The Changing Settlement Experience of New Migrants

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 Dr Sue Stack Megan Moskos Laurence Lester Josh Healy Lauren Miller-Lewis Diana Ilsley John Horrocks

ISBN 0 642 26083 4 Commonwealth of Australia 2004 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. All other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Copyright Services, Info Access, GPO Box 2154, Canberra ACT 2601 or by e-mail Cwealthcopyright@finance.gov.au. 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 or email: research@immi.gov.au.

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 29 Family Income 6.5b Percentage of Primary Applicants (And Their Families) With Given Levels of Housing 30 Costs for Each Level of Family Income 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 37 Since Last Interview, Cohort 2 Wave 2 7.2 Characteristics of Migrants Who Tried to Improve English Since Last Interview, Cohort 2, 38 Wave 2 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 48 Their Main Job 8.3 Selected Features of Migrants Participation In Further Study 52 9.1 Selected Characteristic of Migrants Who Transferred Funds, Personal Effects Or Capital 55 Equipment to Australia 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 88 And In Australia 12.2 Characteristics of Sole Person Households, Migrants Compared to The General Australian 91 Community 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

Executive Summary A 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 report 2, 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 twelvemonth 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. 1

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. 2

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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. 7

1. Introduction A 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). 8

2. Employment A 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%. 9

Figure 2.1 Labour Force Status 70 60 50 Percent 40 30 20 10 0 Employed Unemployed Not in Labour Force Cohort 1 - Wave 1 Cohort 1 - Wave 2 Cohort 2 - Wave 1 Cohort 2 - Wave 2 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 10

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. 11

3. INCOME I 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. 4 For example, as described previously, for Cohort 2 Wave 1, the employment to population ratio for males and females was 64 percent and 37 percent. 12

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. 13

4. HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE O 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. 14

5. HEALTH 5.1 Physical Health M 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.) 15

Figure 5.1 Assessing health as good or very good, by selected factors 100 80 Percent 60 40 20 0 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 Cohort 1 - Wave 2 Cohort 2 - Wave 1 Cohort 2 - Wave 2 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. 16

Table 5.1: Presence of long-term health conditions, by selected characteristics Characteristic Cohort 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 longterm 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., 17

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 Characteristic Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 % % % Visa Category Concessional 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 Gender Male 21 25 20 Female 27 27 26 English Proficiency English only or best 23 25 19 English well and other language 25 22 23 English not well or not at all 25 31 31 Age 15-24 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). 18

Table 5.3: Interrelationships between health factors Health Factors Cohort Wave Have a Long-Term Health Condition Have Significant Psychological Distress Have Visited a Health Care Provider in last 4 weeks Total % % % % Health Assessed as Very Good C1W2 4 16 18 42 C2W1 2 18 22 55 C2W2 4 14 25 49 Health Assessed as Good C1W2 9 25 37 45 C2W1 11 31 42 37 C2W2 10 26 44 42 Health Assessed as Fair C1W2 27 42 55 11 C2W1 32 56 61 6 C2W2 37 59 66 7 Health Assessed as Poor/Very Poor C1W2 45 52 87 3 C2W1 62 62 68 2 C2W2 85 73 93 2 Have a Long-term Health Condition C1W2 N/A 37 58 10 C2W1 N/A 44 62 8 C2W2 N/A 46 59 10 Have Significant Psychological Distress C1W2 N/A N/A 37 24 C2W1 N/A N/A 38 26 C2W2 N/A N/A 48 23

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 healthrelated 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 longterm 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 20

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. 21

6. HOUSING F 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 household Cohort 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 22

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 Australianlinked 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. 23

Table 6.2 Housing Tenure by Visa Category Housing Status Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked Independent Preferential family/ Family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Own or paying off C1W1 9 5 14 29 * 11 C1W2 23 20 25 49 4 22 C2W1 11 11 19 41 * 16 C2W2 29 27 30 63 6 29 Renting privately C1W1 48 73 42 55 60 51 C1W2 57 70 42 44 70 52 C2W1 48 76 42 45 73 54 C2W2 53 69 45 30 73 53 Rent from government C1W1 * * 4 * 7 4 C1W2 * 1 5 * 9 4 C2W1 * * 3 * 11 3 C2W2 * * 4 * 13 3 Other rent, board C1W1 43 22 41 14 33 36 C1W2 19 10 28 7 18 22 C2W1 42 13 36 14 16 28 C2W2 17 4 21 8 8 15 Notes: (1) * = number of observations very small (n<5) (2) Previous Housing report showed Table of Housing Arrangements identifying Rent free family/other and Other separately. This Table combines these into Other rent, board and the data is consistent with that previously reported.

Table 6.3 Dwelling type by visa category Dwelling Type Cohort Wave Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Separate House C1W1 60 35 53 58 40 49 C1W2 50 43 50 68 38 47 C2W1 55 36 52 59 35 47 C2W2 55 40 50 54 35 47 Semi-detached house C1W1 10 14 13 16 14 13 C1W2 13 15 16 10 15 15 C2W1 15 19 11 12 12 13 C2W2 16 13 13 19 19 14 One to two storey flat C1W1 15 23 16 9 25 18 C1W2 16 22 18 10 25 19 C2W1 17 20 18 7 26 18 C2W2 12 19 21 5 25 19 Three or more storey flat C1W1 14 25 15 12 19 17 C1W2 17 19 13 11 20 15 C2W1 12 23 16 20 26 18 C2W2 16 26 13 21 20 18 C1W1 2 3 3 5 2 3 Other C1W2 5 1 3 2 2 3 C2W1 2 2 4 3 2 3 C2W2 2 2 3-1 2

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. 26

Table 6.4 Housing satisfaction by visa category (per cent) Standard of Current Housing Cohort /Wave Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % C1W2 61 68 69 77 52 66 Good C2W1 73 58 65 72 53 64 C2W2 70 63 71 74 54 68 C1W2 37 29 28 23 40 31 Moderate C2W1 25 36 28 26 35 30 C2W2 27 33 24 25 37 28 C1W2 3 3 3 + 7 4 Poor C2W1 3 6 6 3 12 6 C2W2 3 3 5 + 10 5

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. 28

Table 6.5a Proportion of Primary Applicants with given levels of housing costs for each level of family income Weekly Rent /Mortgage Payment Cohort/ Wave Weekly Family Income ($) 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. 29

Table 6.5b Percentage of Primary Applicants (and their families) with given levels of housing costs for each level of Household income Weekly Rent/Mortgage Payment Cohort Wave Household Income 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 $200-$299 C2W1 30 16 12 18 18 17 C2W2 24 9 14 25 26 23 $300 or more C2W1 C2W2 7 20 3 3 (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. 2 5 5 4 16 21 9 13 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. 30

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 31

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). 32

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 Australianlinked 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). 33

The Independent entrants are more costconscious 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 Australianlinked 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 Australianlinked visa category groups. Moving to purchase a dwelling is a major motivation for the Business skills/employer nomination scheme entrants and migrants 34

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. 35

7. English Proficiency O 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. 36

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 37

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 Preferential family/family stream 16 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. 38

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 100 80 Per cent of courses 60 40 20 0 Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 AMEP Other formal course Informal methods Other don t know 39

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, 40

Figure 7.2 Benefits of English language classes, Cohort 2 Wave 2 (per cent) 100 80 60 % 40 20 0 Getting a job/looking for work Getting qualification recognised Getting into other courses Communicating Finding out about with family, social other government or community services groups Everyday activities AMEP courses Other types of formal courses 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 41

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 selfconfidence, 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 20 15 % 10 5 0 Improves Made friends self-confidence 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 42

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. 43

8. Qualifications I 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 postimmigration. By contrast, 36 per cent of Cohort 1 and 40 per cent of Cohort 2 had not sought assessment of their qualifications 8. 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. 44

Figure 8.1: Migrants qualifications assessment 60 40 % 20 0 Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 Assessed Not Assessed Not Applicable 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 45

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 nonassessment 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 46

Figure 8.2: How qualifications assessed (per cent of total assessed) 100 80 60 % 40 20 0 Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 At same level (fully recognized) As requiring some training At a lower level As requiring full training 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 Australianlinked 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 47

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 Usage Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 % % % % Visa category Concessional family/skilled 45 45 53 58 Australian-linked 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. 48

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 migrants 9 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. 49

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 development 10. 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 50

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. Seventytwo 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 Australia 11. 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 employerprovided 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 onequarter (24%) of the study that migrants in Cohort 2 have undertaken. The next most common qualification 12 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 migrants 14. 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. 51

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 Group 2 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. 52

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 Australianlinked and Independent visa categories, in the younger age groups, and with higher English proficiency, are most likely to undertake further study in Australia. 53

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. 54

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 55

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. 56

Figure 9.1: Value of assets transferred to Australia, Adjusted average value $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 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 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 57

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 Assets Cohort 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 58

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. 59

Figure 9.2: Average value of assets transferred by migrants in the form of funds $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 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 60

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 midpoint 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 61

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 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 Note: Outliers have been excluded. 62

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 63

Table 9.4: Financial help, selected Features Value of help received Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 $ $ $ $ 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 value 2 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 30 25 38 32 Australian-linked Independent 27 25 24 24 Preferential family/family stream 35 31 50 41 Business skills/employer 19 17 16 23 nominationscheme 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 64

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. 65

10. Sponsorship of Relatives I 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. 66

Figure 10.1: Assistance received from sponsor, Cohort 2, (per cent of sponsored families) 100 80 60 % 40 20 0 General Information Food, Clothing, Goods Finding Accommodation Financial Assistance Work/Assistance in Finding None of the above Wave 1 Wave 2 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 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). 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 threequarters of the Concessional family/skilled Australianlinked were employed compared to just over half for the 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). 67

Table 10.1: Assistance received from sponsor, by visa category (per cent of sponsored families) Assistance Received Cohort Wave Concessional family/skilled Australianlinked 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). 68

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, 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. 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). 22 Concessional and Independent category numbers are too small to analyse. 69

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 relatives 1 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 70

Table 10.3: Sponsorship of Relatives, per cent of Primary Applicants Sponsorship Intention or Action Cohort /Wave Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Applied to sponsor* C1W2 8 5 5 + 31 15 C2W2 7 4 3 + 22 5 Successfully sponsored* C1W2 4 3 2 + 11 4 C2W2 4 2 1 + 3 2 Intent to sponsor any C1W2 27 23 23 15 41 25 (more) C2W2 54 42 36 33 65 41 Neither sponsored nor C1W2 65 72 73 83 28 60 intend to** C2W2 27 53 59 64 4 44 Note: * Questions in the two cohorts required manipulation to obtain comparative results. ** Calculated as a residual (Business adjusted for empty cells) + = Number of observations very small (< 5)

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. 72

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 Australianlinked 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 73

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. 74

11. Satisfaction With Life In Australia I 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-ofmouth 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 75

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 76

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 77

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. 78

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. 79

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. 80

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 onethird 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). 81

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). 82

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). 83

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, nonmaterial 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. 84

12. Social Indicators T 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 crime 24 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. 85

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 intercultural 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 intercultural 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). 86

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 welldeveloped 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. 87

Table 12.1: Perceptions held by migrants about aspects of life in their former country of residence and in Australia Proportion of Each Cohort/Wave (%) Cohort 1 Wave 1 Former Country Cohort 1 Wave 2 Australia Cohort 2 Wave 1 Former Country Cohort 2 Wave 2 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. 88

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 contact 25 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. Thirtythree 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 to nominate more than one form of contact. 89

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. 90

12.2: Characteristics of sole person households, migrants compared to the general Australian community. Characteristic Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 Australian Population % % % % Gender 1 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). 91

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 in each 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. 92

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. 93

13. Support Services T 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 94

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 95

Table 13.1: Support received (per cent of PAs) Type of Support Cohort/Wave Male (%) Female (%) Total (%) Looking for work C1W2 32 23 27 C2W1 37 29 33 C2W2 28 27 27 Financial matters C1W2 8 7 7 C2W1 24 18 21 C2W2 25 17 21 Taxation C1W2 15 6 11 C2W1 37 33 35 C2W2 33 23 28 Housing/accommodation C1W2 10 9 10 C2W1 33 23 28 C2W2 17 14 15 Education and training C1W2 14 10 12 C2W1 15 19 17 C2W2 12 16 14 Qualifications recognition C1W2 7 4 6 C2W1 10 10 10 C2W2 6 7 7 Learning English C1W2 28 33 30 C2W1 27 35 31 C2W2 22 30 26 Interpreting C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 12 14 13 C2W2 10 14 12 Translate written documents C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 9 8 9 C2W2 6 8 7 Interpreting/Translating C1W2 12 13 12 C2W1 n/a n/a n/a C2W2 n/a n/a n/a Finding out about immigration/ C1W2 5 4 4 sponsorship C2W1 3 4 3 C2W2 9 7 8 Legal advice C1W2 4 2 3 C2W1 5 4 5 C2W2 9 6 7 Social security services C1W2 27 22 25 C2W1 17 14 16 C2W2 15 13 14 Health services/health insurance C1W2 19 19 19 C2W1 56 56 56 C2W2 39 47 43 Child minding C1W2 5 4 5 C2W1 4 4 4 C2W2 5 7 6 Aged care C1W2 + <0.5 <0.5 C2W1 + + + C2W2 + + + Torture/trauma counselling C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 1 1 1 C2W2 1 1 1 Other C1W2 1 1 1 C2W1 3 3 3 C2W2 4 3 4 Notes: n/a = not available, + = number of observations very small (n<5) 96

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 97

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 98

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 % % % Medicare C2W1 86 87 86 C2W2 50 63 56 Australian Taxation Office C2W1 62 52 57 C2W2 36 29 33 Centrelink C2W1 47 41 44 C2W2 41 41 41 DIMIA C2W1 21 21 21 C2W2 19 20 20 Employment Agency C2W1 23 19 21 C2W2 19 19 19 Other Government Agency C2W1 10 9 9 C2W2 11 10 10 Migrant Resource Centre C2W1 7 5 6 C2W2 5 5 5 Embassy Of Former Country of Residence C2W1 3 2 2 C2W2 4 3 3 Ethnic Club C2W1 2 2 2 C2W2 2 2 2 Voluntary Welfare Agency C2W1 2 1 1 C2W2 1 1 1 Ethnic Welfare Agency C2W1 1 1 1 C2W2 1 <0.5 1 Torture/Trauma Counsel Services C2W1 1 <0.5 1 C2W2 1 1 1 Note: There was no equivalent question asked for Cohort 1 Wave 2. 99

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 100

Table 13.3: Primary Applicant satisfaction with help from support services Type of Support Cohort/Wave Male Female Total % % % Ethnic Club Ethnic Welfare Agency Voluntary Welfare Agency Migrant Resource Centre DIMIA Centrelink Employment Agency Medicare Embassy Of Former Country of Residence Torture/Trauma Counsel Services Australian Taxation Office Other Government Agency C1W2 96 100 98 C2W1 87 100 91 C2W2 100 92 96 C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 100 83 93 C2W2 100 100 100 C1W2 92 100 96 C2W1 88 100 92 C2W2 81 100 88 C1W2 99 91 94 C2W1 88 91 90 C2W2 93 94 93 C1W2 95 94 95 C2W1 91 82 87 C2W2 93 89 91 C1W2 95 98 96 C2W1 88 84 86 C2W2 90 93 92 C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 77 74 76 C2W2 81 82 81 C1W2 97 97 97 C2W1 97 94 96 C2W2 98 95 97 C1W2 * * 67 C2W1 98 92 95 C2W2 96 95 97 C1W2 n/a n/a n/a C2W1 100 100 100 C2W2 92 100 96 C1W2 98 98 98 C2W1 98 99 99 C2W2 99 99 99 C1W2 91 92 91 C2W1 90 83 87 C2W2 93 90 91 Notes: n/a = not available, * = number of observations very small (n<5) 101

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) 100 80 % 60 40 20 0 General Information Food, Clothing, Goods Finding Accommodation Financial Assistance Work/Assistance in Finding None of the above Wave 1 Wave 2 102

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. 103

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. 104

Appendices

Table A5.1: Percentage who at assessed their health as good or very good by Selected Characteristics Characteristic Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 % % % Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian- 90 96 95 linked Independent 91 95 94 Preferential family/family stream 86 91 92 Business skills/employer Nomination 92 95 95 scheme 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

Table A5.2: Self-assessed health status by visa category Health Status Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australianlinked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Very Good C1W2 45 48 40 53 32 42 C2W1 65 59 54 60 31 55 C2W2 53 54 48 51 28 49 Good C2W1 30 37 38 35 43 37 C1W2 45 43 46 39 45 45 C2W2 42 40 44 44 41 42 Fair C1W2 8 8 12 7 17 11 C2W1 4 4 7 4 16 6 C2W2 5 6 6 4 19 7 Poor/ Very Poor C1W2 2 1 3 1 6 3 C2W1 + 1 2 + 9 2 C2W2 + 1 2 + 13 2 Note: + Number of observations very small (n<5)

Table A5.3: Self-assessed health status by gender Health Status Cohort/ 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 Status Cohort/ 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

Table A5.5: Self-assessed health status by age Health Status Cohort/ Wave 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total % % % % % % % Very Good C1W2 39 44 43 C2W1 52 59 57 C2W2 51 52 48 40 37 21 42 51 36 24 55 47 30 25 49 Good C1W2 47 44 45 C2W1 39 34 37 C2W2 41 42 42 42 40 52 45 38 44 58 37 41 52 51 42 Fair C1W2 11 9 9 15 16 22 11 C2W1 7 5 6 6 15 17 6 C2W2 6 5 8 9 8 21 7 Poor/ Very Poor C1W2 3 2 3 3 7 5 3 C2W1 2 2 1 5 4 + 2 C2W2 2 1 3 4 10 + 2 Note: + Number of observations very small (n<5)

Table A5.6: Wave 2 self-assessed health status by visa category Health Status Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australianlinked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Very Good C1W2 45 48 40 53 32 42 C2W2 53 54 48 51 28 49 Good C1W2 45 43 46 39 45 45 C2W2 42 40 44 44 41 42 Fair C1W2 8 8 12 7 17 11 C2W2 5 6 6 4 19 7 Poor/ Very Poor C1W2 2 1 3 + 6 3 C2W2 + 1 2 + 13 2 Significance n.v. (**) ** *** 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 < 0.001.

Table A5.7: Wave 2 self-assessed health status by gender of Primary Applicant and Migrating Unit Spouse Health Status Cohort/ Wave Male Primary Applicant Female Primary Applicant Male Migrating Unit Spouse Female Migrating Unit Spouse Total % % % % % Very Good C1W2 48 36 50 36 42 C2W2 53 47 57 40 49 Good C1W2 42 46 39 49 45 C2W2 41 43 35 47 42 Fair C1W2 7 14 9 13 11 C2W2 4 8 6 12 7 Poor/ Very Poor C1W2 3 3 2 3 3 C2W2 2 2 + 2 2 Significance *** *** n.v. (ns) n.s. *** Note: Pearson Chi-square test: + Number of observations very small (n<5), n.v. = test not valid, n.s. = not significant, *** = probability < 0.001.

Table A5.8: Wave 2 self-assessed health status by age Health Status Cohort/ 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.

Table A5.9: Wave 2 self-assessed health status by region of birth Health Status Cohort/ Wave English Speaking Countries Other European Countries Asian Countries Other Countries Total % % % % % Very Good C1W2 56 40 35 46 42 C2W2 49 45 50 49 49 Good C1W2 34 45 49 44 45 C2W2 43 38 42 44 42 Fair C1W2 9 12 13 8 11 C2W2 8 11 7 6 7 Poor/ Very Poor C1W2 2 3 3 2 3 C2W2 + 6 1 2 2 Significance n.v. (***) ** *** n.s. *** Note: Pearson Chi-square test, n.s. = not significant, * = probability < 0.05, *** = probability < 0.001.

Table A5.10: Wave 2 self-assessed health status by English proficiency Health Status Cohort/ 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 Characteristic Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 2 Significance % % % Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australian- 6 5 n.s. linked Independent 3 5 n.s Preferential family/family stream 12 10 * Business skills/employer nomination 6 5 n.s scheme 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).

Table A5.13: Number of health care visits in the past 4 weeks by visa category Number of visits Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australianlinked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Zero visits C1W2 74 74 65 78 59 67 C2W1 76 69 64 85 51 68 C2W2 68 69 60 74 45 63 1 visit C2W1 17 22 23 11 21 21 C1W2 16 15 19 14 19 18 C2W2 21 21 25 19 25 23 2 visits C1W2 7 6 10 4 14 9 C2W1 4 5 7 2 14 6 C2W2 7 7 9 4 16 8 3 or more visits C1W2 3 4 6 4 8 6 C2W1 3 4 6 2 15 5 C2W2 4 4 6 3 14 6

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

Table A5.15: Number of health care visits in the past 4 weeks by age Number of visits Cohort/ Wave 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total % % % % % % % Zero visits C1W2 60 70 70 66 65 49 67 C2W1 64 66 70 75 65 58 68 C2W2 53 63 68 60 59 58 63 1 visit C1W2 19 16 18 17 18 33 18 C2W1 19 23 20 15 19 25 21 C2W2 24 23 21 27 22 24 23 2 visits C1W2 15 8 8 12 9 13 9 C2W1 8 6 6 5 7 11 6 C2W2 14 8 7 9 8 9 8 3 or more visits C1W2 6 6 5 5 7 5 6 C2W1 9 5 5 5 9 6 5 C2W2 9 6 4 5 11 10 6

Table A5.16: Number of health care visits in the past 4 weeks by English proficiency Number of visits Cohort/ Wave English Only or Best English Well and another Language English Not well or Not At All Total % % % % Zero visits C1W2 74 68 61 67 C2W1 72 68 62 68 C2W2 68 64 53 63 1 visit C1W2 17 18 19 18 C2W1 22 20 20 21 C2W2 22 22 26 23 2 visits C1W2 6 8 14 9 C2W1 4 6 10 6 C2W2 7 8 12 8 3 or more visits C1W2 4 6 7 6 C2W1 3 6 8 5 C2W2 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 services C2W2 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%.

Table A10.4: Relatives overseas by visa category (per cent of Primary Applicants) Relative Overseas Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Parent C2W1 91 96 84 89 74 87 C2W2 89 96 83 85 68 86 Brother/Sister C2W1 90 95 90 98 91 92 C2W2 91 96 88 97 91 91 Child/Children C2W1 7 2 11 17 16 9 C2W2 6 1 9 11 15 7 Other Relative* C2W1 87 87 82 85 84 84 C2W2 94 94 86 90 85 89 Note: * The question in the two waves of Cohort 2 are not equivalent. This may produce some inaccuracy in this comparison.

Table A10.5: Primary Applicants with relatives overseas, by age Relative Overseas Cohort/ Wave 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total % % % % % % % Parent C2W1 91 96 89 69 30 8 87 C2W2 92 94 88 70 20 + 86 Brother/Sister C2W1 88 94 93 87 80 81 92 C2W2 85 93 94 88 82 69 91 Child/Children C2W1 + 3 9 28 54 57 9 C2W2 + 1 7 21 51 56 7 Other Relative* C2W1 87 84 86 76 73 74 84 C2W2 95 90 90 84 72 69 89 Note: * The question in the two waves of Cohort 2 are not equivalent. This may produce some inaccuracy in this comparison. + Number of observations very small (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

Table A10.8: Major reasons relatives not yet sponsored by visa category (per cent of Primary Applicants) Reason Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Can t yet, waiting until permanent resident Can t yet, haven t been resident long enough C1W2 16 14 11 + 11 12 C2W2 11 8 9 4 11 9 C1W2 32 35 23 30 22 25 C2W2 30 17 15 15 28 18 Relatives not interested yet C1W2 14 19 17 35 10 16 C2W2 37 53 50 59 17 48 C1W2 + + + + 2 2 Don t think conditions in Australia are right yet C2W2 + 1 1 + + 1 Don t think they would like it C2W2 2 + 2 + + 2 C2W2 4 3 9 + 20 8 C1W2 + + + + + + Insufficient money/can t afford it C1W2 19 22 29 + 33 28 Note: + Number of observations very small (n<5)

Table A10.9: Major reasons for not sponsoring any (more) overseas relatives, by visa category (per cent of Primary Applicants) Reason Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australianlinked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Never intend to* C1W2 14 9 9 12 11 10 C2W2 + 5 3 + + 3 Already sponsored C1W2 3 + 2 + 10 3 everyone intended C2W2 2 + 1 + + 1 Relatives don t want to C1W2 57 72 68 73 26 64 C2W2 62 66 69 71 36 67 Conditions not right in C1W2 + + 1 + 3 1 Australia C2W2 + + 1 + + 1 Don t think they would C1W2 + 2 1 + + 1 like it C2W2 + 4 2 + + 2 Insufficient money/ C1W2 11 6 13 + 38 13 can t afford it C2W2 + 2 9 + 30 8 Note: * This is the response given by those who had indicated in a previous question that they intended to sponsor (more) immigrants, it is not those that indicated in a previous question that they did not intend sponsorship. + Number of observations very small (n<5)

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

Table A11.2: Satisfaction with life in Australia by visa category Overall Satisfaction Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Very satisfied C1W2 29 28 37 36 40 35 C2W1 32 38 41 43 39 39 C2W2 47 40 41 43 36 41 Satisfied C2W1 53 53 52 54 54 53 C1W2 58 58 53 52 52 54 C2W2 46 53 54 53 57 53 Not Satisfied C1W2 13 14 10 12 9 11 C2W1 15 9 8 3 7 9 C2W2 8 7 4 4 7 6 Note The not satisfied category includes they were neither satisfied or dissatisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied

Table A11.3: Satisfaction with life in Australia by gender Overall Satisfaction Cohort/ Wave Male 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

Table A11.5: Satisfaction with life in Australia by age Overall Satisfaction Cohort Wave 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total % % % % % % % Very satisfied C1W2 43 34 33 C2W1 40 48 37 C2W2 39 40 43 28 37 32 35 44 55 40 39 40 47 50 41 Satisfied C1W2 51 55 53 C2W1 55 54 53 C2W2 59 54 51 53 53 56 54 48 41 55 53 53 50 47 53 Not Satisfied C1W2 6 12 13 10 10 12 11 C2W1 5 9 11 9 4 4 9 C2W2 2 6 6 7 + + 6 Note: 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)

Table A11.6: Feelings on the migration decision by selected characteristics Characteristic Cohort 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) Reason Cohort 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 7 5 6 country 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.

Table A11.9:What migrants liked about Australia by visa category (per cent of people in Cohort 2 Wave 2 who nominated this response) Thing liked Concessional family/skilled Australian Linked Independent Preferential Family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian % % % % % Friendly people Everything 4 0.2 (n=2) 4 1 8 Other 5 4 2 3 4 30 42 43 42 36 Climate/weather 32 40 30 35 18 Quiet, peaceful and safe 40 42 37 55 26 Lifestyle/social 45 60 42 46 26 Education/employment 43 34 34 34 42 Country/environment 38 50 55 55 23 Services and facilities 26 29 33 23 21 Better place and opportunities 33 29 18 23 23 Political freedom/no war 26 24 34 31 64 Family here 0.4 (n=2) 0.6 (n=7) 5.4 (n=80) 0.8 (n=2) 1.3 (n=4) Standard of living/living costs/economy 13 13 11 6 5 Nothing 0 0 0.2 (n=2) 0 0.2 (n=1) Note: Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to 10 responses were given in Cohort 2 Wave 2 (causing the total percentage of cases to be more than 100 per cent).

Table A11.10: What migrants disliked about Australia by visa category (per cent of people who nominated this response) Thing disliked Concessional family/skilled Australian Linked Independent Preferential Family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian % % % % % Nothing 28 25 32 34 38 Climate 8 6 10 13 8 Services and facilities Other 4 8 5 10 4 12 16 11 9 5 Employment difficulties 9 15 6 10 9 Crime, lack of discipline 12 15 14 5 32 Economy, expensive 13 18 11 12 4 Geographic isolation & environmental characteristics 10 11 12 11 8 Lifestyle, social characteristics 17 22 21 10 11 Language barrier 2 1 4 2 3 People racist 6 6 5 2 1 Politics, government 10 14 8 12 5 People unfriendly 4 5 4 4 2 Note: Responses have been grouped together for multiple response analysis - up to 10 responses were given in Cohort 2 Wave 2 (causing the total percentage of cases to be more than 100 per cent).

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: Thing liked What migrants who felt they made the right decision to move to Australia liked about Australia Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 % % % Friendly people 31 38 41 Climate/weather 26 33 32 Quiet, peaceful and safe 29 27 39 Lifestyle/social 36 38 41 Education/employment 37 33 36 Country/environment 47 43 49 Services and facilities 23 26 30 Better place and opportunities 9 15 24 Political freedom/no war 30 23 34 Family here 4 8 3 Standard of living/living costs/economy 18 13 11 Everything 4 1 3 Nothing 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 4 2 1 (n=11) 2 (n=6) Australian-linked Independent 6 5 2 (n=16) 3 (n=12) Preferential family/family stream 4 3 2 (n=40) 2 (n=33) Business skills/employer 8 + 1.5 (n=8) 2 (n=6) nomination scheme 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) Reason Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 2 % % Disillusioned with Australia 4 + Homesick 52 27 Economic circumstances of my family in Australia have 5 7 worsened/ general economic situation in Australia is worse than expected Economic circumstances of family overseas or political situation 5 8 in former country have improved/will improve 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) Reason Cohort 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 Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied Total % % % % 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)

Table A12.1: Perceptions of crime levels by selected characteristics Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 Characteristic Lot Some Little Lot Some Little Lot Some Little Lot Some Little % % % % % % % % % % % % Visa Category Concessional family/skilled 47 Australian-linked Independent 48 Preferential family/family stream 45 Business skills/employer nomination 40 scheme Humanitarian 52 Gender Male 45 Female 48 Age 15-24 years 45 25-34 years 45 35-44 years 50 45-54 years 48 55-64 years 49 65 or more years 47 English Proficiency English only or best 52 English well and other language 40 English not well or not at all 47 Total 46 26 27 18 27 52 43 36 21 15 55 30 29 23 13 27 58 33 37 29 15 52 33 25 28 23 27 45 39 29 30 14 48 34 32 27 9 28 61 48 30 20 7 44 48 13 29 22 22 48 51 18 25 20 29 39 24 29 19 24 53 41 31 26 15 46 38 25 25 20 28 46 38 30 29 13 51 32 21 30 24 19 51 37 26 35 12 45 37 27 26 19 29 50 35 35 28 14 51 33 23 26 18 25 53 43 29 26 13 48 37 20 29 20 25 47 47 23 25 17 44 34 21 26 20 26 44 61 19 16 10 34 44 25 25 26 26 34 48 31 16 16 39 35 26 22 24 32 43 41 30 29 17 55 27 27 33 18 25 54 34 36 29 12 52 36 22 26 18 22 50 44 26 24 13 29 48 25 27 20 26 50 39 31 28 14 48 35 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.

Table A12.2: Perceptions of race/culture/nationality tolerance by selected characteristics Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 Characteristic Lot Some Little Lot Some Little Lot Some Little Lot Some Little % % % % % % % % % % % % Visa Category Concessional family/skilled 40 Australian-linked Independent 40 Preferential family/family stream 39 Business skills/employer nomination 38 scheme Humanitarian 36 Gender Male 40 Female 36 Age 15-24 years 40 25-34 years 37 35-44 years 39 45-54 years 39 55-64 years 42 65 or more years 42 English Proficiency English only or best 34 English well and other language 39 English not well or not at all 42 Total 39 39 20 34 50 13 45 43 12 44 45 9 40 19 37 49 13 39 47 13 40 53 7 34 25 35 47 14 40 39 18 43 40 11 38 21 34 52 12 38 41 19 50 42 6 26 30 52 30 11 37 25 33 57 29 7 36 22 40 45 12 42 40 17 46 45 8 33 27 37 43 14 38 41 18 43 42 10 32 25 37 45 13 31 45 20 31 47 13 37 23 36 49 13 14 40 17 40 47 10 34 26 40 42 14 10 44 14 48 44 7 29 26 40 40 13 50 29 20 55 32 6 34 22 44 34 14 39 36 21 53 32 6 32 20 43 28 7 40 29 23 55 31 7 46 19 31 51 15 38 48 13 41 49 9 35 27 39 48 11 40 42 16 46 45 7 26 25 45 33 14 42 28 24 46 33 11 35 24 38 44 13 40 40 17 44 44 9 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.

Table A12.3: Perceptions of influence over government by selected characteristics Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 Characteristic Lot Some Little Lot Some Little Lot Some Little Lot Some Little % % % % % % % % % % % % Visa Category Concessional family/skilled Australianlinked 11 35 54 22 45 22 13 37 50 31 51 9 Independent 12 29 58 19 48 21 13 38 47 23 51 21 Preferential family/family stream 12 29 55 21 43 18 13 29 54 27 37 16 Business skills/employer nomination Humanitarian 2 10 84 29 33 14 5 9 78 22 36 12 17 33 49 22 49 19 13 26 58 34 48 7 scheme Gender Male 12 25 61 24 44 20 14 30 53 31 43 18 Female 9 29 57 20 42 17 10 30 54 23 42 13 Age 15-24 years 9 27 58 20 42 16 10 26 57 29 36 11 25-34 years 11 27 59 22 46 19 12 35 50 24 44 19 35-44 years 10 25 62 22 41 21 12 26 59 28 48 13 45-54 years 10 25 62 25 39 18 16 26 54 29 41 12 55-64 years 9 29 58 25 37 15 18 15 63 31 34 14 65 or more years 12 34 47 16 35 12 7 20 68 26 33 14 English Proficiency English only or best 14 35 49 17 45 26 14 38 46 27 49 18 English well and other language 11 31 57 22 49 17 15 36 47 27 46 15 English not well or not at all 7 17 69 26 34 12 7 14 72 25 31 12 Total 10 27 59 22 43 18 12 30 54 26 44 16 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.

Table A12.4: Perceptions of monetary reward by selected characteristics Cohort 1 Wave 1 Cohort 1 Wave 2 Cohort 2 Wave 1 Cohort 2 Wave 2 Characteristic Well Moderate Poor Well Moderate Poor Well Moderate Poor Well Moderate Poor % % % % % % % % % % % % Visa Category Concessional family/skilled 27 37 36 30 54 8 20 52 28 29 62 8 Australian-linked Independent 28 43 29 30 58 8 27 49 23 26 63 8 Preferential family/family stream 25 36 36 36 45 6 20 40 37 33 48 6 Business skills/employer nomination 49 37 13 30 53 6 51 34 14 32 54 5 scheme Humanitarian 11 21 62 33 40 7 11 25 59 24 42 5 Gender Male 26 36 37 35 50 7 25 42 31 32 53 8 Female 23 35 38 32 46 6 20 42 35 32 50 6 Age 15-24 years 18 34 41 40 45 4 15 44 38 41 41 6 25-34 years 25 37 36 34 53 6 23 44 31 31 56 7 35-44 years 26 37 36 31 49 9 23 41 34 26 58 8 45-54 years 26 31 41 31 45 8 31 36 32 24 56 7 55-64 years 23 31 43 37 33 3 34 30 34 31 38-65 or more years 33 30 32 30 23 3 21 40 36 26 32 - English Proficiency English only or best 33 46 20 37 50 6 32 51 17 29 62 7 English well and other language 25 38 35 32 52 7 20 43 35 34 52 8 English not well or not at all 17 24 53 32 41 6 15 30 51 25 43 6 Total 24 35 37 34 48 7 23 42 33 30 54 7 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.

Table A13.1: Percentage of Primary Applicants who received support by visa category Type Of Support Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Looking for work C1W2 36 23 24 6 46 27 C2W1 54 34 33 7 20 33 C2W2 36 22 29 8 35 27 Financial matters C1W2 11 10 6 12 6 7 C2W1 31 26 16 32 16 21 C2W2 28 27 17 27 17 21 Taxation C1W2 14 19 9 26 5 11 C2W1 50 38 32 45 17 35 C2W2 34 36 25 47 5 28 Housing/accommodation C1W2 10 8 8 1 21 10 C2W1 36 31 21 32 47 28 C2W2 24 15 12 16 26 15 Education & training C1W2 18 13 10 8 17 12 C2W1 23 19 14 22 24 17 C2W2 17 15 12 15 20 14 Qualifications recognition C1W2 10 7 5 4 6 6 C2W1 17 19 6 6 6 10 C2W2 9 7 6 6 6 7 Learning English C1W2 23 12 29 18 60 30 C2W1 14 9 37 25 83 31 C2W2 10 8 31 23 70 26 Interpreting C1W2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C2W1 3 1 16 9 48 13 C2W2 3 1 15 9 37 12 Translate written documents C1W2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C2W1 5 3 9 8 27 9 C2W2 3 4 8 7 19 7 Interpreting/Translating C1W2 8 3 12 3 29 12 C2W1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C2W2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Table A13.1 cont: Type Of Support Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australianlinked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Finding out about immigration/sponsorship C1W2 4 5 3 4 9 4 C2W1 2 2 4 3 4 3 C2W2 7 9 8 9 10 8 Legal advice C1W2 4 5 2 10 3 3 C2W1 5 6 2 23 + 5 C2W2 9 8 5 23 6 7 Social security services C1W2 26 20 21 8 46 25 C2W1 19 12 11 4 64 16 C2W2 16 10 12 3 48 14 Health services/health insurance C1W2 16 16 18 14 30 19 C2W1 57 53 54 55 73 56 C2W2 37 39 45 42 49 43 Child minding C1W2 7 9 2 6 6 5 C2W1 7 7 2 4 5 4 C2W2 9 9 4 4 4 6 Aged Care C1W2 + + <0.5 + + <0.5 C2W1 + + + + + + C2W2 + + + + + + Torture/trauma counselling C1W2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C2W1 + + + + 9 1 C2W2 + + <0.5 + 11 1 Other C1W2 + 1 1 1 1 1 C2W1 5 + 3 5 3 3 C2W2 3 3 3 9 5 4 Note: n/a = not available, + = number of observations very small (n<5)

Table A13.2: Percentage of Primary Applicants who received support by age Type Of Support Cohort/ Wave 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ % % % % % % Looking for work C1W2 30 28 30 29 24 + C2W1 32 38 34 24 11 + C2W2 30 29 29 22 9 + Financial matters C1W2 3 8 11 7 4 4 C2W1 13 21 26 18 19 14 C2W2 12 22 24 21 14 7 Taxation C1W2 6 12 11 13 3 10 C2W1 26 38 35 36 28 27 C2W2 23 30 28 30 24 15 Housing/accommodation C1W2 7 8 11 14 19 7 C2W1 19 26 35 29 26 26 C2W2 17 15 16 17 12 12 Education & training C1W2 14 12 14 13 4 + C2W1 19 16 21 19 11 + C2W2 20 13 15 13 + + Qualifications recognition C1W2 3 7 7 6 + + C2W1 2 11 13 8 7 + C2W2 5 7 9 5 + + Learning English C1W2 48 27 29 39 26 12 C2W1 38 26 33 38 32 28 C2W2 42 22 27 24 29 36 Interpreting C1W2 N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C2W1 19 10 13 18 25 26 C2W2 17 10 10 17 23 20 Translate written documents C1W2 N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C2W1 7 9 8 10 7 8 C2W2 9 7 8 6 + + Interpreting/Translating C1W2 16 10 14 16 16 14 C2W1 N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C2W2 N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Table A13.2 cont: Type Of Support Cohort/ Wave 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ % % % % % % Finding out about immigration sponsorship C1W2 3 5 5 3 2 + C2W1 2 4 2 4 + + C2W2 8 10 7 6 + + Legal advice C1W2 3 3 5 3 + + C2W1 2 4 5 11 + + C2W2 3 7 9 9 + + Social security services C1W2 30 22 30 21 23 27 C2W1 10 13 23 18 23 14 C2W2 19 11 18 15 19 7 Health services/health insurance C1W2 19 17 18 26 27 27 C2W1 55 53 60 55 70 69 C2W2 51 41 45 37 40 45 Child minding C1W2 2 6 5 + + + C2W1 + 5 7 + + + C2W2 7 4 12 3 + + Aged Care C1W2 + + + + + 2 C2W1 + + + + + + C2W2 + + + + + + Torture/trauma counselling C1W2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C2W1 + + 1 2 + + C2W2 2 + 2 3 + + Other C1W2 1 1 1 + 3 + C2W1 2 3 4 2 + + C2W2 3 3 3 7 + + Note: n/a = not available, + = number of observations very small (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.

Table A13.5: Support services contacted by Primary Applicants by visa category Type Of Support Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australianlinked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Ethnic Club C2W1 2 1 2 + 3 2 C2W2 2 + 2 4 4 2 Ethnic Welfare Agency C2W1 + + 1 + 3 1 C2W2 + 1 <0.5 + 3 1 Voluntary Welfare Agency C2W1 3 1 <0.5 + 6 1 C2W2 + + 1 + 6 1 Migrant Resource Centre C2W1 7 7 4 3 13 6 C2W2 3 6 4 6 14 5 DIMIA C2W1 14 20 22 19 31 21 C2W2 12 12 24 16 24 20 Centrelink C2W1 63 42 37 13 97 44 C2W2 51 41 34 16 92 41 Employment Agency C2W1 39 28 18 3 7 21 C2W2 27 17 19 7 19 19 Medicare C2W1 93 88 84 84 90 86 C2W2 48 52 62 56 44 56 Embassy Of Former Country of Residence C2W1 + 2 3 6 + 2 C2W2 + 3 4 6 + 3 Torture/Trauma Counsel Services C2W1 + + + + 9 1 C2W2 + + <0.5 + 9 1 Australian Taxation Office C2W1 76 65 52 66 30 57 C2W2 33 43 30 44 6 33 Other Government Agency C2W1 14 11 6 12 13 9 C2W2 12 11 7 11 24 10 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.

Table A13.6: Support services contacted by Primary Applicants by age Type Of Support Cohort/ Wave 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ % % % % % % Ethnic Club C2W1 + 2 2 2 7 + C2W2 + 1 3 + 8 10 Ethnic Welfare Agency C2W1 + + 1 3 + + C2W2 + <0.5 1 + + + Voluntary Welfare Agency C2W1 + <0.5 3 + + + C2W2 + 1 2 + + + Migrant Resource Centre C2W1 6 5 8 6 + + C2W2 3 4 7 9 + + DIMIA C2W1 15 25 19 17 18 10 C2W2 20 22 15 21 15 11 Centrelink C2W1 34 42 56 36 51 40 C2W2 38 37 50 46 42 22 Employment Agency C2W1 14 25 24 10 7 + C2W2 21 20 20 16 8 + Medicare C2W1 85 86 89 81 95 91 C2W2 67 58 56 48 42 35 Embassy Of Former Country of Residence C2W1 + 3 2 3 + + C2W2 4 4 3 + + + Torture/Trauma Counsel Services C2W1 + <0.5 1 + + + C2W2 2 <0.5 1 2 + + Australian Taxation Office C2W1 45 61 61 48 38 43 C2W2 28 34 35 30 17 14 Other Government Agency C2W1 8 8 13 10 8 + C2W2 13 9 11 13 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.

Table A13.7: Primary Applicants purpose of internet use, by gender (per cent of those who used the Internet) Type of Support Cohort/ Wave Male 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.

Table A13.9: Primary Applicants purpose of internet use by age (per cent of those who used the internet) Type Of Support Cohort/ Wave 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ % % % % % % Finding a job Health C2W2 9 14 17 5 + + C2W2 29 41 34 16 + + Education for yourself or children C2W2 26 32 42 26 14 + Legal Matters C2W2 4 8 8 3 + + Finding a home C2W2 15 25 23 11 + + Government services C2W2 17 28 31 16 9 + Other settlement aspects C2W2 6 9 8 4 + + 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. Table A13.10: Primary Applicants purpose of internet use by visa category (per cent of those who used the internet) Type Of Support Cohort/ Wave Concessional family/skilled Australian-linked Independent Preferential family/family stream Business skills/employer nomination scheme Humanitarian Total % % % % % % Finding a job Health C2W2 13 23 10 11 3 13 C2W2 42 49 30 11 13 33 Education for yourself or children C2W2 36 45 26 44 22 32 Legal Matters C2W2 5 12 5 9 3 9 Finding a home C2W2 24 34 16 21 5 21 Government services C2W2 30 39 20 30 4 25 Other settlement aspects C2W2 5 10 6 11 3 7 Note: There was no equivalent question asked for Cohort 1 Wave 2, so no results have been reported