n/a = not available, + = number of observations very small (n<5)

Table A13.4: Support services contacted by Primary Applicants by English proficiency


Wave

English only

or best

English

well

English

not well

% % %

Ethnic Club C2W1 2 2 2

C2W2 1 3 3 Ethnic Welfare Agency C2W1 + + 2

C2W2 + 1 1 Voluntary Welfare Agency C2W1 1 1 2

C2W2 + 1 2 Migrant Resource Centre C2W1 4 8 5

C2W2 3 8 6 DIMIA C2W1 16 25 23

C2W2 17 24 17 Centrelink C2W1 38 47 48

C2W2 33 42 53 Employment Agency C2W1 31 25 4

C2W2 21 22 10 Medicare C2W1 84 89 85

C2W2 57 56 55 Embassy Of Former Country of Residence C2W1 2 4 1

C2W2 4 4 1 Torture/Trauma Counsel Services C2W1 + + 2

C2W2 + 1 2 Australian Taxation Office C2W1 67 57 44

C2W2 42 32 17 Other Government Agency C2W1 10 10 8

C2W2 9 11 11

Notes: + = number of observations very small (n<5) There was no equivalent question asked for Cohort 1 Wave 2, so no results have been reported.

Ta

ble

A1

3.5

: S

up

po

rt s

erv

ice

s c

on

tac

ted

by P

rim

ary

Ap

pli

ca

nts

by v

isa

ca

teg

ory

Typ

e O

f S

up

port

C

oh

ort

/

Wave

Con

ces

sion

al

fam

ily/s

kil

led

Au

stra

lia

n-

lin

ked

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

fam

ily

/fa

mil

y

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loyer

nom

inati

on

sch

eme

Hu

man

ita

ria

n

Tota

l

%

%

%

%

%

%

Eth

nic

Clu

b

C2

W1

2

1

2

+

3

2

C2

W2

2

+

2

4

4

2

Eth

nic

Wel

fare

Ag

ency

C

2W

1

+

+

1

+

3

1

C2

W2

+

1

<

0.5

+

3

1

Vo

lunta

ry W

elfa

re A

gen

cy

C2

W1

3

1

<

0.5

+

6

1

C

2W

2

+

+

1

+

6

1

Mig

rant

Res

ourc

e C

entr

e C

2W

1

7

7

4

3

13

6

C

2W

2

3

6

4

6

14

5

DIM

IA

C2

W1

1

4

20

2

2

19

3

1

21

C

2W

2

12

1

2

24

1

6

24

2

0

Cen

trel

ink

C

2W

1

63

4

2

37

1

3

97

4

4

C2

W2

5

1

41

3

4

16

9

2

41

Em

plo

ym

ent

Ag

ency

C

2W

1

39

2

8

18

3

7

2

1

C2

W2

2

7

17

1

9

7

19

1

9

Med

icar

e C

2W

1

93

8

8

84

8

4

90

8

6

C2

W2

4

8

52

6

2

56

4

4

56

Em

bas

sy O

f F

orm

er C

ou

ntr

y o

f R

esid

ence

C

2W

1

+

2

3

6

+

2

C

2W

2

+

3

4

6

+

3

To

rtu

re/T

rau

ma

Cou

nse

l S

erv

ices

C

2W

1

+

+

+

+

9

1

C

2W

2

+

+

<0

.5

+

9

1

Au

stra

lian

Tax

atio

n O

ffic

e C

2W

1

76

6

5

52

6

6

30

5

7

C

2W

2

33

4

3

30

4

4

6

33

Oth

er G

ov

ernm

ent

Ag

ency

C

2W

1

14

1

1

6

12

1

3

9

C

2W

2

12

1

1

7

11

2

4

10

Note

s:

+ =

num

ber

of

obse

rvat

ion

s v

ery s

mal

l (n

<5

)

T

her

e w

as n

o e

qu

ival

ent

ques

tio

n a

sked

for

Co

ho

rt 1

Wav

e 2,

so n

o r

esu

lts

hav

e b

een r

eport

ed.

Tab

le A

13.6

: Su

pp

ort

se

rvic

es c

on

tac

ted

by P

rim

ary

Ap

plican

ts b

y a

ge

Typ

e O

f S

up

port

C

oh

ort

/

Wave

15-2

4

25-3

4

35-4

4

45-5

4

55-6

4

65

+

%

%

%

%

%

%

Eth

nic

Clu

b

C2

W1

+

2

2

2

7

+

C2

W2

+

1

3

+

8

1

0

Eth

nic

Wel

fare

Ag

ency

C

2W

1

+

+

1

3

+

+

C2

W2

+

<

0.5

1

+

+

+

Vo

lunta

ry W

elfa

re A

gen

cy

C2

W1

+

<

0.5

3

+

+

+

C

2W

2

+

1

2

+

+

+

Mig

rant

Res

ourc

e C

entr

e C

2W

1

6

5

8

6

+

+

C2

W2

3

4

7

9

+

+

DIM

IA

C2

W1

1

5

25

1

9

17

1

8

10

C

2W

2

20

2

2

15

2

1

15

1

1

Cen

trel

ink

C

2W

1

34

4

2

56

3

6

51

4

0

C2

W2

3

8

37

5

0

46

4

2

22

Em

plo

ym

ent

Ag

ency

C

2W

1

14

2

5

24

1

0

7

+

C2

W2

2

1

20

2

0

16

8

+

Med

icar

e C

2W

1

85

8

6

89

8

1

95

9

1

C2

W2

6

7

58

5

6

48

4

2

35

E

mb

assy

Of

Fo

rmer

Cou

ntr

y o

f R

esid

ence

C

2W

1

+

3

2

3

+

+

C

2W

2

4

4

3

+

+

+

To

rtu

re/T

rau

ma

Cou

nse

l S

erv

ices

C

2W

1

+

<0

.5

1

+

+

+

C

2W

2

2

<0

.5

1

2

+

+

Au

stra

lian

Tax

atio

n O

ffic

e C

2W

1

45

6

1

61

4

8

38

4

3

C

2W

2

28

3

4

35

3

0

17

1

4

Oth

er G

ov

ernm

ent

Ag

ency

C

2W

1

8

8

13

1

0

8

+

C

2W

2

13

9

1

1

13

1

1

+

Note

s:

+

= n

um

ber

of

ob

serv

atio

ns

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5)

T

her

e w

as n

o e

quiv

alen

t qu

esti

on

ask

ed f

or

Coh

ort

1 W

ave

2, so

no r

esu

lts

hav

e bee

n r

epo

rted

.

Table A13.7: Primary Applicants purpose of internet use, by gender (per cent of those who used the Internet)



% % %

Finding a job C2W2 36 31 33 Health C2W2 13 13 13 Education for yourself or children C2W2 35 28 32 Legal matters C2W2 9 5 9 Finding a home C2W2 22 20 21 Government services C2W2 28 22 25 Other settlement aspects C2W2 9 5 7

Note: There was no equivalent question asked for Cohort 1 Wave 2, so no results have been reported.

Table A13.8: Primary Applicants purpose of internet use by English proficiency (per cent of those who used the Internet)


Wave

English only

or best

English well

and other

language

English not

well or not

at all

Total

% % % %

Finding a job C2W2 40 42 8 33 Health C2W2 17 16 2 13 Education for yourself or children C2W2 36 40 13 32 Legal matters C2W2 8 9 2 9 Finding a home C2W2 29 24 3 21 Government services C2W2 32 30 6 25 Other settlement aspects C2W2 6 12 2 7

Note: There was no equivalent question asked for Cohort 1 Wave 2, so no results have been reported.

Ta

ble

A1

3.9

: Pri

ma

ry A

pp

lic

an

ts p

urp

os

e o

f in

tern

et

us

e b

y a

ge

(p

er

ce

nt

of

tho

se

wh

o u

se

d t

he

in

tern

et)

Typ

e O

f S

up

port

C

oh

ort

/

Wave

15-2

4

25-3

4

35-4

4

45-5

4

55-6

4

65

+

%

%

%%

%

%

Fin

din

g a

job

C

2W

2

29

4

1

34

1

6

+

+

Hea

lth

C

2W

2

9

14

1

7

5

+

+

Edu

cati

on

fo

r y

ou

rsel

f o

r ch

ild

ren

C

2W

2

26

3

2

42

2

6

14

+

L

egal

Mat

ters

C

2W

2

4

8

8

3

+

+

Fin

din

g a

ho

me

C2

W2

1

5

25

2

3

11

+

+

G

ov

ern

men

t se

rvic

es

C2

W2

1

7

28

3

1

16

9

+

O

ther

set

tlem

ent

asp

ects

C

2W

2

6

9

8

4

+

+

Note

s: +

= n

um

ber

of

obse

rvat

ions

ver

y s

mal

l (n

<5)

Ther

e w

as n

o e

quiv

alen

t ques

tio

n a

sked

for

Coh

ort

1 W

ave

2, so

no r

esu

lts

hav

e bee

n r

eport

ed.

Ta

ble

A1

3.1

0:

Pri

ma

ry A

pp

lic

an

ts p

urp

os

e o

f in

tern

et

us

e b

y v

isa

ca

teg

ory

(p

er

ce

nt

of

tho

se

wh

o u

se

d t

he

in

tern

et)

Typ

e O

f S

up

port

C

oh

ort

/

Wave

Con

ces

sion

al

fam

ily/s

kil

led

Au

stra

lia

n-l

ink

ed

Ind

epen

den

t

Pre

fere

nti

al

fam

ily/f

am

ily

stre

am

Bu

sin

ess

skil

ls/e

mp

loyer

nom

inati

on

sch

eme

Hu

man

itari

an

T

ota

l

%

%

%%

%

%

Fin

din

g a

job

C

2W

2

42

4

9

30

1

1

13

3

3

Hea

lth

C

2W

2

13

2

3

10

1

1

3

13

E

du

cati

on

fo

r y

ou

rsel

f o

r ch

ild

ren

C

2W

2

36

4

5

26

4

4

22

3

2

Leg

al M

atte

rs

C2

W2

5

1

2

5

9

3

9

Fin

din

g a

ho

me

C2

W2

2

4

34

1

6

21

5

2

1

Go

ver

nm

ent

serv

ices

C

2W

2

30

3

9

20

3

0

4

25

O

ther

set

tlem

ent

asp

ects

C

2W

2

5

10

6

1

1

3

7

Note

: T

her

e w

as n

o e

quiv

alen

t ques

tion a

sked

for

Co

hort

1 W

ave

2,

so n

o r

esu

lts

hav

e bee

n r

eport

ed

the changing settlement experience of new migrants changing settlement experience of new migrants 1...

Documents