the changing settlement experience of new migrants changing settlement experience of new migrants 1...
TRANSCRIPT
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Humanitarian and Preferential family/family
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Humanitarian and Preferential family/family
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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”.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.,
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
CharacteristicCohort 1
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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/skilled Australian-linked and Preferential
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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 $300 or more arose mainly from
an increase in the number of high income
families. The overall picture presented by Table
6.5a is that migrants with low initial income
depend heavily on other family members to help
them with housing in their initial few months in
Australia. As they become settled and their
incomes rise, they move into independent and/or
more expensive housing. Those with higher
incomes tend to pay more for their housing, but
the correlation is not precise.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
29
Table 6.5a Proportion of Primary Applicants with given levels of housing costs for
each level of family income
Weekly Family Income ($) 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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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).
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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).
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New 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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Humanitarian and Preferential family/family
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
Preferential family/family stream visa category
in her late-twenties/early-thirties, who does not
speak English well and who is not in the labour
force.
O
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Business skills/employer nomination scheme
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
38
Table 7.2: Characteristics of migrants who tried to improve English since last interview, Cohort 2, Wave 2
Characteristics %
Visa Category
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 7
Independent 16 Preferential family/family stream 53
Business skills/employer nomination scheme 7
Humanitarian 18
English Proficiency
English only or best 3
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Humanitarian and Preferential family/family
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,
The Changing Settlement Experience of New 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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
%
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
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 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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Business skills/employer nomination scheme
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
48
family/skilled Australian-linked and Preferential
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
Business skills/employer nomination scheme
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Business skills/employer nomination scheme
35 45 48 66
Humanitarian 1 2 * *
Gender Male 15 15 19 21 Female 9 9 12 14
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Preferential family/family stream visa category
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
English Proficiency English only or best 15 7 19 English well and other language 28 14 23 English not well or not at all 23 6 17
Total 22 9 20
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Gender Male 33 29 34 31 Female 32 28 44 36
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked
(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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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).
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Business skills/employer nomination scheme and
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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)
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked
were above the average in both cohorts, and the
Business skills/employer nomination scheme
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
increase in satisfaction from Wave 1 to Wave 2
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
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
English Proficiency
English only or best 89 91 96
English well and other language 88 90 93
English not well or not at all 89 93 94
Total 89 91 94
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 66 85 84
Independent 69 80 88
Preferential family/family stream 65 69 73
Business skills/employer nomination scheme 66 81 88
Humanitarian 81 87 88
Gender
Male 69 80 83
Female 68 74 80
English Proficiency
English only or best 67 84 86
English well and other language 65 69 76
English not well or not at all 74 75 81
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Business skills/employer nomination scheme
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 90 87 92
Independent 82 81 85
Preferential family/family stream 79 73 79
Business skills/employer nomination scheme 73 64 72
Humanitarian 98 98 98
Gender
Male 85 80 85
Female 82 77 82
English Proficiency
English only or best 74 75 82
English well and other language 85 73 79
English not well or not at all 92 88 93
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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).
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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).
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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).
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
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. 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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of 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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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).
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
91
12.2: Characteristics of sole person households, migrants compared to the
general Australian community.
CharacteristicCohort 1
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).
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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)
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New 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)
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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,
Business skills/employer nomination scheme and
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
Business skills/employer nomination scheme
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
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 81
Independent 91
Preferential family/family stream 58
Business skills/employer nomination scheme 86
Humanitarian 35
Gender
Male 73
Female 64
English Proficiency
English only or best 85
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.
The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants
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
CharacteristicCohort 1
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
English Proficiency English only or best 90 95 94 English well and other language 91 95 94 English not well or not at all 77 85 82
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
Health StatusCohort/
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
Health StatusCohort/
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
Health StatusCohort/
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
CharacteristicCohort 1
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%
Note: These are multiple response tables and hence do not sum to 100%.
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
Note: These are multiple response tables and hence do not sum to 100%.
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
CharacteristicCohort 1
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
English Proficiency English only or best 89 91 96 English well and other language 88 90 93 English not well or not at all 89 93 94
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/
WaveMale Female Total
% % %
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
CharacteristicCohort 1
Wave 2
Cohort 2
Wave 1
Cohort 2
Wave 2
% % %
Visa Category
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked 90 86 93
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
English Proficiency English only or best 90 92 95 English well and other language 91 91 96 English not well or not at all 95 94 95
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
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.
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
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.
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
Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked
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
Type of Support Cohort/
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
Type of Support Cohort/
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)
Type of Support Cohort/
WaveMale Female Total
% % %
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)
Type of Support Cohort/
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