WELFARE RECIPIENT PATTERNS AMONG MIGRANTS
Bob Birrell and James Jupp
Centre for Population and Urban Research
Monash University
and
Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies
Australian National University
July 2000
First Published 2000
© Commonwealth of Australia 2000
ISBN 0 642 26058 3
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act
1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from
the Commonwealth available from AusInfo. Requests and inquiries concerning
reproduction and rights should be addressed to:
The Manager
Legislative Services
AusInfo
GPO Box 84
CANBERRA ACT 2601
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent those of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
ii
Contents
Executive Summary
v
Data Sources
v
Main Findings
vi
Introduction
1
Background
1
The post-war situation
2
Services for non-English-speaking-migrants
4
The current situation
6
Data Sources
11
Welfare Recipient Rate Findings
17
Statistical Overview
17
Effects of time spent in Australia on welfare recipient levels
20
Types of welfare benefits received by migrants
25
Welfare-recipient rates for persons aged 65+
28
Locational patterns of migrants eligible for welfare assistance
31
Appendix: Country classification used for English proficiency groups
3
36
List of Tables
Table 1: Australia-born and overseas-born welfare recipient rates by age group and
time of arrival for overseas-born persons
17
Table 2: Australia-born and overseas-born welfare recipient rates by age group and
time of arrival for overseas-born persons by State
17
Table 3: Population numbers and welfare recipient rates for Australia-born and EP
categories for 5 year age groups by sex
19
Table 4: Welfare recipients by Australia-born and EP categories for 5 year age groups
by time of arrival by sex
23
Table 5: Welfare recipient rates for males and females aged 45-64 by major
birthplaces
25
Table 6: Welfare recipient rates by major pension or benefit type by English
Proficiency Group; Females and Males, five year age groups, 40-64
27
Table 7: Welfare recipients rates by major pensions or benefit type for overseas-born
persons aged 65+ by the time of arrival in Australia
28
Table 8: Welfare recipient rates for persons age 65+ who arrived in Australia
between July 1986 and 1990 and between 1991 and 1996 by selected birthplaces
30
Table 9: Percentage of EP group aged 25-44 years and 45-64 years living in major
cities and rest of Australia
31
Table 10: Welfare recipient rates for men aged 25-44 years and 45-64 years by EP
group for Australia's major cities
32
Table 11: Welfare recipient rates and population, men and women, aged 45-64 years
in SLAs with high proportion of residents from EP3 and EP4 birthplaces, Melbourne
and Sydney
34
4
Executive Summary
This is the first study of pensions and benefits paid by the Commonwealth Government
which details recipient rates for migrants by time of arrival in Australia, age, sex,
country of birth and English language capacity.
Since World War Two there has been a periodic debate about the appropriate form of
government assistance to migrants. Views have oscillated between two poles; one that
migrant services should be ‘mainstreamed’, with migrants treated the same as all other
Australians, and the other that, because of their distinctive language and cultural needs,
ethnic specific services should be provided to some migrants. The emphasis was more
on ethnic specific services at the time of the Galbally Report in 1978 and for a few
years thereafter. However since the mid-1980s there has been a swing back towards
mainstreaming. At the time of this study, all migrants, including those who were recent
arrivals, were eligible for the full range of Australian welfare benefits (subject to
various residency requirements). To the extent that migrants needed assistance outside
their families, they relied on the same Commonwealth benefits and pensions that were
available to all Australians.
The level of eligibility for these benefits has been a subject of great controversy. The
purpose of this study is to provide a firm data foundation which will help resolve this
controversy and contribute to relevant policy in the area.
Data sources
The data are based on Department of Family and Community Services (then
Department of Social Security (DSS)) records of pension and benefit recipients which
have been matched as near as possible to the date of the 1996 Census (August 1996).
The two databases provide matching numerators and denominators and thus make
possible calculations of welfare-recipient rates by birthplace, time of arrival in
Australia, sex and locality for 1996. No similar data will be available until the records
of the 2001 Census are released. Unfortunately, neither the Census nor the DSS files
5
indicate the visa category of overseas-born persons. Therefore any interpretations in
reference to such categories must be made with caution. The data also precede the
introduction of the current Coalition Government’s two-year moratorium on most
welfare payments to all arriving migrants except those entering under the humanitarian
category. Thus recipient rates for recent arrivals as of 1996 do not reflect the present
situation.
Partly because of the voluminous nature of the country of birth calculations, many of
the findings are presented in just English Proficiency (EP) groups. These are divided
into:
EP1 which includes those from Main English Speaking countries where at least 98
per cent of immigrants speak ‘good’ English and have at least 10,000 residents in
Australia,
EP2 which includes those countries for which at least 80 per cent of recent arrivals
indicated at the time of the 1996 Census that they spoke English well,
EP3 which includes countries where 50 to 80 per cent of recent arrivals indicated
that they spoke English well, and
EP4 which covers the remaining countries where less than 50 per cent of recent
arrivals stated at the 1996 Census that they spoke English well.
Main Findings
As of 1996 overseas-born persons showed slightly lower welfare-recipient rates than
their Australia-born counterparts for each age group. This is true of all States as well,
with the exception of overseas-born persons aged 45-64 in Victoria and South
Australia (see Table 2). However, welfare recipient rates for persons classified in the
EP3 and EP4 categories were higher than for Australia-born persons in the same age
group and much higher than for those in the EP1 and EP2 categories. For example, for
men in the 50-54 age group, 31.9 per cent of the EP4 category were in receipt of
welfare benefits compared with 24.2 per cent of the EP3 category, 12 6 per cent of the
EP2 category, 12.5 per cent of the EP1 category and 17.4 per cent of the Australia-
6
born (see Table 3). As is shown later in the study, the state variations referred to above
are mainly a product of the relative distribution of the different EP category migrants.
A key question explored was whether the higher EP3 and EP4 welfare-recipient rates
might be affected by the fact that they were composed of more recently arrived migrant
communities.
Examination of recipient rates for each EP group showed that:
1. Welfare-recipient rates tend to be high for all recently arrived migrants regardless of
English proficiency, and particularly high for EP groups 3 and 4. Nevertheless, one
of the important findings of this study is that, with settlement time in Australia,
welfare levels fall significantly for all EP categories.
2. For EP groups 1 and 2 who have been in Australia for many years (arriving preJuly 1986) welfare-recipient rates are fairly low relative to Australia-born persons in
the same age groups. However, for EP groups 3 and 4, and especially those in the
45-64 age group, welfare-recipient rates are high even for those who arrived before
July 1986 (Table 4). This is despite the reduction in welfare recipient rates with time
in Australia referred to above. The high welfare rates for migrants in these EP
groups probably reflects their relatively limited possession of post-school
qualifications or the kind of work experience which would allow them to compete
for jobs in the current Australian labour market. There is a high level of dependence
on Disability Pensions for migrants from Southern Europe and the Middle East.
These outcomes appear to flow from the fact that these people were heavily
concentrated in blue-collar manufacturing occupations.
3. Welfare recipient rates for women are higher than for men in the same age group
across all EP categories. This in part reflects the greater range of pensions or
benefits available to women, including Wife, Carer and Widow’s Pension (see Table
6).
For persons aged 65+, the main issue considered was the situation of those in Australia
for less than 10 years (and thus not eligible for the Age Pension) who were not covered
by one of the 12 pension agreements the Australian Government has signed and who
vii
did not enter under the humanitarian visa categories. Around a half or more of these
persons arriving between July 1986 and 1990, as of 1996, were receiving a special
benefit or, in the case of women, a Widow's Pension or Widow's Allowance (see Table
8). A substantial minority of those arriving between 1991 and 1996 were also receiving
such benefits, though in almost all cases only those resident for two years in Australia.
This is because any recourse to welfare benefits during this initial two-years will lead to
a reduction in the repayment of the bond required for parents since 1991.
As regards concentrations of migrants with high levels of welfare need, these were
primarily located in Melbourne and Sydney. This is because that is where most EP3
and 4 category persons live. There were significant concentrations of these migrants in
suburbs featuring low cost housing within the two cities. Largely as a consequence,
these suburbs show high welfare-recipient levels, particularly amongst those in the
45-64 age group.
viii
Welfare Recipient Patterns Among Migrants
Introduction
This report provides a detailed analysis of welfare-benefit and pension-recipient levels
for all Australians as of late 1996. Most of the detail concerns breakdowns of recipient
levels for major country-of-birth communities born overseas by time of arrival in
Australia and by sex and age group.
One purpose of the research is to assist in policy deliberations concerning migrant
selection
with particular reference to the implications of age at time of arrival in
Australia for welfare assistance provided by the Commonwealth Government. Another
purpose is to provide background information on levels of welfare need to officers
within the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) who are
responsible for planning settlement services. As we note below, there have been no
previous studies of migrant welfare needs which have had access to comparable data
on both welfare recipients and the base population potentially eligible for the welfare
services in question by time of arrival in Australia.
Background
The following comments provide a setting for the analysis to follow. Our data
represent a cross section of welfare need as indicated by the proportion of persons in
receipt of the various pension and benefits paid by the Commonwealth Government as
of late 1996. As such it represents the outcome of a series of administrative decisions,
which in turn reflect many debates on the appropriate form of services to migrants.
The need for welfare services for incoming migrants was recognised from the earliest
period of assisted passages, especially through the voluntary (but state-aided) work of
Caroline Chisholm in the 1840s and 1850s. This was mainly directed towards the
settlement of women and children in country districts of New South Wales. Public
1
welfare was very modest at the time, but the colonial authorities did maintain
temporary residences for new arrivals, such as the former convict barracks in
Macquarie Street, Sydney or the Yungaba Hostel in Kangaroo Point, Brisbane which
remained in use for a century. Assistance with employment and with transport to bush
locations was also a common feature of the various assisted passage schemes in the
19th century. Much welfare was delivered through voluntary organisations, often at the
Australian end of migrant recruitment work by charities and religious bodies in Britain.
The great majority of immigrants until 1947 were from the United Kingdom. As British
subjects they were entitled to public welfare services also available to the Australiaborn. Generally speaking such services were not available to aliens and this continued
to be true until well into the 1960s.
The major welfare requirements of immigrants were usually seen as temporary
accommodation on arrival and assistance with finding employment. In times of
economic depression, such as the 1890s or 1930s, immigration was suspended.
Unemployed immigrants in these periods received very little public assistance other
than that available through public works and private charity to all Australians. Because
aliens were not eligible for public assistance, some ethnic groups, such as some
members of the Chinese and the Greek communities, founded their own private
charitable organisations confined to assisting members of their own background. The
Catholic church also had an important role in assisting those immigrants from Europe
who were Catholics, such as Italians, Maltese or Croatians and Jewish charities also
assisted their co-religionists.
The post-war situation
When the post-war immigration program began in 1947 the Commonwealth had
already taken over responsibility for welfare services from the States under the
constitutional amendment of 1946. It had also set up a Department of Immigration for
the first time and this soon expanded from recruitment to providing some settlement
services, especially temporary on-arrival accommodation and the teaching of English.
This became increasingly important as the balance of migration shifted from the United
2
Kingdom towards Europe and thus towards migrants who could not speak English and
were legally aliens. Over the period following 1947 the emphasis in settlement
provision shifted to what became known as non-English-speaking-backgrounds
(NESB) migrants.
The services for United Kingdom migrants included all those welfare provisions
available to the Australia-born, such as the Age Pension and unemployment benefit. As
there was almost no unemployment, the second provision was relatively unimportant
before 1975. As immigrants were selected on the basis of age, the pension did not
become an important need until about the same time and was available for British
migrants of the pre-war period, most of whom had arrived in the 1920s.
Commonwealth-assisted British migrants were housed in hostels in the major cities and
there was some resentment against conditions. However, these were supposed to be
self-financing and for temporary residence. The Good Neighbour Councils, formed in
1950 on the basis of already existing charitable bodies, also catered for the British, as
did a number of self-help organisations such as the UK Settlers League. Public housing
was available for British subjects and was used, especially in South Australia, as an
incentive to emigrate away from the acute British housing shortage which followed the
war. While there was a social services agreement with the United Kingdom, the main
difference between the two countries was the absence of a National Health Service as
introduced in Britain in 1948. Otherwise British migrants moved into a welcoming
environment as far as the provision of public welfare went. This did not prevent a
rising number of returns in the 1960s which inspired the Commonwealth to look more
closely at the problems of settlement both for the British and for Europeans.
3
Services for non-English-speaking-migrants
The post-war immigration program continued to cater for the British without
discrimination as they, like the Australia-born, were British subjects with full civil
rights. But the introduction of 170,000 Displaced Persons (DPs) from Europe between
1947 and 1952 radically changed the orientation of migrant welfare, making the
services provided by the Department of Immigration more important. The DPs were
transported to Australia free of charge and housed in former military camps usually at a
distance from the cities. They were bound to employment as directed by the
Commonwealth, which was not true for the British who were only obliged to remain in
Australia for two years or forfeit the cost of their assisted passage. Services such as
English teaching and employment assistance were centred on the hostels. As migrants
left these in the 1950s to enter the major cities, the responsibility moved to the Good
Neighbour Councils and to such public and private provision as existed. In most States
aliens were ineligible for public housing and consequently many built their own homes
on the outskirts of the cities. The Department of Immigration lobbied State housing
commissions with eventual success by the late 1960s. Few of the DPs went into public
housing. Public housing was much more important for the British, at least until the late
1970s.
A high rate of return to prospering countries like Britain, Germany and The
Netherlands, the arrival of many unassisted migrants from southern Europe, the
evidence of some social and mental health problems, unhappiness with the
‘mainstream’ charities organised through the Good Neighbour Councils and the
growth of self-help and self-government migrant organisations all combined to create a
crisis in settlement policy during the 1970s. This was addressed by the Whitlam
government (1972-75) through the Australian Assistance Plan, and by the
incorporation of the Department of Immigration into an expanded Department of
Labour and Immigration in 1974, and the transfer of its welfare and educational
functions to the mainstream departments responsible. Both these approaches were
reversed by the Fraser government which set up an inquiry into services under Frank
Galbally reporting in 1978. This endorsed the principles of multiculturalism in terms of
cultural and language maintenance. In the welfare area it supported an ‘ethnic specific’
4
approach which rested on the ability of ethnic and immigrant groups to provide welfare
assistance with government support and finance. As a corollary, public support was
withdrawn from the Good Neighbour Councils. Grant-in-aid workers were funded and
migrant resource centres created
the former numbering eventually about 250 and
the latter about thirty. These were administered and funded by the then Department of
Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which also maintained and improved migrant hostels
and continued to control the Adult Migrant Education (later English) teaching
programs. They were managed by committees drawn from the NESB organisations
and had little importance for British, New Zealand or other English-speaking migrants.
At the national and State levels Ethnic Communities’ Councils were created from 1974
and received public funds for their operations. They were not welfare deliverers but
advocacy bodies with a central interest in migrant settlement.
The Galbally program remains in place in its essentials and has operated under
Coalition and Labor Governments. It has not been without its critics
both those
who think it too generous and ‘divisive’ and those who think it a cheap alternative to
public provision. Over the long term it is possible to observe a steady expansion of the
Galbally provisions until about 1986 and a movement away from them since. This
corresponds to a growing hostile debate on multiculturalism, Asian migration and
migrant welfare which was marked from about 1984 and erupted from time to time
into the political arena, most markedly with the rise of One Nation in 1996. There were
various lines of attack: that ‘billions’ were being spent on ‘divisive’ ethnic activity; that
services should be ‘mainstreamed’ (as services to English-speaking migrants already
were); that welfare should only be available for citizens (as had previously been the
case for British subjects); that the Department of Immigration was an inappropriate
agency for welfare and education; that costs were escalating due to high
unemployment among recent arrivals; that immigration and settlement policy was being
driven by the ‘ethnic lobby’; and that there should be no need for special services for
immigrants other than refugees as migrants had been selected for their economic
viability.
The current situation
5
In response to these criticisms and in an atmosphere of stringency towards welfare in
general, there have been a number of changes in recent years, especially since the
election of the Coalition in 1996. The previous Labor Government had already
withdrawn some benefits (including unemployment benefits) from immigrants (other
than those arriving in the humanitarian categories) in the first six months after arrival.
As throughout the post-war period, the Age Pension was not available until ten years
after settlement. However, as we show below, where recently arrived migrants in the
pension age category were not able to support themselves, they have usually been able
to access a Special Benefit or some other benefit (like the Widow's pension) equivalent
to the Age Pension. The points system for the Independent and Concessional
categories, in any case, awarded nil points to those aged over forty-five. The Labor
Government had already closed remaining migrant hostels in 1994, replacing them by
flats. Only detention centres remained. The hostels had mainly been used by refugees
and provided settlement services including English teaching and referrals for
employment and to welfare agencies. Charges were introduced for English tuition
under the Adult Migrant English Program, again with exceptions including
humanitarian and preferential family entrants who made up a large part of the clientele.
Language services in translation and interpreting were put on a partly commercial
basis. Grant-in aid workers and migrant resource centres continued at about the same
level and the ethnic communities’ structure continued to be subsidised by the
Commonwealth and some States.
The principle of cost recovery for services was well established before the election of
the Coalition in 1996. Payments in advance for language tuition and bonds against
becoming reliant on welfare after arrival, were put in place by its Labor predecessor.
The Coalition extended the waiting period for welfare payments to two years after
arrival and increased already existing charges for services. The two-year waiting period
did not apply to those entering Australia under any of the Humanitarian categories, and
for New Zealand citizens the six months provision remained until February 2000.
However, asylum seekers awaiting refugee status were ineligible for most welfare
support but received government-funded assistance through charitable organisations,
principally the Red Cross. Unemployment continued at a level around eight per cent
until October 1998 when it fell to 7.3 per cent. Unemployment was especially likely to
6
be experienced by new arrivals who were ineligible for support as shown by successive
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Labour Force Survey results. Thus the savings
have been significant over the first two years of settlement. Savings on the hostels were
replaced by growing expenditure on detention, which Labor had made mandatory for
undocumented arrivals. Additional funds have been allocated to grant-in-aid, migrant
resource centres and ethnic community advocacy groups. These are essentially referral
and advice organisations and are not involved in welfare benefit payments. While there
have been reductions in services and increases in cost recovery, there has also been a
shift towards support for humanitarian entrants. In regard to skilled and family
category migrants, since 1996 intake policy has been tightened to ensure that only jobready and productive immigrants were admitted. Changes by the Coalition after 1996
have included an increase in the skilled and business intake; a reduction of family
reunion and the replacement of the Concessional family category by a ‘SkillsAustralian-Linked’ class; and periodic capping of the family reunion and the
humanitarian intake when numbers appeared likely to exceed those planned. Some
proposed changes have been held up in the Senate but there has been a degree of
bipartisan agreement.
The overall effect of changes made since 1986, (and particularly since 1992 when the
Labor Government reduced the program and made it more focussed on skills needed in
Australia) has been to focus selection on immigrants likely to be productive; to reduce
the cost of on-arrival services such as accommodation and English tuition; to transfer
welfare dependency for non-refugee arrivals to relatives or charities; to shift the
balance in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs away from
settlement and towards selection and compliance; to determine funding through
competitive tendering; to ‘mainstream’ provision within the major social security
departments; while maintaining the principle that all eligible migrants continue to have
equitable access to those services to which they are entitled. The overall objective is to
move towards what in the United States is called ‘cost free immigration’ and away
from the notion that immigrants have special welfare needs not shared with others.
The main focus of debate on immigrant welfare since 1947 has been on the Department
of Immigration. However, the main transfer payments and service delivery to NESB
7
Australians do not come from that Department. For at least the past ten years the issue
of ‘who is a migrant’ has been canvassed in policy discussion. This is particularly
relevant to the post-war European migrants who are now ageing and coming within
provision for the aged. The Galbally report, like all subsequent recommendations, saw
ethnic-specific or immigrant-specific services as ‘temporary’, on the assumption that
settlement was a process which would gradually merge into the mainstream and no
longer require special treatment or the role of the Department of Immigration. This is
based on an expectation of eventual assimilation, although that term had become
unfashionable as early as 1978. The main ‘barrier’ to accessing mainstream services
was always seen as lack of English language ability. The growth of an ethnic
constituency with a strong interest in ethnic-specific services shifted debate from shortterm immigrant settlement to long-term ethnic needs. This dichotomy was most fully
canvassed in the last major review of immigrants’ services, the Review of Migrant and
Multicultural Programs and Services (ROMAMPAS) in 1986. The Departmental view
was that settlement was a short-term process covering two years after arrival. This was
endorsed by The Committee to Advise on Australia’s Immigration Policies (CAAIP),
known as the Fitzgerald review of immigration policy. The ROMAMPAS view, later
endorsed by the Office of Multicultural Affairs (Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet), was that settlement might be a lifetime process for those not of British origin
and culture. Both positions are, of course, only partially true because the immigrant
experience varies. Many immigrants do become assimilated and fluent in English and
do not require specific services. But many do not assimilate to the same degree.
If settlement is indeed a short-term process, this would confine the welfare and
education functions of the then Department of Immigration, Local Government and
Ethnic Affairs to the two-year period after arrival. However, there is some ambivalence
about this and the Department strongly and successfully resisted the recommendations
of ROMAMPAS and Fitzgerald that the AMEP should be transferred to the then
Department of Education. Nor has it proved politically easy to transfer resources from
‘older’ communities to ‘newer’ ones. The largest transfer payments to NESB
Australians are now through the Age Pension and support for elderly accommodation
and not for new settlers, nor through the Department of Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs, which is a small and diminishing player in the delivery of ‘ethnic’ welfare.
8
However, the Department has developed the ‘access and equity’ approach from 1986
(and jointly with the Office of Multicultural Affairs after 1987) and the National
Integrated Settlement Strategy established in 1991. Both of these aim to ensure
effective co-ordination between all the various agencies (Commonwealth, State, local
and non-government) likely to be engaged in immigrant or ethnic issues.
The most directly involved Commonwealth departments at present are the Department
of Family and Community Services (which has assumed the functions of the former
Department of Social Security) and the Department of Health and Aged Care, the two
departments concerned with aspects of employment. The DSS had a well-developed
experience of Aboriginal welfare and had also increased its provision of information to
NESB Australians through an effective multilingual service. Were DIMA to abandon
its settlement function altogether, it is these departments which would take it up (as
previously under Whitlam in 1974-75). There is still some scepticism within some
ethnic communities about the ability and willingness of ‘mainstream’ departments and
agencies to cope equitably with the ethnic constituency. This is mainly because of
doubts about the capacity of these agencies to understand the distinctive cultural and
linguistic character of the NESB population. This was brought out in the extensive
review of the access and equity strategy in 1992. The social situation between various
communities is also very varied, as the statistics accompanying this report indicate.
While all clients are different, there are undoubtedly some cultural factors which
mainstream departments and agencies need to understand when dealing with the very
large immigrant or NESB clientele. These can be linguistic, religious, traumatic,
educational, generational, prejudicial and gender-based. An argument for retaining a
DIMA role in immigrant welfare is that it has built up a unique expertise in these areas
though one that is also shared with the various State ethnic affairs agencies. Some of
this expertise has been dissipated with the abolition of the Office of Multicultural
Affairs and the Bureau of Immigration, Multiculturalism and Population Research in
1996. However, DIMA and the State agencies are still the largest official repositories
of relevant knowledge and it would be unfortunate if this were to be lost through the
transfer of functions to other structures.
9
The NESB/Immigration population, however defined, constitutes about 20 per cent of
the Australian total. The accompanying statistics indicate that there is a high level of
welfare need within both recently arrived and long established NESB communities. In
the case of the latter, the need is primarily amongst older residents aged in their late
40s or above. These problems appear to be linked to poor English and lack of
qualifications relevant to the industrial transformation since the 1980s. There are also
particular problems, including prejudice in hiring, servicing or accommodation
affecting Muslims and other ‘visible minorities’; limited assimilation or acculturation,
which is a problem for the elderly, including many Europeans; limited education,
especially among those from civil war situations; and the effects of such situations and
of repressive regimes.
10
Data Sources
This is the first comprehensive report on welfare recipient patterns of migrants in
Australia that incorporates information about time of arrival to Australia on the part of
overseas-born recipients. The only previous major work on the subject is Peter
Whiteford’s Immigrants and the Social Security System which was published by the
Bureau of Immigration Research in 1991. Whiteford’s study utilised tabulations of
pensions and benefits (including those paid by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs)
which were matched against ABS estimates of intercensal population by birthplace for
the late 1980s. Whiteford’s main achievement was to incorporate age distribution into
the analysis, thus overcoming one of the deficiencies of earlier studies which had
ignored this factor. However, Whiteford did not have access to information which
indicated the time of arrival of overseas-born welfare recipients.
Some subsequent work, including that by Birrell1 and Healy2 which analysed the
proportions of migrants in the workforce who were reliant on unemployment and other
labour-market related benefits, used time-of-arrival data for benefit recipients obtained
from the then DSS, but had difficulty matching these data with an appropriate
denominator. These two studies used estimates of the relevant workforce derived from
settler arrival data. These estimates could not be adjusted for any persons leaving
Australia or who died after arrival. Also the settler arrival data could not be used for
any regional analysis of welfare-recipient levels because these data do not include
information on the intended location of migrants.
The information used in this report overcomes these deficiencies, at least for the
Census year 1996. The data base for welfare pension and benefit recipients derives
from DSS files as of late 1996 (as close as could be matched to the August 1996 date
for the 1996 Census). Information on country of birth, age, sex, location and date of
arrival in Australia was available for all recipients for each of the major benefits
(Jobstart, Sickness, Special Benefit) and pensions (Age,
1
Bob Birrell, 1993, ‘Unemployment benefit dependency amongst recently arrived migrants’, People
and Place, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 19-22
2
Ernest Healy, 1994, ‘Unemployment dependency rates amongst recently arrived migrants: an
update’, People and Place, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 47-54
11
Sole Parent, Disability). However, no parallel data were available for pensions
distributed by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. As a consequence, care must be
used in interpreting the welfare recipient rates for persons aged 65+. Since most of the
Veterans' Affairs pensions went to Australia-born residents, our estimates concerning
the proportion of Australia-born persons in the 65+ age group who are in receipt of a
benefit or pension understate the actual level. (There were at least 300,000 Veterans'
Affairs pensioners born in Australia who were aged 65+.)
The DSS data provided the numerator for the recipient patterns. The denominator was
drawn from 1996 Census counts which provided information on the birthplace, age,
sex and time of arrival in Australia for those born overseas. This is why the year 1996
was chosen for analysis. The denominator is a count of all those present in Australia,
and thus is the residual of all movements in and out of Australia, and of course those
still alive at the time of the Census. It therefore provides an accurate and comparable
base from which to calculate welfare-recipient rates. The two sets of data comprising
the numerator and denominator also make it possible to calculate welfare-recipient
rates for the various birthplace groups by time-of-arrival3 for any Statistical Local
Areas (SLA) in Australia
which in practice means such rates are available for every
Local Government Area. Because of the voluminous detail involved in such
calculations we present only a limited amount of this data below.
Though data are available for pension and benefit recipients for the years since 1996
there are no parallel estimates of the population base. The analysis done in this report
cannot be repeated until the results of the year 2001 Census become available. Thus
the recipient rates reported below are all in the form of ratios of persons in receipt of a
benefit or pension to the population base as of August 1996. These data predate the
extension of the waiting period for major welfare payments from six months to two
years implemented by the Coalition from April 1997. This affected most migrants
arriving since that time, except for those entering under the Humanitarian categories.
3
The time-of-arrival classifications for DSS recipients and the Census population are not identical.
This means that the welfare recipient rates for 1986-90 are understated because the Department of
Social Security data for arrivals 1986-1990 are for the period 1 July 1986 to 31 December 1990
whereas the population data are for 1 January 1986 to 31 December 1990. The recipient rates for pre1986 are therefore slightly overstated.
12
There is one alternative source of data which would partially rectify the absence of
intercensal population base estimates, and which could be used in future work on the
issue. This is DIMA’s settlement database. This provides information on most settler
arrivals by visa category, age, sex, birthplace, year of arrival and place of intended
residence. It could provide the basis for denominator estimates of migrants who arrived
since 1996, down to region or local government level. These data, along with parallel
DSS (now Centrelink) data would facilitate post-1996 estimates of settlement progress
(as gauged by the need for welfare assistance) for recent arrivals.
Because neither the DSS files nor the Census counts provide information on visa type
for overseas-born persons, we cannot comment on the welfare benefit needs of
migrants by visa category, with the exception of older persons who are recent arrivals,
most of whom would have entered as parents. Thus the research must be interpreted
cautiously in reference to selection policies issues. The welfare-recipient ratios
calculated give an accurate indication of the welfare needs of migrants by age,
birthplace and time of arrival in Australia. But inferences of such needs by visa
category can only be made by examining particular birthplaces of origin or English
language proficiency groups (defined below) where particular visa categories
predominate.
Because the data are cross-sectional in nature it is not possible to follow a panel or
cohort of migrants from time of arrival to 1996. Thus we cannot indicate any trends in
welfare needs of a particular group of migrants over time. However, when considering
whether welfare need diminishes with time in Australia, it is possible to compare the
groups of the same EP and age group at time of arrival who arrived between July1986
and 1990 and those who arrived between 1991 and 1996. This will capture the effect
of an additional five years in Australia on the need for welfare. This comparison only
holds if we assume that the characteristics of the two groups in skills and language
proficiency are the same. This issue is explored in detail below under the heading
Effects of time spent in Australia on welfare recipient levels.
13
A further relevant aspect of the data sources used in this study is that they are based on
birthplace rather than ethnicity. Thus they do not have much relevance to the welfare
system developed by DIMA since the Galbally report of 1978. This adopts a different
approach in that it operates in part through ‘ethnic specific’ agencies. Moreover, much
of the ‘mainstream’ delivery of welfare operates through religious institutions.
However, information on welfare needs is available for each birthplace group. Where
birthplace group coincides with ethnicity (and as the following comments indicate, it
often does not), the information will be of assistance for these large grant-assisted
categories.
The difficulties of implying ethnic linkages from birthplace data are illustrated by the
following cases. The majority of Australian residents born in India, Sri Lanka,
Singapore, Korea and Indonesia are Christians, despite Christianity being a (sometimes
very) small element in those societies. The majority from Malaysia and Timor, and
large minorities from Vietnam, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea and Thailand are ethnic
Chinese
as, of course are virtually all those from Hong Kong and Singapore. The
majority of those from Fiji are ethnic Indians. Birthplace data cannot accommodate
these factors and could distort intake policy if they are not taken into account. Current
skill selection policy concentrates on occupational skills recognised in Australia, age,
experience and English language capacity and this may greatly affect the ethno-cultural
character of those accepted from certain countries where some minorities are much
more privileged than the majority. It may also mean that there are considerable
differences in relation to welfare needs according to the cultural background of those
from the birthplace group in question.
Birthplace-based welfare recipient data also have to be interpreted carefully because
the characteristics of each birthplace group may vary sharply according to their time of
arrival in Australia. Thus the figures for the Vietnam-born encompass those who
escaped as boat people refugees, those subsequently admitted under the Orderly
Departure Program and the relatives of both groups admitted later. A similar variation
in mix applies to Lebanese and to some from China, Eastern Europe, Former Yugoslav
Republics and the former Soviet Union.
14
Welfare-recipient rates have been calculated for overseas-born persons by all major
birthplaces. However, in much of the presentation of the results below, these
birthplaces have been consolidated into English Proficiency (EP) categories as
classified by DIMA (see DIMA, Statistical Focus, 1996 Classification of Countries
into English Proficiency Groups, Revised, April 1999). There are four EP categories:
EP1 which includes those from Main English Speaking countries where at least 98
per cent of immigrants speak ‘good’ English and have at least 10,000 residents in
Australia,
EP2 which includes those countries for which at least 80 per cent of recent arrivals
indicated at the time of the 1996 Census that they spoke English well,
EP3 which includes countries where 50 to 80 per cent of recent arrivals indicated
that they spoke English well, and
EP4 which covers the remaining countries where less than 50 per cent of recent
arrivals stated at the 1996 Census that they spoke English well.
The detailed list of countries by EP category is shown in the appendix. It can be seen
from this appendix that EP group 2 is a disparate group composed of Western
European birthplaces, including Germany and The Netherlands as well as some Asian
birthplaces where, as a result of colonial experience, English is fairly widely spoken
(including India, Malaysia and the Philippines). EP group 3 is dominated by Southern
and Eastern European birthplaces. Most of the migrants from these birthplaces came to
Australia in the 1950s and 1960s. EP Group 4 is dominated by Asian birthplaces, and
most of the migrants in question arrived in Australia in the 1980s and 1990s.
The EP classification is useful in summarising the data and in overcoming some of the
interpretative problems associated with birthplace data. The EP categories also
incorporate a key hypothesis when it comes to explaining the factors shaping welfare
recipient outcomes. As numerous studies have shown, the relative success of migrant
settlement in Australia, as indicated in labour market participation and employment
rates, is influenced by English language skills. If, as expected, the need for welfare
assistance is also related to English proficiency we would expect to find the highest
welfare-recipient rates amongst EP groups 3 and 4.
15
16
Welfare Recipient Rate Findings
Statistical overview
Table 1 shows the ratio of DSS welfare benefit and pension recipients to the relevant
base population for all Australia-born and overseas-born persons by broad age group
(15-24, 25-44, 45-64 and 65+). Table 2 indicates the same ratios for the States.
Table 1: Australian-born and overseas-born welfare recipient rates by age group
1
and time of arrival for overseas-born persons
Overseas-born persons by age group Australian-born persons by age group
Date of arrival
15-24
25-44
45-64
65+
15-24 25-44
45-64
65+
in Australia
Pre July 1986
8.5
11.1
26.4
80.9
July 1986-1990
8.3
10.8
24.6
84.5
1991-1996
10.9
16.9
36.4
56.0
2
9.2
12.0
26.5
65.8
16.0
16.1
27.7
66.4
Total
43,528 187,262 364,518 481,555 335,736 630,567 647,934 941,521
Total number of
welfare recipients
1
Does not include Department of Veteran’s Affairs recipients. There were 503,996 such recipients
in 1996.
2
Total includes arrival date not stated.
Table 2: Australian-born and overseas-born welfare recipient rates by age group
and time of arrival for overseas-born persons by state
Date of arrival
in Australia
Pre July 1986
July 1986-1990
1991-1996
TOTAL
Overseas-born persons by age group
Australian-born persons by age group
25-44
45-64
65+
15-24
25-44
45-64
65+
15-24
New South Wales
7.9
7.6
10.8
8.7
11.1
9.9
16.4
11.7
24.7
23.3
34.7
24.7
79.3
82.8
51.9
63.8
15.3
16.4
28.4
67.2
14.6
14.4
26.4
64.8
17.1
27.7
66.6
17.6
28.7
67.7
15.1
25.3
62.4
20.0
37.1
67.8
Victoria
Pre July 1986
July 1986-1990
1991-1996
TOTAL
7.8
7.9
11.4
9.6
11.0
11.8
20.4
12.9
29.3
30.0
42.9
30.0
85.2
93.3
57.1
70.6
Queensland
Pre July 1986
July 1986-1990
1991-1996
TOTAL
10.7
11.3
12.3
10.3
12.6
12.2
16.3
12.3
23.9
22.3
34.0
23.5
73.8
75.5
68.9
56.1
17.9
South Australia
Pre July 1986
July 1986-1990
1991-1996
TOTAL
10.9
10.2
11.6
11.2
14.5
15.4
18.9
15.0
33.9
35.8
42.6
34.0
84.9
100.0
53.9
72.1
18.2
Western Australia
Pre July 1986
July 1986-1990
1991-1996
TOTAL
7.8
7.1
8.3
8.2
10.2
8.7
13.0
10.3
23.4
18.3
30.2
23.5
80.3
76.4
50.9
68.1
14.7
Tasmania
Pre July 1986
July 1986-1990
1991-1996
TOTAL
11.5
11.2
8.0
7.0
12.3
11.2
14.2
10.4
26.5
36.6
40.8
24.4
72.7
84.1
40.5
52.3
17
22.0
The major finding is that, overall, the overseas born have slightly lower welfarerecipient rates than do the Australia-born for each age group. This conclusion holds for
almost all age groups in each of the States as well. The only exception is for overseasborn persons aged 45-64 in Victoria and South Australia. It should be noted that the
proportion of Australia-born on the pension understates the position significantly
because it does not include pensions paid by the Department of Veteran's Affairs.
The state-based data are consistent with the relative strength of the respective state
economies as of 1996 (as indicated by unemployment rates). Thus we find that welfare
recipient levels for both overseas-born persons and Australia-born persons aged 25-44
and 45-64 are higher in South Australia than in Western Australia and New South
Wales.
Nevertheless, not too much should be made of the aggregate figures in Tables 1 and 2
because they hide wide divergences in welfare-recipient ranges by country of birth, by
EP category and by period of arrival. For example, as is shown below (Table 9), Perth
has received a larger share of EP1 migrants relative to EP3 and EP4 migrants (who,
the subsequent analysis shows, are far more likely to receive welfare benefits than
those from EP1 countries) than most other capital cities. Thus the state of the local
economy is only one part of story.
Table 3 provides information on the impact of time of arrival on welfare need. It shows
welfare-recipient rates by EP category by five-year age groups for males and females.
These figures indicate a sharp divergence in welfare-recipient rates between EP
categories. For all age groups, people in EP categories 1 and 2 show lower welfarerecipient rates than their Australia-born counterparts in the same age group. On the
other hand, the welfare-recipient rates for the Australia-born and EP1 and EP2
categories are generally lower for both males and females than is the case for those in
the EP3 and EP4 categories of birthplaces. The higher welfare rates for EP3 and 4
categories are particularly notable for the age groups 50-54 and above.
18
Table 3: Population numbers and welfare recipient rates for
Australian-born and EP categories for 5 year age groups by sex
FEMALES
< 25 yrs
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
MALES
< 25 yrs
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
Australianborn
EP1
EP2
EP3
EP4
TOTAL
(Aust. & EP
Groups)
16.1
1,034,252
16.8
523,759
16.4
499,973
16.8
499,202
16.4
450,962
17.3
402,611
24.0
313,272
38.7
250,055
66.6
218,615
13.6
61,339
13.1
53,549
12.3
76,808
12.2
79,627
10.8
73,706
10.5
80,763
16.8
65,741
33.0
52,494
64.3
41,951
4.4
89,376
6.9
50,445
7.4
60,066
8.0
65,326
8.9
66,200
10.7
69,522
16.4
50,130
26.4
38,106
43.2
34,518
8.9
55,578
13.0
34,987
12.5
43,503
13.5
50,233
15.8
55,571
20.4
60,962
34.1
47,024
54.0
48,295
79.2
42,372
18.4
25,233
21.4
19,348
16.8
22,721
16.9
22,089
19.2
17,721
25.4
11,958
39.2
7,097
51.3
6,233
59.2
6,136
14.9
1,265,778
15.7
682,088
15.0
703,071
15.3
716,477
15.0
664,160
16.2
625,816
23.5
483,264
38.9
395,183
65.4
343,592
15.9
1,063,635
17.3
517,455
15.8
490,505
14.9
488,415
14.2
445,230
14.0
400,268
17.4
310,863
26.7
243,128
41.9
204,024
12.9
63,196
12.7
52,765
11.0
75,786
10.4
79,129
9.7
75,732
9.4
88,103
12.5
73,859
22.2
58,410
40.4
45,203
3.8
98,361
5.8
50,673
6.8
55,664
7.0
58,432
7.8
60,465
9.2
67,567
12.6
53,566
18.5
42,195
30.3
36,300
9.6
56,702
18.6
33,302
18.3
41,650
16.5
47,074
16.0
52,174
16.9
61,805
24.2
51,966
35.3
55,035
53.4
49,277
17.9
24,191
25.2
17,007
20.7
23,420
20.8
22,803
19.7
17,609
21.1
12,067
31.9
8,062
41.6
6,047
44.2
5,297
14.6
1,306,085
16.4
671,202
14.9
687,025
14.0
695,853
13.4
651,210
13.3
629,810
17.1
498,316
26.6
404,815
42.1
340,101
It will be noted that welfare-recipient rates are higher for women than men in the age
groups 45+ across all EP categories. For the 60-64 age group this is primarily because
in 1996 females aged 60+ could access the Age Pension. This situation also explains
why the levels for women who are Australia-born or in the EP1 category also show
high recipient rates for this age group. Another factor influencing female welfarerecipient rates in the older age groups is that women have access to a wider range of
pensions and benefits than do men, including the Sole Parent and Widow's Pension (see
Table 6).
19
The figures in Table 3 are consistent with the expectation that English language
proficiency is related to welfare need. However other factors, including education and
training are likely to have contributed to this outcome. Though generalisation is
difficult due to the diversity of countries included in the EP groups, it is the case that
many migrants in EP groups 3 and 4 arrived in Australia with limited post-school
credentials. This circumstance, as well as their level of proficiency in English would
have influenced their labour market outcomes. For all the age groups under 55 years,
persons born in the EP4 group of countries, that is those with the lowest English
language proficiency, show the highest welfare-recipient levels, followed by those in
the EP3 category. However, the link with English capacity is less apparent with the
EP2 group. For this group, most of the five-year age groups show lower welfarerecipient levels than for the EP1 group (mainly the UK) and the Australia-born. Most
of those in the EP2 group, including persons born in Germany and The Netherlands,
have been in Australia a long time. Any disadvantage at the time of arrival in Australia
from not being native English speakers appears to have gone. Many of these migrants
possessed trade and technical skills that enhanced their employment prospects.
These results raise a crucial and much debated issue. Perhaps with time in Australia,
the high welfare recipient levels evident in 1996 for the EP3 and EP4 groups will
diminish too.
Effects of time spent in Australia on welfare recipient levels
Table 4 provides a further breakdown of the information shown in Table 3 by
incorporating the time-of-arrival factor. In setting the table up this way the objective
was to examine the difference time of arrival made to the need for welfare assistance
after controlling for English proficiency and age. We cannot be precise about the
migrants’ age at the time-of-arrival because of the way the age and year-of-arrival are
specified. Nevertheless, by comparing the welfare rates for particular age groups
across the three time-of-arrival categories it is possible to estimate the significance of
age at time-of-arrival on the propensity to need welfare assistance.
20
We might expect that the situation of people with poor English on arrival would
improve with increased familiarity with Australian conditions, experience in the local
labour market and time to learn English. It is more an open question whether such
improvement would occur if a migrant arrived in Australia at an older age. Persons
arriving in the over 40 age range may have difficulty getting the labour market
experience needed to improve their situation.
Table 4 gives qualified support for these expectations. Welfare-recipient rates are
higher for recent arrivals (those arriving between 1991 and 1996) in most age groups
and EP categories than earlier arrivals in the same age and EP categories. Thus, for
most EP categories and age groups, extra time in Australia is associated with reduced
need for welfare assistance. The only groups which do not fit this generalisation are
men aged up to 30-34 and women aged up to 35-39 amongst EP categories 1 and 2.
These latter groups apparently possess the skills and English language capacity which
enable them to prosper immediately in Australia without welfare assistance. Indeed,
their welfare rates tend to be lower than those for their Australia-born counterparts.
A more sophisticated way of making this comparison is to compare those who were in
a particular age group at time of arrival and who have resided in Australia for less than
five years with those who were in the same age group at time of arrival but who have
an additional five years residence in Australia. The shaded rows in Table 4 illustrate the
point. It shows that, for men aged 35-39 in 1996 who arrived 1991-1996, 21.6 per
cent were in receipt of a welfare benefit. If we assume that these people have the same
characteristics of those aged 40-44 in 1996 who had been in Australia an extra five
years, we can compare the effect of the extra time on their need for welfare. Of these
longer term residents shown in the shaded portion of the 40-44 panel, only 10.2 per
cent were in receipt of a welfare benefit. This pattern is shown for all EP groups for
men and is thus contrary to the findings of Borjas4 in America. Borjas followed a panel
of migrants after arrival in the US and showed that their receipt of welfare benefits
actually increased with time spent in America.
4
George J. Borjas, 1999, Heaven’s Door, Princeton University Press, p. 108
21
However, the pattern is reversed for women. There is a slight tendency for women to
need more welfare assistance with time spent in Australia, especially for women in the
older age groups. Some of the factors shaping this finding are explored below.
Does age at time of arrival make any difference to this outcome? First of all the table
confirms the expectation built into the points assessment for skilled migrants that the
older a person arrives the more likely he or she will need welfare assistance in the first
few years of residence here. This applies to all EP categories. For example, for the
male EP3 category, 28.5 per cent of arrivals in 1991-1996 aged 35-39 were welfare
recipients as compared with 34.1 per cent of those aged 45-49.
So far we have been emphasising findings which are common across all EP groups.
However, there are also important differences. The most significant is that the level of
welfare need in EP groups 3 and 4 is much higher across all age groups and time-ofarrival periods than is the case for EP groups 1 and 2. In the case of men, this can be
seen most clearly for the 50+ age groups. Table 4 shows that over 25 per cent of all
men from EP3 and 4 category birthplaces in this age group are in receipt of welfare
benefits including at least one in five of the men who arrived in Australia before 1986.
These rates are about double those for men in the 50+ age group from EP1 and 2
category birthplaces.
It appears that most of the EP group 1 and 2 migrants (particularly men) who arrived
in Australia before 1986 have been able to hold their employment into their late 40s
and 50s such that they do not need welfare assistance. Their welfare-recipient rates are
also well below those for Australia-born men and women in the 45-49 and above age
groups.
22
Table 4: Welfare recipients by Australian-born and EP categories for 5 year age groups by time
of arrival by sex
Aust.
FEMALES
< 25 yrs
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
25-29
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
30-34
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
35-39
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
40-44
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
45-49
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
50-54
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
55-59
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
60-64
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
MALES
< 25 yrs
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
25-29
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
30-34
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
35-39
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
40-44
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
45-49
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
50-54
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
55-59
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
60-64
Arrived pre Jul 1986
Arrived Jul 86-1990
Arrived 1991-1996
Total
16.1
16.8
16.4
16.8
16.4
17.3
24.0
38.7
66.6
15.9
17.3
15.8
14.9
14.2
14.0
17.4
26.7
41.9
EP1
EP2
EP3
EP4 TOTAL (Aust. &
EP Groups)
10.7
12.1
17.9
13.6
13.7
13.4
9.9
13.1
13.7
8.5
10.0
12.3
13.3
8.4
10.3
12.2
10.6
8.4
13.5
10.8
9.3
9.8
18.4
10.5
13.9
18.8
31.4
16.8
27.8
40.5
57.0
33.0
66.2
53.8
52.6
64.3
7.1
5.2
6.1
4.4
10.3
10.2
9.6
6.9
11.6
8.7
9.4
7.4
11.4
8.1
11.7
8.0
11.0
9.5
14.0
8.9
11.5
12.5
22.3
10.7
18.2
21.6
37.9
16.4
33.8
38.8
48.0
26.4
70.6
57.4
44.9
43.2
6.8
5.4
8.5
8.9
10.8
12.4
13.7
13.0
11.8
11.1
12.7
12.5
13.2
10.7
14.8
13.5
14.2
13.1
18.3
15.8
17.3
18.4
29.0
20.4
29.5
34.6
47.4
34.1
50.1
61.9
61.3
54.0
81.2
82.7
66.3
79.2
9.6
12.8
20.0
18.4
16.0
18.9
24.3
21.4
16.1
12.6
20.5
16.8
16.0
14.2
20.2
16.9
17.1
14.9
21.4
19.2
21.4
17.8
24.6
25.4
33.2
26.4
31.8
39.2
46.8
36.4
34.6
51.3
72.6
48.7
32.0
59.2
16.4
8.5
11.2
14.9
18.3
13.5
13.4
15.7
15.9
9.9
12.3
15.0
14.8
9.7
13.8
15.3
13.2
10.8
16.8
15.0
13.4
13.7
23.9
16.2
21.0
24.3
37.7
23.5
38.6
44.8
50.8
38.9
74.2
60.6
48.1
65.4
9.4
10.9
18.4
12.9
11.0
14.0
12.5
12.7
10.5
8.1
12.4
11.0
9.5
8.1
14.2
10.4
8.5
8.8
15.8
9.7
7.9
11.2
18.7
9.4
10.6
16.3
28.0
12.5
19.0
36.4
43.0
22.2
40.6
26.9
32.4
40.4
6.2
5.4
4.5
3.8
8.5
8.7
9.6
5.8
8.4
6.7
12.6
6.8
8.3
5.6
14.0
7.0
8.6
6.8
16.7
7.8
9.3
9.1
21.4
9.2
13.5
17.0
29.9
12.6
21.1
30.5
45.3
18.5
44.3
38.4
32.7
30.3
7.1
5.3
8.9
9.6
9.7
15.4
26.1
18.6
9.7
14.6
29.6
18.3
10.2
13.1
28.5
16.5
11.3
13.7
30.8
16.0
13.1
19.6
34.1
16.9
20.4
30.2
53.0
24.2
31.4
55.3
58.2
35.3
53.0
71.8
53.7
53.4
9.3
14.1
16.6
17.9
13.5
20.9
34.6
25.2
14.2
12.7
38.3
20.7
14.5
13.1
41.9
20.8
13.8
13.3
39.3
19.7
15.0
16.2
40.7
21.1
26.8
23.2
47.7
31.9
33.9
39.8
50.5
41.6
51.8
37.6
30.5
44.2
9.0
8.2
10.4
14.6
11.5
14.8
18.4
16.4
11.2
10.2
20.4
14.9
10.6
9.6
21.6
14.0
10.3
10.2
23.7
13.4
10.5
13.1
27.1
13.3
15.3
20.5
38.5
17.1
25.0
40.1
49.9
26.6
47.3
42.3
37.9
42.1
23
In the case of EP categories 3 and 4, an extended period of residence in Australia does
not insulate them from public assistance when they enter their late 40s or 50s to the
same degree as their counterparts from EP 1 and 2 birthplaces. By the time they reach
their fifties, a significant minority of long established residents from EP3 and 4
category birthplaces do need such help. The point can be made more clearly with
reference to selected birthplace groups. Table 5 shows the welfare recipient levels by
some of the larger birthplace groups drawn from each of the four EP categories. In the
case of EP categories 1, 2 and 3, the great majority of the men in the age group 45-64
in the listed countries arrived in Australia before 1986. Yet welfare-recipient rates vary
sharply. The rates for men from EP3 countries, including Greece and Former Yugoslav
Republics are about double the level for EP groups 1 and 2.
It is a serious matter that just on one in every five Australian and UK-born men in the
45-64 age group shown in Table 5 was receiving a welfare benefit in 1996. This
reflects the much discussed difficulties faced by older men in the Australian workforce.
In the case of the large Greek and Former Yugoslav Republics' population, at least one
in every three men in the 45-64 age group was in receipt of welfare assistance as of
1996. As with other men in this situation (including the 22 per cent of all Australiaborn men), these Greek and other overseas-born men are clearly in no position to save
for their retirement. They will need assistance for the rest of their lives. It is likely that
the higher welfare-recipient levels amongst the Southern and Eastern European-born
men reflects the fact that few possess the post-school qualifications or the kind of work
experience which would allow them to compete for jobs in the high growth sectors of
the economy. Many of the jobs they performed when they arrived, such as low skilled
process workers in the automobile assembly and parts industries, have been automated
or the products of the industries in question are now being imported.
24
Table 5: Welfare recipient rates for males and females
aged 45-64 by major birthplaces
Birthplace
Australia
United Kingdom
Germany
Netherlands
Malta
Greece
Italy
Former Yugoslavia
Poland
Vietnam
Welfare recipient rate EPGroup
Males
Females category
22.5
32.7
19.3
28.1
EP1
21.1
30.5
EP2
20.7
31.1
EP2
33.3
39.6
EP2
36.9
51.8
EP3
26.5
45.8
EP3
39.9
50.2
EP3
26.1
42.9
EP3
38.0
50.3
EP4
Most of the focus in this section has been on men. But, as noted above, for some
groups of female migrants, extra time in Australia leads to higher rather than lower
welfare-recipient levels. Also the overall welfare-recipient levels for women are much
higher than for men, especially in the older age groups. Both Tables 4 and 5 makes this
point clearly. The tables also show that welfare-recipient rates for women are much
higher for the EP3 and EP4 categories than for Australia-born, EP1 and EP2 category
birthplaces. Female welfare-recipient rates mirror those of their male counterparts. If a
male partner is unemployed (perhaps because of lack of English) it is likely that his
female partner will experience similar labour market difficulties. In addition, as noted
earlier, females have a wider range of benefits and pensions that they can access (as
shown in Table 6), including (in 1996) the Age Pension at age 60.
Types of welfare benefits received by migrants
Table 6 shows the major pension or benefit rates for Australia-born men and women
and for overseas-born men and women aged 40+ by EP category. It helps explain why
women tend to have higher welfare-recipient rates than men. The table shows that
Wife, Carer and Widow’s Pension, as well as the Disability Pension and unemployment
benefit, are all important sources of welfare assistance for women. Women are likely
to need such assistance because many lack work experience and because their family
role often requires them to act as carers or housewives.
25
The pattern is different for men. For men in their 40s, the Disability Pension and
unemployment benefit are the two main forms of assistance, with the unemployment
benefit being the most important. For men aged 50+ the Disability Pension dominates
for all EP groups and the Australia-born. For recent arrivals (not shown separately in
Table 6) unemployment benefits are by far the most significant form of assistance. The
main reason is that the Disability Pension is not available to migrants during their first
10 years of residence in Australia if the cause of the disability relates to events prior to
migration.
26
Table 6: Welfare recipient rates by major pension or benefit type by English Proficiency
Group; Females and Males, five year age groups, 40-64
Age
Group
Aust.-born
EP1
EP2
EP3
EP4
Aust.-born
EP 1
EP 2
EP3
EP4
Disability Sole Parent UnemployPension
Pension
Ment
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
3.1
4.5
7.1
9.5
0.8
1.5
2.3
4.4
6.9
0.8
0.9
2.0
3.9
5.4
0.6
2.5
4.8
9.6
13.7
1.6
1.8
4.4
8.9
8.5
1.0
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
5.0
6.0
9.1
15.9
25.0
2.8
3.3
5.6
11.3
20.3
1.8
3.2
5.8
10.2
17.3
4.4
7.2
14.0
24.8
38.6
2.3
4.3
12.7
17.8
16.2
7.3
3.4
1.3
0.4
0.0
5.7
2.6
1.1
0.3
0.0
3.7
2.2
1.0
0.3
0.0
5.0
2.7
1.2
0.3
0.0
8.2
4.6
1.8
0.6
0.1
FEMALE
3.1
3.8
3.7
2.6
0.1
2.1
2.4
3.0
2.6
0.2
1.7
2.3
2.8
2.1
0.1
3.0
3.3
3.2
2.3
0.1
5.4
7.1
9.6
9.2
0.4
MALE
7.5
6.6
6.7
8.9
2.8
5.8
5.1
5.9
9.4
3.5
5.2
5.1
5.8
7.1
2.5
10.3
8.4
8.4
8.7
2.7
15.8
14.9
16.8
21.2
10.7
27
Wife or Widows/
Carer
Partners
Pension Allowance
1.9
3.2
6.2
12.6
2.3
1.0
1.8
4.1
10.2
2.7
1.9
2.9
5.2
9.4
2.4
4.1
6.9
14.0
25.0
5.7
2.3
4.7
8.8
11.3
2.7
0.7
2.1
4.9
7.8
0.9
0.3
1.0
3.5
7.9
1.2
0.4
1.1
2.9
5.3
1.8
0.9
2.3
4.9
6.9
1.7
1.1
3.9
8.6
15.6
14.1
Other
Total
0.2
0.4
0.8
5.9
62.6
0.1
0.3
0.6
5.0
59.5
0.2
0.3
0.6
3.8
38.3
0.3
0.4
1.2
5.9
70.1
0.4
0.6
1.6
6.1
40.9
16.4
17.3
24.0
38.7
66.6
10.8
10.5
16.8
33.0
64.3
8.9
10.7
16.4
26.4
43.2
15.8
20.4
34.1
54.0
79.2
19.2
25.4
39.2
51.3
59.2
1.7
1.4
1.6
1.9
14.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.5
16.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.2
10.5
1.4
1.3
1.8
1.8
12.1
1.6
1.9
2.4
2.5
17.3
14.2
14.0
17.4
26.7
41.9
9.7
9.4
12.5
22.2
40.4
7.8
9.2
12.6
18.5
30.3
16.0
16.9
24.2
35.3
53.4
19.7
21.1
31.9
41.6
44.2
Welfare-recipient rates for persons aged 65+
The welfare-recipient rates for persons aged 65+ are quite different to the pattern
described above for migrants aged under 65, because their rates increase with time
spent in Australia rather than the reverse. Table 1 shows that the rate for all overseasborn persons arriving in Australia over the years 1991-1996 was 56 per cent,
compared with 84.5 per cent for those arriving between 1986-1990 and 80.9 per cent
for those arriving prior to 1986. The main reason for this pattern is that the Age
Pension, which is the dominant source of assistance paid by the Commonwealth to
those in the 65+ category, is not available to migrants until they have lived in Australia
for at least 10 years.
This restriction raises the question as to why 56 per cent of those aged 65+ in 1996
who arrived in Australia between 1991 and 1996 and 84.5 per cent of those arriving
between July 1986 and 1990 in the 65+ age group were receiving a welfare payment.
Table 7 provides a basis for exploring this issue. About half of the recipients in each of
these two arrival groups were receiving the special benefit, Wife or Carers Pension,
Widows Pension or some other payment. The large ‘other’ category for July 19861990 arrivals is mainly comprised of the Widow Pension Class B. This pension is being
phased out5, but is still available to women aged 50+ as of 1 July 1987 who
subsequently became a widow. A substantial minority of those arriving after 1986 was
nevertheless in receipt of the Age Pension.
Table 7: Welfare recipients rates by major pension or benefit type for overseas-born
persons aged 65+ by the time of arrival in Australia
Pension or benefit type
Wife or Widows/
Other1
Total
Carer Partners
Pre July 1986
79.7
0.1
1.0
80.9
July 1986-1990
44.7
1.4
14.7
1.4
3.4
18.6
84.5
1991-1996
29.8
0.3
16.8
0.7
6.5
2.0
56.0
Total2
62.1
0.1
1.3
0.1
0.6
1.6
65.8
1
Most of those arriving 1986-1990 on ‘Other’ were on the Widows B Pension which was phased out 1
July 1987 with some existing recipients continuing to receive the pension after that date.
2
Total includes time of arrival not stated.
Period of arrival in Australia
Age Disability
Special
5
No new grants of Widow's B Pension have been made since 20 March 1997. Existing recipients
continue to receive this pension until transferred to Age Pension.
28
Most of those receiving the Age Pension, even though in Australia for less than 10
years, did so under one of the 12 pension agreements the Australian Government has
signed, with such countries as Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Italy. These
agreements provide for reciprocal Age Pension payments. The Australian Government
pays Age Pensions to former residents of each of the Agreement countries (with
varying levels of contribution from the Agreement countries) regardless of date of
arrival in Australia. The other group not affected by the ten year rule on the Age
Pension are those who entered Australia under the Humanitarian visa category.
For aged migrants who arrived in Australia less than ten years before 1996, and not in
the above two categories, the main source of welfare assistance was the Special
Benefit available to persons not residentially eligible for the Age Pension. The great
majority of these persons would have originally migrated under the parent visa
category. In the initial two years of residence in Australia, a parent would not
normally seek access to Special Benefit because during those two years he or she
would be subject to an Assurance of Support. The amount of any Special Benefit
received by the parent while the Assurance of Support was in force would become a
debt, owed by the assurer (usually the adult child who sponsored the parent) to the
Commonwealth. Any such debt would be recovered in the first instance from the bond
(lodged by the assurer as a condition for granting the parent's visa). If the debt was
larger than the bond, the balance would be recovered directly from the assurer.
However after two years residence elapses parents do often seek the Special Benefit
for those not residentially eligible for the Age Pension. To be eligible, the applicant
must attest to Centrelink that he or she has little or no income and tiny accumulated
savings (defined as possessing less than $5,000 in accessible funds). There is no means
test applied to the adult child who sponsored the parent to Australia. If parents live
independently of their children after two years residence in Australia, then Centrelink
pays no regard to the circumstances of the sponsoring children. This situation would
change if the legal period of the Assurance of Support was extended beyond two years
(as was proposed by the Coalition Government in April 2000). However, where it can
be proved that the parent or parents continue to receive support from the child (for
29
example where a parent is living with the child) the Special Benefit may not be paid, or
the rate may be reduced in order to take account of the board and lodging provided.
Another important source of welfare assistance, which is only available for women is
the Widows Pension Class B and Widows Allowance. Women aged less than 60 who
are eligible for these benefits can remain on the benefit until they become eligible for
the Age Pension. That is, like the Special Benefit, these benefits are not subject to the
ten-year residence rule applying to the Age Pension.
Table 8 gives an indication of the extent of dependence on these Special Benefit and
Widows allowances for aged persons who have resided in Australia less than ten years
and are from countries where there is no pension agreement. Though not shown in the
table, only a very small proportion of the men and women from the countries listed had
entered under the humanitarian program, which would have made them eligible for the
Age Pension prior to ten years residence in Australia. Table 8 shows that near half or
more persons aged over 65 from the countries listed were receiving a benefit. The
figure for 1991-1996 arrivals is lower than for those arriving between 1986 and 1991
because the former group includes some persons still subject to the two-year bond.
The high level of eligibility for assistance on the part of persons not residentially
eligible for the Age Pension also applies to migrants from countries such as Malaysia
and India where the children sponsoring the parents usually occupy high status
occupations in Australia.
Table 8: Welfare recipient rates for persons age 65+ who
arrived in Australia between July 1986 and 1990 and
between 1991 and 1996 by selected birthplaces
Country of birth
Lebanon
Turkey
Malaysia
Philippines
Vietnam
China
India
Arrived July 1986-1990
100.0
97.0
47.5
69.4
77.1
48.4
51.1
30
Arrived 1991-1996
72.7
52.1
32.9
54.0
76.5
24.3
35.4
Locational patterns of migrants eligible for welfare assistance
The best guide to the residential locations of those eligible for welfare assistance is the
residential pattern of migrants by the various EP groups. Since migrants from EP3 and
4 category birthplaces are those most likely to need assistance, any concentrations of
these groups imply parallel concentrations of those requiring welfare help. Table 9
indicates the residential location of each EP group by the age groups 25-44 and 45-64.
The focus is on the capital cities because most migrants have settled in these cities.
Table 9: Percentage of EP group aged 25-44 yrs and 45-64 yrs living in major cities and
rest of Australia
Melbourne
Sydney
Perth
Brisbane
Rest
Total Australia
EP1
25-44
45-64
15.3
15.5
21.8
19.2
15.2
13.8
10.5
9.8
37.2
41.7
100.0
100.0
567,102 506,524
EP2
25-44
45-64
22.1
22.7
29.8
25.2
1.2
1.6
8.2
7.4
28.7
43.1
100.0
100.0
467,271 391,904
EP3
25-44
45-64
29.9
34.2
42.3
34.0
6.6
6.4
4.5
3.7
16.7
21.7
100.0
100.0
358,494 416,736
EP4
25-44
45-64
33.5
30.6
46.2
47.1
4.4
4.4
4.8
5.8
11.1
12.1
100.0
100.0
162,718
62,897
Table 9 shows that migrants from EP3 and 4 category birthplaces are concentrated in
Melbourne and Sydney. As of mid-1996, 21.2 per cent of Australia’s population lived
in Sydney and 17.9 per cent lived in Melbourne
39 per cent in total. By comparison,
some 80 per cent of EP group 4 migrants aged between 25 and 64 lived in Melbourne
or Sydney and over 70 per cent of those in EP group 3. Very few of these migrants
lived in Perth or Brisbane or any other locations in Australia. There is a significant
concentration of EP group 1 migrants in Perth and Brisbane but, as we have seen, the
welfare needs of migrants in the EP1 category are relatively low.
Table 10 provides information on welfare-recipient rates by EP group for Melbourne,
Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and Australia as a whole. As would be expected from the
earlier analysis, these rates are much higher for EP groups 3 and 4 than for EP groups
1 and 2. The welfare-recipient rates for EP groups 3 and 4 in Melbourne and Sydney
approximate the Australian level, though the rates in Melbourne are somewhat higher
than the national rates for migrants in these groups. In the case of Sydney the rates are
generally lower than the Australian rates for these two EP groups. Given the high
concentration of EP groups 3 and 4 in Melbourne and Sydney, it follows that there are
31
large numbers of migrants needing welfare assistance located in these cities. By
contrast, there are relatively small numbers of EP groups 3 and 4 in Perth and Brisbane
(Table 9). Those who do live in Perth show the lowest welfare-recipient rates of the
four cities (Table 10).
Table 10: Welfare recipient rates for men aged 24-44 yrs and 45-64 yrs by EP group for
Australia’s major cities
City
Melbourne
Sydney
Perth
Brisbane
Total Australia
Aust.-born
25-44
45-64
12.3
17.9
11.7
17.4
12.6
17.0
14.5
19.3
15.6
22.5
EP1
25-44
45-64
8.5
14.3
7.7
12.2
7.7
14.2
10.8
16.1
10.8
18.4
EP2
25-44
45-64
7.1
17.1
6.5
13.5
6.5
13.2
8.0
15.8
6.9
15.9
EP3
25-44
18.0
16.6
16.3
17.5
17.2
45-64
33.3
28.4
26.7
27.4
31.5
EP4
25-44
45-64
29.4
34.6
17.2
28.8
15.6
23.8
22.6
30.2
21.5
31.7
The question of whether the migrants needing welfare assistance within Australian
cities are concentrated in particular residential areas within these cities is another
matter. To explore this issue, a detailed analysis of the distribution of welfare recipients
by birthplace by locality expressed as a ratio of the relevant population by the same
locality was required. Data meeting these criteria were only available for Melbourne
and Sydney to Statistical Local Area (SLA) level. In addition the range of countries for
which such data were held was limited. Thus no analysis by EP category was possible
to the SLA level. Instead welfare-recipient rates by major country of birth for the age
groups 15-24, 25-44, 45-64 and 65+ by sex to SLA level for Melbourne and Sydney
were computed for 1996. Even at this level, the data generated were voluminous. The
following commentary summarises the results.
Studies based on the 1996 Census have shown that within Melbourne and Sydney,
recent arrivals from birthplaces included in the EP 4 category, or those arriving
predominantly in the 1950s and 1960s (the EP3 group), tend to concentrate in
particular suburban areas. In the case of Sydney, the concentration is in a belt of southwestern suburbs, including Canterbury, Auburn and Fairfield. In each of these suburbs
the majority of adult residents are overseas born, mainly from NESB countries. In the
suburbs adjoining their borders around a half of the residents are overseas born, again,
mainly from NESB birthplaces.6 In Melbourne there is a similar, though somewhat
more dispersed, pattern in that there are several areas of such concentrations, including
6
Bob Birrell and Byong-Soo Seol, 1998, ‘Sydney’s ethnic underclass’, People and Place, vol. 6, no. 3
32
Maribyrnong and Sunshine to the west, Preston, Coburg and Broadmeadows to the
north and Springvale and Dandenong in the south east of Melbourne. There is also a
tendency for these concentrations to increase in both Melbourne and Sydney. This is
despite very considerable residential ‘churning’ on the part of both NESB residents and
fellow Australian and English-Speaking Background (ESB) residents. What is
distinctive about all the suburbs mentioned is that they are low cost housing areas
relative to most other parts of Sydney or Melbourne. This is a major reason why
migrants in the EP3 and 4 groups concentrate in them.
The reason for this tendency towards concentration is partly that the Australian and
ESB residents tend to move out at a higher rate than do their NESB counterparts. But
the most important factor contributing to increasing concentrations of NESB origin
residents in these suburbs is that they are the main initial settlement points for recently
arrived low income migrants7, most of whom have entered Australia during the 1990s
under the family and humanitarian programs.
The implications for welfare distribution patterns are displayed in Table 11. This table
shows the welfare-recipient levels for all males and females aged 45-64 in the suburbs
discussed above. The reason for focussing on this age group is that, as noted earlier,
this is the age group of greatest concern from the point of view of the long-term
implications of welfare dependency. This is because men and women in this age group
who are reliant on a welfare benefit or pension are likely to be struggling to provide for
their families and are very unlikely to be able to save for their retirement.
The long-term prospect is that they will have to rely on the Age Pension in retirement.
The welfare recipients included in Table 11 encompass persons from all birthplaces
who live in the municipalities in question. But because the Australia-born and
Western European born residents usually constitute a minority of the residents, the
7
For Sydney, see Bob Birrell, 1999, ‘Residential relocation in Sydney and the NSW coast over the
period 1991 to 1996, People and Place, vol. 7, no. 2. For Melbourne, see Bob Birrell, Kevin
O’Connor and Virginia Rapson, 1999, ‘Explaining spatial concentrations of the poor in metropolitan
Melbourne’, People and Place, vol. 7, no. 1
33
table gives a good indication of the extent of concentration of migrants from EP3 and
4 birthplaces who need welfare assistance. For example, in the SLA of Fairfield in
1996, only 3,950 of all 17,930 men in the 45-64 age group were Australia-born.
We calculated welfare-recipient rates for all major countries of birth in each Melbourne
and Sydney SLA but, as indicated, the results were too voluminous to include in this
report. Nevertheless, it is important to note that inspection of the rates for the
Australia-born group in Fairfield and the other suburbs in question indicate that they
are almost as high as their counterparts from EP3 and 4 birthplaces.
Table 11: Welfare recipient rates and population, men and women aged 45-64 yrs in SLAs* with
high proportions of residents from EP3 and EP4 birthplaces, Melbourne and Sydney
Females 45-64 yrs
Males 45-64 yrs
Recipient
rates (%)
Population
Recipient
rates (%)
Population
Yarra (C) - Richmond
Brimbank (C) - Sunshine
Hobsons Bay (C) - Altona
Maribyrnong
Moreland (C) - Brunswick
Moreland (C) - Coburg
Moreland (C) - North
Darebin (C) - Northcote
Darebin (C) - Preston
Hume (C) - Broadmeadows
Greater Dandenong (C) - Dandenong
Greater Dandenong (C) - Balance (Springvale)
Mornington Peninsula (S) - South
42.7
49.4
44.3
54.1
51.7
51.9
53.1
48.7
53.7
48.6
44.5
40.8
50.1
2,054
8,223
5,160
5,307
3,592
4,575
5,027
4,158
8,117
6,506
5,993
7,743
4,515
34.3
37.2
29.9
44.9
42.9
37.4
36.6
38.4
37.8
35.9
30.3
27.7
34.6
2,050
8,528
5,112
5,381
3,518
4,413
4,368
4,083
7,691
6,571
6,019
7,938
3,932
Melbourne Statistical Division
32.4
326,712
21.7
322,429
Marrickville (A)
Bankstown (C)
Canterbury (C)
Fairfield (C)
Auburn (A)
Liverpool (C)
Wyong (A)
40.9
36.9
38.6
44.5
42.5
39.7
49.3
7,205
16,428
12,968
17,198
4,301
11,248
11,851
34.8
25.1
27.3
32.1
33.3
27.0
37.3
7,965
16,248
13,446
17,930
4,789
11,466
11,059
Sydney Statistical Division
27.2
383,654
18.8
386,463
Australia
32.1
1,847,915
22.4
1,873,373
Melbourne
Sydney
* Mornington Peninsula (S) – South and Wyong (A) have low numbers of EP3 and EP4 residents. They
were included in the table for comparative purposes.
Table 11 shows that the welfare-recipient rates for persons aged 45-64 in the suburbs
listed are well above the average for Melbourne and Sydney respectively. This reflects
34
the over-representation of EP groups 3 and 4 in Melbourne and Sydney and, within
these cities, the tendency for such residents to concentrate in the suburbs with the
lowest housing prices. Lower income Australian and English-speaking residents are
more dispersed across Sydney and Melbourne. However, there are some outer suburbs
including Wyong (which is part of the Sydney Statistical District) and the Mornington
Peninsula in Melbourne (both shown in Table 11) which are also relatively low-cost
housing areas where the great majority of residents are Australia-born. These areas
tend to attract low-income Australia-born residents and thus show similar high welfarerecipient rates to those with high concentrations of EP3 and 4 birthplace migrants.
From a settlement point of view, Table 11 gives a good indication of the appropriate
location for migrant welfare assistance. The direction of welfare policy discussed at the
beginning of this report towards the ‘mainstreaming’ of welfare payments is working in
the sense that a substantial proportion of migrants coming from backgrounds without
the skills to find employment in Australia’s current economy are being provided with
income support benefits or pensions. At least that is what is implied by the high
percentage receiving such help as indicated in Table 11 and earlier tables. However,
the concentration of such migrants in Melbourne and Sydney and within particular
suburbs in these cities indicates that the data should be a good guide to the location of
ethnic specific grant in aid workers and Migrant Resource Centres.
35
Appendix: Country classification used for
English Proficiency Groups
AUS
Australia
EP1
New Zealand
UK exc. Ireland
Ireland
North America
South Africa
EP2
Australia
Micronesia & Melanesia
Polynesia
Malta
Spain
Former Yugoslavia
Austria
Germany
Netherlands
Former Czechoslovakia
Former USSR & Baltic States
Other Europe
Other Mid East & Nth Africa
Malaysia
Philippines
India
Sri Lanka
Other Asia
North America
Other Cent, Sth Amer & Carib
Other Africa exc Nth Africa
All other incl not stated
EP3
Micronesia & Melanesia
Polynesia
Cyprus
Greece
Italy
Former Yugoslavia
Hungary
Poland
Former USSR & Baltic States
Other Europe
Iraq
Lebanon
Egypt
Other Mid East & Nth Africa
Indonesia
Other Asia
Chile
Other Cent, Sth Amer & Carib
Other Africa excl. Nth Africa
All other incl. not stated
EP4
Turkey
Cambodia
Vietnam
China exc Taiwan Province
Other Asia
36