WELFARE RECIPIENT PATTERNS AMONG MIGRANTS

Bob Birrell and James Jupp

Centre for Population and Urban Research

Monash University

and

Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies

Australian National University

July 2000

ii

First Published 2000

© Commonwealth of Australia 2000

ISBN 0 642 26058 3

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth available from AusInfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to:

The Manager Legislative Services AusInfoGPO Box 84CANBERRA ACT 2601

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

3

Contents

Executive Summary v

Data Sources v

Main Findings vi

Introduction 1

Background 1

The post-war situation 2

Services for non-English-speaking-migrants 4

The current situation 6

Data Sources 11

Welfare Recipient Rate Findings 17

Statistical Overview 17

Effects of time spent in Australia on welfare recipient levels 20

Types of welfare benefits received by migrants 25

Welfare-recipient rates for persons aged 65+ 28

Locational patterns of migrants eligible for welfare assistance 31

Appendix: Country classification used for English proficiency groups 36

4

List of Tables

Table 1: Australia-born and overseas-born welfare recipient rates by age group and

time of arrival for overseas-born persons 17

Table 2: Australia-born and overseas-born welfare recipient rates by age group and

time of arrival for overseas-born persons by State 17

Table 3: Population numbers and welfare recipient rates for Australia-born and EP

categories for 5 year age groups by sex 19

Table 4: Welfare recipients by Australia-born and EP categories for 5 year age groups

by time of arrival by sex 23

Table 5: Welfare recipient rates for males and females aged 45-64 by major

birthplaces 25

Table 6: Welfare recipient rates by major pension or benefit type by English

Proficiency Group; Females and Males, five year age groups, 40-64 27

Table 7: Welfare recipients rates by major pensions or benefit type for overseas-born

persons aged 65+ by the time of arrival in Australia 28

Table 8: Welfare recipient rates for persons age 65+ who arrived in Australia

between July 1986 and 1990 and between 1991 and 1996 by selected birthplaces 30

Table 9: Percentage of EP group aged 25-44 years and 45-64 years living in major

cities and rest of Australia 31

Table 10: Welfare recipient rates for men aged 25-44 years and 45-64 years by EP

group for Australia's major cities 32

Table 11: Welfare recipient rates and population, men and women, aged 45-64 years

in SLAs with high proportion of residents from EP3 and EP4 birthplaces, Melbourne

and Sydney 34

5

Executive Summary

This is the first study of pensions and benefits paid by the Commonwealth Government

which details recipient rates for migrants by time of arrival in Australia, age, sex,

country of birth and English language capacity.

Since World War Two there has been a periodic debate about the appropriate form of

government assistance to migrants. Views have oscillated between two poles; one that

migrant services should be ‘mainstreamed’, with migrants treated the same as all other

Australians, and the other that, because of their distinctive language and cultural needs,

ethnic specific services should be provided to some migrants. The emphasis was more

on ethnic specific services at the time of the Galbally Report in 1978 and for a few

years thereafter. However since the mid-1980s there has been a swing back towards

mainstreaming. At the time of this study, all migrants, including those who were recent

arrivals, were eligible for the full range of Australian welfare benefits (subject to

various residency requirements). To the extent that migrants needed assistance outside

their families, they relied on the same Commonwealth benefits and pensions that were

available to all Australians.

The level of eligibility for these benefits has been a subject of great controversy. The

purpose of this study is to provide a firm data foundation which will help resolve this

controversy and contribute to relevant policy in the area.

Data sources

The data are based on Department of Family and Community Services (then

Department of Social Security (DSS)) records of pension and benefit recipients which

have been matched as near as possible to the date of the 1996 Census (August 1996).

The two databases provide matching numerators and denominators and thus make

possible calculations of welfare-recipient rates by birthplace, time of arrival in

Australia, sex and locality for 1996. No similar data will be available until the records

of the 2001 Census are released. Unfortunately, neither the Census nor the DSS files

6

indicate the visa category of overseas-born persons. Therefore any interpretations in

reference to such categories must be made with caution. The data also precede the

introduction of the current Coalition Government’s two-year moratorium on most

welfare payments to all arriving migrants except those entering under the humanitarian

category. Thus recipient rates for recent arrivals as of 1996 do not reflect the present

situation.

Partly because of the voluminous nature of the country of birth calculations, many of

the findings are presented in just English Proficiency (EP) groups. These are divided

into:

EP1 which includes those from Main English Speaking countries where at least 98

per cent of immigrants speak ‘good’ English and have at least 10,000 residents in

Australia,

EP2 which includes those countries for which at least 80 per cent of recent arrivals

indicated at the time of the 1996 Census that they spoke English well,

EP3 which includes countries where 50 to 80 per cent of recent arrivals indicated

that they spoke English well, and

EP4 which covers the remaining countries where less than 50 per cent of recent

arrivals stated at the 1996 Census that they spoke English well.

Main Findings

As of 1996 overseas-born persons showed slightly lower welfare-recipient rates than

their Australia-born counterparts for each age group. This is true of all States as well,

with the exception of overseas-born persons aged 45-64 in Victoria and South

Australia (see Table 2). However, welfare recipient rates for persons classified in the

EP3 and EP4 categories were higher than for Australia-born persons in the same age

group and much higher than for those in the EP1 and EP2 categories. For example, for

men in the 50-54 age group, 31.9 per cent of the EP4 category were in receipt of

welfare benefits compared with 24.2 per cent of the EP3 category, 12 6 per cent of the

EP2 category, 12.5 per cent of the EP1 category and 17.4 per cent of the Australia-

vii

born (see Table 3). As is shown later in the study, the state variations referred to above

are mainly a product of the relative distribution of the different EP category migrants.

A key question explored was whether the higher EP3 and EP4 welfare-recipient rates

might be affected by the fact that they were composed of more recently arrived migrant

communities.

Examination of recipient rates for each EP group showed that:

1. Welfare-recipient rates tend to be high for all recently arrived migrants regardless of

English proficiency, and particularly high for EP groups 3 and 4. Nevertheless, one

of the important findings of this study is that, with settlement time in Australia,

welfare levels fall significantly for all EP categories.

2. For EP groups 1 and 2 who have been in Australia for many years (arriving pre-

July 1986) welfare-recipient rates are fairly low relative to Australia-born persons in

the same age groups. However, for EP groups 3 and 4, and especially those in the

45-64 age group, welfare-recipient rates are high even for those who arrived before

July 1986 (Table 4). This is despite the reduction in welfare recipient rates with time

in Australia referred to above. The high welfare rates for migrants in these EP

groups probably reflects their relatively limited possession of post-school

qualifications or the kind of work experience which would allow them to compete

for jobs in the current Australian labour market. There is a high level of dependence

on Disability Pensions for migrants from Southern Europe and the Middle East.

These outcomes appear to flow from the fact that these people were heavily

concentrated in blue-collar manufacturing occupations.

3. Welfare recipient rates for women are higher than for men in the same age group

across all EP categories. This in part reflects the greater range of pensions or

benefits available to women, including Wife, Carer and Widow’s Pension (see Table

6).

For persons aged 65+, the main issue considered was the situation of those in Australia

for less than 10 years (and thus not eligible for the Age Pension) who were not covered

by one of the 12 pension agreements the Australian Government has signed and who

viii

did not enter under the humanitarian visa categories. Around a half or more of these

persons arriving between July 1986 and 1990, as of 1996, were receiving a special

benefit or, in the case of women, a Widow's Pension or Widow's Allowance (see Table

8). A substantial minority of those arriving between 1991 and 1996 were also receiving

such benefits, though in almost all cases only those resident for two years in Australia.

This is because any recourse to welfare benefits during this initial two-years will lead to

a reduction in the repayment of the bond required for parents since 1991.

As regards concentrations of migrants with high levels of welfare need, these were

primarily located in Melbourne and Sydney. This is because that is where most EP3

and 4 category persons live. There were significant concentrations of these migrants in

suburbs featuring low cost housing within the two cities. Largely as a consequence,

these suburbs show high welfare-recipient levels, particularly amongst those in the

45-64 age group.

1

Welfare Recipient Patterns Among Migrants

Introduction

This report provides a detailed analysis of welfare-benefit and pension-recipient levels

for all Australians as of late 1996. Most of the detail concerns breakdowns of recipient

levels for major country-of-birth communities born overseas by time of arrival in

Australia and by sex and age group.

One purpose of the research is to assist in policy deliberations concerning migrant

selection with particular reference to the implications of age at time of arrival in

Australia for welfare assistance provided by the Commonwealth Government. Another

purpose is to provide background information on levels of welfare need to officers

within the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) who are

responsible for planning settlement services. As we note below, there have been no

previous studies of migrant welfare needs which have had access to comparable data

on both welfare recipients and the base population potentially eligible for the welfare

services in question by time of arrival in Australia.

Background

The following comments provide a setting for the analysis to follow. Our data

represent a cross section of welfare need as indicated by the proportion of persons in

receipt of the various pension and benefits paid by the Commonwealth Government as

of late 1996. As such it represents the outcome of a series of administrative decisions,

which in turn reflect many debates on the appropriate form of services to migrants.

The need for welfare services for incoming migrants was recognised from the earliest

period of assisted passages, especially through the voluntary (but state-aided) work of

Caroline Chisholm in the 1840s and 1850s. This was mainly directed towards the

settlement of women and children in country districts of New South Wales. Public

2

welfare was very modest at the time, but the colonial authorities did maintain

temporary residences for new arrivals, such as the former convict barracks in

Macquarie Street, Sydney or the Yungaba Hostel in Kangaroo Point, Brisbane which

remained in use for a century. Assistance with employment and with transport to bush

locations was also a common feature of the various assisted passage schemes in the

19th century. Much welfare was delivered through voluntary organisations, often at the

Australian end of migrant recruitment work by charities and religious bodies in Britain.

The great majority of immigrants until 1947 were from the United Kingdom. As British

subjects they were entitled to public welfare services also available to the Australia-

born. Generally speaking such services were not available to aliens and this continued

to be true until well into the 1960s.

The major welfare requirements of immigrants were usually seen as temporary

accommodation on arrival and assistance with finding employment. In times of

economic depression, such as the 1890s or 1930s, immigration was suspended.

Unemployed immigrants in these periods received very little public assistance other

than that available through public works and private charity to all Australians. Because

aliens were not eligible for public assistance, some ethnic groups, such as some

members of the Chinese and the Greek communities, founded their own private

charitable organisations confined to assisting members of their own background. The

Catholic church also had an important role in assisting those immigrants from Europe

who were Catholics, such as Italians, Maltese or Croatians and Jewish charities also

assisted their co-religionists.

The post-war situation

When the post-war immigration program began in 1947 the Commonwealth had

already taken over responsibility for welfare services from the States under the

constitutional amendment of 1946. It had also set up a Department of Immigration for

the first time and this soon expanded from recruitment to providing some settlement

services, especially temporary on-arrival accommodation and the teaching of English.

This became increasingly important as the balance of migration shifted from the United

3

Kingdom towards Europe and thus towards migrants who could not speak English and

were legally aliens. Over the period following 1947 the emphasis in settlement

provision shifted to what became known as non-English-speaking-backgrounds

(NESB) migrants.

The services for United Kingdom migrants included all those welfare provisions

available to the Australia-born, such as the Age Pension and unemployment benefit. As

there was almost no unemployment, the second provision was relatively unimportant

before 1975. As immigrants were selected on the basis of age, the pension did not

become an important need until about the same time and was available for British

migrants of the pre-war period, most of whom had arrived in the 1920s.

Commonwealth-assisted British migrants were housed in hostels in the major cities and

there was some resentment against conditions. However, these were supposed to be

self-financing and for temporary residence. The Good Neighbour Councils, formed in

1950 on the basis of already existing charitable bodies, also catered for the British, as

did a number of self-help organisations such as the UK Settlers League. Public housing

was available for British subjects and was used, especially in South Australia, as an

incentive to emigrate away from the acute British housing shortage which followed the

war. While there was a social services agreement with the United Kingdom, the main

difference between the two countries was the absence of a National Health Service as

introduced in Britain in 1948. Otherwise British migrants moved into a welcoming

environment as far as the provision of public welfare went. This did not prevent a

rising number of returns in the 1960s which inspired the Commonwealth to look more

closely at the problems of settlement both for the British and for Europeans.

4

Services for non-English-speaking-migrants

The post-war immigration program continued to cater for the British without

discrimination as they, like the Australia-born, were British subjects with full civil

rights. But the introduction of 170,000 Displaced Persons (DPs) from Europe between

1947 and 1952 radically changed the orientation of migrant welfare, making the

services provided by the Department of Immigration more important. The DPs were

transported to Australia free of charge and housed in former military camps usually at a

distance from the cities. They were bound to employment as directed by the

Commonwealth, which was not true for the British who were only obliged to remain in

Australia for two years or forfeit the cost of their assisted passage. Services such as

English teaching and employment assistance were centred on the hostels. As migrants

left these in the 1950s to enter the major cities, the responsibility moved to the Good

Neighbour Councils and to such public and private provision as existed. In most States

aliens were ineligible for public housing and consequently many built their own homes

on the outskirts of the cities. The Department of Immigration lobbied State housing

commissions with eventual success by the late 1960s. Few of the DPs went into public

housing. Public housing was much more important for the British, at least until the late

1970s.

A high rate of return to prospering countries like Britain, Germany and The

Netherlands, the arrival of many unassisted migrants from southern Europe, the

evidence of some social and mental health problems, unhappiness with the

‘mainstream’ charities organised through the Good Neighbour Councils and the

growth of self-help and self-government migrant organisations all combined to create a

crisis in settlement policy during the 1970s. This was addressed by the Whitlam

government (1972-75) through the Australian Assistance Plan, and by the

incorporation of the Department of Immigration into an expanded Department of

Labour and Immigration in 1974, and the transfer of its welfare and educational

functions to the mainstream departments responsible. Both these approaches were

reversed by the Fraser government which set up an inquiry into services under Frank

Galbally reporting in 1978. This endorsed the principles of multiculturalism in terms of

cultural and language maintenance. In the welfare area it supported an ‘ethnic specific’

5

approach which rested on the ability of ethnic and immigrant groups to provide welfare

assistance with government support and finance. As a corollary, public support was

withdrawn from the Good Neighbour Councils. Grant-in-aid workers were funded and

migrant resource centres created the former numbering eventually about 250 and

the latter about thirty. These were administered and funded by the then Department of

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which also maintained and improved migrant hostels

and continued to control the Adult Migrant Education (later English) teaching

programs. They were managed by committees drawn from the NESB organisations

and had little importance for British, New Zealand or other English-speaking migrants.

At the national and State levels Ethnic Communities’ Councils were created from 1974

and received public funds for their operations. They were not welfare deliverers but

advocacy bodies with a central interest in migrant settlement.

The Galbally program remains in place in its essentials and has operated under

Coalition and Labor Governments. It has not been without its critics both those

who think it too generous and ‘divisive’ and those who think it a cheap alternative to

public provision. Over the long term it is possible to observe a steady expansion of the

Galbally provisions until about 1986 and a movement away from them since. This

corresponds to a growing hostile debate on multiculturalism, Asian migration and

migrant welfare which was marked from about 1984 and erupted from time to time

into the political arena, most markedly with the rise of One Nation in 1996. There were

various lines of attack: that ‘billions’ were being spent on ‘divisive’ ethnic activity; that

services should be ‘mainstreamed’ (as services to English-speaking migrants already

were); that welfare should only be available for citizens (as had previously been the

case for British subjects); that the Department of Immigration was an inappropriate

agency for welfare and education; that costs were escalating due to high

unemployment among recent arrivals; that immigration and settlement policy was being

driven by the ‘ethnic lobby’; and that there should be no need for special services for

immigrants other than refugees as migrants had been selected for their economic

viability.

The current situation

6

In response to these criticisms and in an atmosphere of stringency towards welfare in

general, there have been a number of changes in recent years, especially since the

election of the Coalition in 1996. The previous Labor Government had already

withdrawn some benefits (including unemployment benefits) from immigrants (other

than those arriving in the humanitarian categories) in the first six months after arrival.

As throughout the post-war period, the Age Pension was not available until ten years

after settlement. However, as we show below, where recently arrived migrants in the

pension age category were not able to support themselves, they have usually been able

to access a Special Benefit or some other benefit (like the Widow's pension) equivalent

to the Age Pension. The points system for the Independent and Concessional

categories, in any case, awarded nil points to those aged over forty-five. The Labor

Government had already closed remaining migrant hostels in 1994, replacing them by

flats. Only detention centres remained. The hostels had mainly been used by refugees

and provided settlement services including English teaching and referrals for

employment and to welfare agencies. Charges were introduced for English tuition

under the Adult Migrant English Program, again with exceptions including

humanitarian and preferential family entrants who made up a large part of the clientele.

Language services in translation and interpreting were put on a partly commercial

basis. Grant-in aid workers and migrant resource centres continued at about the same

level and the ethnic communities’ structure continued to be subsidised by the

Commonwealth and some States.

The principle of cost recovery for services was well established before the election of

the Coalition in 1996. Payments in advance for language tuition and bonds against

becoming reliant on welfare after arrival, were put in place by its Labor predecessor.

The Coalition extended the waiting period for welfare payments to two years after

arrival and increased already existing charges for services. The two-year waiting period

did not apply to those entering Australia under any of the Humanitarian categories, and

for New Zealand citizens the six months provision remained until February 2000.

However, asylum seekers awaiting refugee status were ineligible for most welfare

support but received government-funded assistance through charitable organisations,

principally the Red Cross. Unemployment continued at a level around eight per cent

until October 1998 when it fell to 7.3 per cent. Unemployment was especially likely to

7

be experienced by new arrivals who were ineligible for support as shown by successive

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Labour Force Survey results. Thus the savings

have been significant over the first two years of settlement. Savings on the hostels were

replaced by growing expenditure on detention, which Labor had made mandatory for

undocumented arrivals. Additional funds have been allocated to grant-in-aid, migrant

resource centres and ethnic community advocacy groups. These are essentially referral

and advice organisations and are not involved in welfare benefit payments. While there

have been reductions in services and increases in cost recovery, there has also been a

shift towards support for humanitarian entrants. In regard to skilled and family

category migrants, since 1996 intake policy has been tightened to ensure that only job-

ready and productive immigrants were admitted. Changes by the Coalition after 1996

have included an increase in the skilled and business intake; a reduction of family

reunion and the replacement of the Concessional family category by a ‘Skills-

Australian-Linked’ class; and periodic capping of the family reunion and the

humanitarian intake when numbers appeared likely to exceed those planned. Some

proposed changes have been held up in the Senate but there has been a degree of

bipartisan agreement.

The overall effect of changes made since 1986, (and particularly since 1992 when the

Labor Government reduced the program and made it more focussed on skills needed in

Australia) has been to focus selection on immigrants likely to be productive; to reduce

the cost of on-arrival services such as accommodation and English tuition; to transfer

welfare dependency for non-refugee arrivals to relatives or charities; to shift the

balance in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs away from

settlement and towards selection and compliance; to determine funding through

competitive tendering; to ‘mainstream’ provision within the major social security

departments; while maintaining the principle that all eligible migrants continue to have

equitable access to those services to which they are entitled. The overall objective is to

move towards what in the United States is called ‘cost free immigration’ and away

from the notion that immigrants have special welfare needs not shared with others.

The main focus of debate on immigrant welfare since 1947 has been on the Department

of Immigration. However, the main transfer payments and service delivery to NESB

8

Australians do not come from that Department. For at least the past ten years the issue

of ‘who is a migrant’ has been canvassed in policy discussion. This is particularly

relevant to the post-war European migrants who are now ageing and coming within

provision for the aged. The Galbally report, like all subsequent recommendations, saw

ethnic-specific or immigrant-specific services as ‘temporary’, on the assumption that

settlement was a process which would gradually merge into the mainstream and no

longer require special treatment or the role of the Department of Immigration. This is

based on an expectation of eventual assimilation, although that term had become

unfashionable as early as 1978. The main ‘barrier’ to accessing mainstream services

was always seen as lack of English language ability. The growth of an ethnic

constituency with a strong interest in ethnic-specific services shifted debate from short-

term immigrant settlement to long-term ethnic needs. This dichotomy was most fully

canvassed in the last major review of immigrants’ services, the Review of Migrant and

Multicultural Programs and Services (ROMAMPAS) in 1986. The Departmental view

was that settlement was a short-term process covering two years after arrival. This was

endorsed by The Committee to Advise on Australia’s Immigration Policies (CAAIP),

known as the Fitzgerald review of immigration policy. The ROMAMPAS view, later

endorsed by the Office of Multicultural Affairs (Department of the Prime Minister and

Cabinet), was that settlement might be a lifetime process for those not of British origin

and culture. Both positions are, of course, only partially true because the immigrant

experience varies. Many immigrants do become assimilated and fluent in English and

do not require specific services. But many do not assimilate to the same degree.

If settlement is indeed a short-term process, this would confine the welfare and

education functions of the then Department of Immigration, Local Government and

Ethnic Affairs to the two-year period after arrival. However, there is some ambivalence

about this and the Department strongly and successfully resisted the recommendations

of ROMAMPAS and Fitzgerald that the AMEP should be transferred to the then

Department of Education. Nor has it proved politically easy to transfer resources from

‘older’ communities to ‘newer’ ones. The largest transfer payments to NESB

Australians are now through the Age Pension and support for elderly accommodation

and not for new settlers, nor through the Department of Immigration and Multicultural

Affairs, which is a small and diminishing player in the delivery of ‘ethnic’ welfare.

9

However, the Department has developed the ‘access and equity’ approach from 1986

(and jointly with the Office of Multicultural Affairs after 1987) and the National

Integrated Settlement Strategy established in 1991. Both of these aim to ensure

effective co-ordination between all the various agencies (Commonwealth, State, local

and non-government) likely to be engaged in immigrant or ethnic issues.

The most directly involved Commonwealth departments at present are the Department

of Family and Community Services (which has assumed the functions of the former

Department of Social Security) and the Department of Health and Aged Care, the two

departments concerned with aspects of employment. The DSS had a well-developed

experience of Aboriginal welfare and had also increased its provision of information to

NESB Australians through an effective multilingual service. Were DIMA to abandon

its settlement function altogether, it is these departments which would take it up (as

previously under Whitlam in 1974-75). There is still some scepticism within some

ethnic communities about the ability and willingness of ‘mainstream’ departments and

agencies to cope equitably with the ethnic constituency. This is mainly because of

doubts about the capacity of these agencies to understand the distinctive cultural and

linguistic character of the NESB population. This was brought out in the extensive

review of the access and equity strategy in 1992. The social situation between various

communities is also very varied, as the statistics accompanying this report indicate.

While all clients are different, there are undoubtedly some cultural factors which

mainstream departments and agencies need to understand when dealing with the very

large immigrant or NESB clientele. These can be linguistic, religious, traumatic,

educational, generational, prejudicial and gender-based. An argument for retaining a

DIMA role in immigrant welfare is that it has built up a unique expertise in these areas

though one that is also shared with the various State ethnic affairs agencies. Some of

this expertise has been dissipated with the abolition of the Office of Multicultural

Affairs and the Bureau of Immigration, Multiculturalism and Population Research in

1996. However, DIMA and the State agencies are still the largest official repositories

of relevant knowledge and it would be unfortunate if this were to be lost through the

transfer of functions to other structures.

10

The NESB/Immigration population, however defined, constitutes about 20 per cent of

the Australian total. The accompanying statistics indicate that there is a high level of

welfare need within both recently arrived and long established NESB communities. In

the case of the latter, the need is primarily amongst older residents aged in their late

40s or above. These problems appear to be linked to poor English and lack of

qualifications relevant to the industrial transformation since the 1980s. There are also

particular problems, including prejudice in hiring, servicing or accommodation

affecting Muslims and other ‘visible minorities’; limited assimilation or acculturation,

which is a problem for the elderly, including many Europeans; limited education,

especially among those from civil war situations; and the effects of such situations and

of repressive regimes.

11

Data Sources

This is the first comprehensive report on welfare recipient patterns of migrants in

Australia that incorporates information about time of arrival to Australia on the part of

overseas-born recipients. The only previous major work on the subject is Peter

Whiteford’s Immigrants and the Social Security System which was published by the

Bureau of Immigration Research in 1991. Whiteford’s study utilised tabulations of

pensions and benefits (including those paid by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs)

which were matched against ABS estimates of intercensal population by birthplace for

the late 1980s. Whiteford’s main achievement was to incorporate age distribution into

the analysis, thus overcoming one of the deficiencies of earlier studies which had

ignored this factor. However, Whiteford did not have access to information which

indicated the time of arrival of overseas-born welfare recipients.

Some subsequent work, including that by Birrell1 and Healy2 which analysed the

proportions of migrants in the workforce who were reliant on unemployment and other

labour-market related benefits, used time-of-arrival data for benefit recipients obtained

from the then DSS, but had difficulty matching these data with an appropriate

denominator. These two studies used estimates of the relevant workforce derived from

settler arrival data. These estimates could not be adjusted for any persons leaving

Australia or who died after arrival. Also the settler arrival data could not be used for

any regional analysis of welfare-recipient levels because these data do not include

information on the intended location of migrants.

The information used in this report overcomes these deficiencies, at least for the

Census year 1996. The data base for welfare pension and benefit recipients derives

from DSS files as of late 1996 (as close as could be matched to the August 1996 date

for the 1996 Census). Information on country of birth, age, sex, location and date of

arrival in Australia was available for all recipients for each of the major benefits

(Jobstart, Sickness, Special Benefit) and pensions (Age,

1 Bob Birrell, 1993, ‘Unemployment benefit dependency amongst recently arrived migrants’, People and Place, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 19-222 Ernest Healy, 1994, ‘Unemployment dependency rates amongst recently arrived migrants: anupdate’, People and Place, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 47-54

12

Sole Parent, Disability). However, no parallel data were available for pensions

distributed by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. As a consequence, care must be

used in interpreting the welfare recipient rates for persons aged 65+. Since most of the

Veterans' Affairs pensions went to Australia-born residents, our estimates concerning

the proportion of Australia-born persons in the 65+ age group who are in receipt of a

benefit or pension understate the actual level. (There were at least 300,000 Veterans'

Affairs pensioners born in Australia who were aged 65+.)

The DSS data provided the numerator for the recipient patterns. The denominator was

drawn from 1996 Census counts which provided information on the birthplace, age,

sex and time of arrival in Australia for those born overseas. This is why the year 1996

was chosen for analysis. The denominator is a count of all those present in Australia,

and thus is the residual of all movements in and out of Australia, and of course those

still alive at the time of the Census. It therefore provides an accurate and comparable

base from which to calculate welfare-recipient rates. The two sets of data comprising

the numerator and denominator also make it possible to calculate welfare-recipient

rates for the various birthplace groups by time-of-arrival3 for any Statistical Local

Areas (SLA) in Australia which in practice means such rates are available for every

Local Government Area. Because of the voluminous detail involved in such

calculations we present only a limited amount of this data below.

Though data are available for pension and benefit recipients for the years since 1996

there are no parallel estimates of the population base. The analysis done in this report

cannot be repeated until the results of the year 2001 Census become available. Thus

the recipient rates reported below are all in the form of ratios of persons in receipt of a

benefit or pension to the population base as of August 1996. These data predate the

extension of the waiting period for major welfare payments from six months to two

years implemented by the Coalition from April 1997. This affected most migrants

arriving since that time, except for those entering under the Humanitarian categories.

3 The time-of-arrival classifications for DSS recipients and the Census population are not identical. This means that the welfare recipient rates for 1986-90 are understated because the Department of Social Security data for arrivals 1986-1990 are for the period 1 July 1986 to 31 December 1990 whereas the population data are for 1 January 1986 to 31 December 1990. The recipient rates for pre-1986 are therefore slightly overstated.

13

There is one alternative source of data which would partially rectify the absence of

intercensal population base estimates, and which could be used in future work on the

issue. This is DIMA’s settlement database. This provides information on most settler

arrivals by visa category, age, sex, birthplace, year of arrival and place of intended

residence. It could provide the basis for denominator estimates of migrants who arrived

since 1996, down to region or local government level. These data, along with parallel

DSS (now Centrelink) data would facilitate post-1996 estimates of settlement progress

(as gauged by the need for welfare assistance) for recent arrivals.

Because neither the DSS files nor the Census counts provide information on visa type

for overseas-born persons, we cannot comment on the welfare benefit needs of

migrants by visa category, with the exception of older persons who are recent arrivals,

most of whom would have entered as parents. Thus the research must be interpreted

cautiously in reference to selection policies issues. The welfare-recipient ratios

calculated give an accurate indication of the welfare needs of migrants by age,

birthplace and time of arrival in Australia. But inferences of such needs by visa

category can only be made by examining particular birthplaces of origin or English

language proficiency groups (defined below) where particular visa categories

predominate.

Because the data are cross-sectional in nature it is not possible to follow a panel or

cohort of migrants from time of arrival to 1996. Thus we cannot indicate any trends in

welfare needs of a particular group of migrants over time. However, when considering

whether welfare need diminishes with time in Australia, it is possible to compare the

groups of the same EP and age group at time of arrival who arrived between July1986

and 1990 and those who arrived between 1991 and 1996. This will capture the effect

of an additional five years in Australia on the need for welfare. This comparison only

holds if we assume that the characteristics of the two groups in skills and language

proficiency are the same. This issue is explored in detail below under the heading

Effects of time spent in Australia on welfare recipient levels.

14

A further relevant aspect of the data sources used in this study is that they are based on

birthplace rather than ethnicity. Thus they do not have much relevance to the welfare

system developed by DIMA since the Galbally report of 1978. This adopts a different

approach in that it operates in part through ‘ethnic specific’ agencies. Moreover, much

of the ‘mainstream’ delivery of welfare operates through religious institutions.

However, information on welfare needs is available for each birthplace group. Where

birthplace group coincides with ethnicity (and as the following comments indicate, it

often does not), the information will be of assistance for these large grant-assisted

categories.

The difficulties of implying ethnic linkages from birthplace data are illustrated by the

following cases. The majority of Australian residents born in India, Sri Lanka,

Singapore, Korea and Indonesia are Christians, despite Christianity being a (sometimes

very) small element in those societies. The majority from Malaysia and Timor, and

large minorities from Vietnam, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea and Thailand are ethnic

Chinese as, of course are virtually all those from Hong Kong and Singapore. The

majority of those from Fiji are ethnic Indians. Birthplace data cannot accommodate

these factors and could distort intake policy if they are not taken into account. Current

skill selection policy concentrates on occupational skills recognised in Australia, age,

experience and English language capacity and this may greatly affect the ethno-cultural

character of those accepted from certain countries where some minorities are much

more privileged than the majority. It may also mean that there are considerable

differences in relation to welfare needs according to the cultural background of those

from the birthplace group in question.

Birthplace-based welfare recipient data also have to be interpreted carefully because

the characteristics of each birthplace group may vary sharply according to their time of

arrival in Australia. Thus the figures for the Vietnam-born encompass those who

escaped as boat people refugees, those subsequently admitted under the Orderly

Departure Program and the relatives of both groups admitted later. A similar variation

in mix applies to Lebanese and to some from China, Eastern Europe, Former Yugoslav

Republics and the former Soviet Union.

15

Welfare-recipient rates have been calculated for overseas-born persons by all major

birthplaces. However, in much of the presentation of the results below, these

birthplaces have been consolidated into English Proficiency (EP) categories as

classified by DIMA (see DIMA, Statistical Focus, 1996 Classification of Countries

into English Proficiency Groups, Revised, April 1999). There are four EP categories:

EP1 which includes those from Main English Speaking countries where at least 98

per cent of immigrants speak ‘good’ English and have at least 10,000 residents in

Australia,

EP2 which includes those countries for which at least 80 per cent of recent arrivals

indicated at the time of the 1996 Census that they spoke English well,

EP3 which includes countries where 50 to 80 per cent of recent arrivals indicated

that they spoke English well, and

EP4 which covers the remaining countries where less than 50 per cent of recent

arrivals stated at the 1996 Census that they spoke English well.

The detailed list of countries by EP category is shown in the appendix. It can be seen

from this appendix that EP group 2 is a disparate group composed of Western

European birthplaces, including Germany and The Netherlands as well as some Asian

birthplaces where, as a result of colonial experience, English is fairly widely spoken

(including India, Malaysia and the Philippines). EP group 3 is dominated by Southern

and Eastern European birthplaces. Most of the migrants from these birthplaces came to

Australia in the 1950s and 1960s. EP Group 4 is dominated by Asian birthplaces, and

most of the migrants in question arrived in Australia in the 1980s and 1990s.

The EP classification is useful in summarising the data and in overcoming some of the

interpretative problems associated with birthplace data. The EP categories also

incorporate a key hypothesis when it comes to explaining the factors shaping welfare

recipient outcomes. As numerous studies have shown, the relative success of migrant

settlement in Australia, as indicated in labour market participation and employment

rates, is influenced by English language skills. If, as expected, the need for welfare

assistance is also related to English proficiency we would expect to find the highest

welfare-recipient rates amongst EP groups 3 and 4.

16

Date of arrival in Australia

Overseas-born persons by age group15-24 25-44 45-64 65+

Australian-born persons by age group15-24 25-44 45-64 65+

Pre July 1986July 1986-19901991-1996

8.5 11.1 26.4 80.98.3 10.8 24.6 84.5

10.9 16.9 36.4 56.0

- - - -- - - -- - - -

Total2 9.2 12.0 26.5 65.8 16.0 16.1 27.7 66.4Total number of welfare recipients

43,528 187,262 364,518 481,555 335,736 630,567 647,934 941,521

Date of arrival in Australia

Overseas-born persons by age group15-24 25-44 45-64 65+

Australian-born persons by age group15-24 25-44 45-64 65+

New South WalesPre July 1986July 1986-19901991-1996

7.9 11.1 24.7 79.37.6 9.9 23.3 82.8

10.8 16.4 34.7 51.9TOTAL 8.7 11.7 24.7 63.8 15.3 16.4 28.4 67.2

VictoriaPre July 1986July 1986-19901991-1996

7.8 11.0 29.3 85.27.9 11.8 30.0 93.3

11.4 20.4 42.9 57.1TOTAL 9.6 12.9 30.0 70.6 14.6 14.4 26.4 64.8

QueenslandPre July 1986July 1986-19901991-1996

10.7 12.6 23.9 73.811.3 12.2 22.3 75.512.3 16.3 34.0 68.9

TOTAL 10.3 12.3 23.5 56.1 17.9 17.1 27.7 66.6South Australia

Pre July 1986July 1986-19901991-1996

10.9 14.5 33.9 84.910.2 15.4 35.8 100.011.6 18.9 42.6 53.9

TOTAL 11.2 15.0 34.0 72.1 18.2 17.6 28.7 67.7Western Australia

Pre July 1986July 1986-19901991-1996

7.8 10.2 23.4 80.37.1 8.7 18.3 76.48.3 13.0 30.2 50.9

TOTAL 8.2 10.3 23.5 68.1 14.7 15.1 25.3 62.4Tasmania

Pre July 1986July 1986-19901991-1996

11.5 12.3 26.5 72.711.2 11.2 36.6 84.1

8.0 14.2 40.8 40.5TOTAL 7.0 10.4 24.4 52.3 22.0 20.0 37.1 67.8

17

Welfare Recipient Rate Findings

Statistical overview

Table 1 shows the ratio of DSS welfare benefit and pension recipients to the relevant

base population for all Australia-born and overseas-born persons by broad age group

(15-24, 25-44, 45-64 and 65+). Table 2 indicates the same ratios for the States.

Table 1: Australian-born and overseas-born welfare recipient rates by age group and time of arrival for overseas-born persons

1

1Does not include Department of Veteran’s Affairs recipients. There were 503,996 such recipients in 1996.2 Total includes arrival date not stated.

Table 2: Australian-born and overseas-born welfare recipient rates by age group and time of arrival for overseas-born persons by state

18

The major finding is that, overall, the overseas born have slightly lower welfare-

recipient rates than do the Australia-born for each age group. This conclusion holds for

almost all age groups in each of the States as well. The only exception is for overseas-

born persons aged 45-64 in Victoria and South Australia. It should be noted that the

proportion of Australia-born on the pension understates the position significantly

because it does not include pensions paid by the Department of Veteran's Affairs.

The state-based data are consistent with the relative strength of the respective state

economies as of 1996 (as indicated by unemployment rates). Thus we find that welfare

recipient levels for both overseas-born persons and Australia-born persons aged 25-44

and 45-64 are higher in South Australia than in Western Australia and New South

Wales.

Nevertheless, not too much should be made of the aggregate figures in Tables 1 and 2

because they hide wide divergences in welfare-recipient ranges by country of birth, by

EP category and by period of arrival. For example, as is shown below (Table 9), Perth

has received a larger share of EP1 migrants relative to EP3 and EP4 migrants (who,

the subsequent analysis shows, are far more likely to receive welfare benefits than

those from EP1 countries) than most other capital cities. Thus the state of the local

economy is only one part of story.

Table 3 provides information on the impact of time of arrival on welfare need. It shows

welfare-recipient rates by EP category by five-year age groups for males and females.

These figures indicate a sharp divergence in welfare-recipient rates between EP

categories. For all age groups, people in EP categories 1 and 2 show lower welfare-

recipient rates than their Australia-born counterparts in the same age group. On the

other hand, the welfare-recipient rates for the Australia-born and EP1 and EP2

categories are generally lower for both males and females than is the case for those in

the EP3 and EP4 categories of birthplaces. The higher welfare rates for EP3 and 4

categories are particularly notable for the age groups 50-54 and above.

19

Table 3: Population numbers and welfare recipient rates forAustralian-born and EP categories for 5 year age groups by sex

Australian- EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4born

TOTAL(Aust. & EP

Groups)

FEMALES< 25 yrs

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

16.1 13.6 4.4 8.9 18.41,034,252 61,339 89,376 55,578 25,233

16.8 13.1 6.9 13.0 21.4523,759 53,549 50,445 34,987 19,348

16.4 12.3 7.4 12.5 16.8499,973 76,808 60,066 43,503 22,721

16.8 12.2 8.0 13.5 16.9499,202 79,627 65,326 50,233 22,089

16.4 10.8 8.9 15.8 19.2450,962 73,706 66,200 55,571 17,721

17.3 10.5 10.7 20.4 25.4402,611 80,763 69,522 60,962 11,958

24.0 16.8 16.4 34.1 39.2313,272 65,741 50,130 47,024 7,097

38.7 33.0 26.4 54.0 51.3250,055 52,494 38,106 48,295 6,233

66.6 64.3 43.2 79.2 59.2218,615 41,951 34,518 42,372 6,136

14.91,265,778

15.7682,088

15.0703,071

15.3716,477

15.0664,160

16.2625,816

23.5483,264

38.9395,183

65.4343,592

MALES< 25 yrs

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

15.9 12.9 3.8 9.6 17.91,063,635 63,196 98,361 56,702 24,191

17.3 12.7 5.8 18.6 25.2517,455 52,765 50,673 33,302 17,007

15.8 11.0 6.8 18.3 20.7490,505 75,786 55,664 41,650 23,420

14.9 10.4 7.0 16.5 20.8488,415 79,129 58,432 47,074 22,803

14.2 9.7 7.8 16.0 19.7445,230 75,732 60,465 52,174 17,609

14.0 9.4 9.2 16.9 21.1400,268 88,103 67,567 61,805 12,067

17.4 12.5 12.6 24.2 31.9310,863 73,859 53,566 51,966 8,062

26.7 22.2 18.5 35.3 41.6243,128 58,410 42,195 55,035 6,047

41.9 40.4 30.3 53.4 44.2204,024 45,203 36,300 49,277 5,297

14.61,306,085

16.4671,202

14.9687,025

14.0695,853

13.4651,210

13.3629,810

17.1498,316

26.6404,815

42.1340,101

It will be noted that welfare-recipient rates are higher for women than men in the age

groups 45+ across all EP categories. For the 60-64 age group this is primarily because

in 1996 females aged 60+ could access the Age Pension. This situation also explains

why the levels for women who are Australia-born or in the EP1 category also show

high recipient rates for this age group. Another factor influencing female welfare-

recipient rates in the older age groups is that women have access to a wider range of

pensions and benefits than do men, including the Sole Parent and Widow's Pension (see

Table 6).

20

The figures in Table 3 are consistent with the expectation that English language

proficiency is related to welfare need. However other factors, including education and

training are likely to have contributed to this outcome. Though generalisation is

difficult due to the diversity of countries included in the EP groups, it is the case that

many migrants in EP groups 3 and 4 arrived in Australia with limited post-school

credentials. This circumstance, as well as their level of proficiency in English would

have influenced their labour market outcomes. For all the age groups under 55 years,

persons born in the EP4 group of countries, that is those with the lowest English

language proficiency, show the highest welfare-recipient levels, followed by those in

the EP3 category. However, the link with English capacity is less apparent with the

EP2 group. For this group, most of the five-year age groups show lower welfare-

recipient levels than for the EP1 group (mainly the UK) and the Australia-born. Most

of those in the EP2 group, including persons born in Germany and The Netherlands,

have been in Australia a long time. Any disadvantage at the time of arrival in Australia

from not being native English speakers appears to have gone. Many of these migrants

possessed trade and technical skills that enhanced their employment prospects.

These results raise a crucial and much debated issue. Perhaps with time in Australia,

the high welfare recipient levels evident in 1996 for the EP3 and EP4 groups will

diminish too.

Effects of time spent in Australia on welfare recipient levels

Table 4 provides a further breakdown of the information shown in Table 3 by

incorporating the time-of-arrival factor. In setting the table up this way the objective

was to examine the difference time of arrival made to the need for welfare assistance

after controlling for English proficiency and age. We cannot be precise about the

migrants’ age at the time-of-arrival because of the way the age and year-of-arrival are

specified. Nevertheless, by comparing the welfare rates for particular age groups

across the three time-of-arrival categories it is possible to estimate the significance of

age at time-of-arrival on the propensity to need welfare assistance.

21

We might expect that the situation of people with poor English on arrival would

improve with increased familiarity with Australian conditions, experience in the local

labour market and time to learn English. It is more an open question whether such

improvement would occur if a migrant arrived in Australia at an older age. Persons

arriving in the over 40 age range may have difficulty getting the labour market

experience needed to improve their situation.

Table 4 gives qualified support for these expectations. Welfare-recipient rates are

higher for recent arrivals (those arriving between 1991 and 1996) in most age groups

and EP categories than earlier arrivals in the same age and EP categories. Thus, for

most EP categories and age groups, extra time in Australia is associated with reduced

need for welfare assistance. The only groups which do not fit this generalisation are

men aged up to 30-34 and women aged up to 35-39 amongst EP categories 1 and 2.

These latter groups apparently possess the skills and English language capacity which

enable them to prosper immediately in Australia without welfare assistance. Indeed,

their welfare rates tend to be lower than those for their Australia-born counterparts.

A more sophisticated way of making this comparison is to compare those who were in

a particular age group at time of arrival and who have resided in Australia for less than

five years with those who were in the same age group at time of arrival but who have

an additional five years residence in Australia. The shaded rows in Table 4 illustrate the

point. It shows that, for men aged 35-39 in 1996 who arrived 1991-1996, 21.6 per

cent were in receipt of a welfare benefit. If we assume that these people have the same

characteristics of those aged 40-44 in 1996 who had been in Australia an extra five

years, we can compare the effect of the extra time on their need for welfare. Of these

longer term residents shown in the shaded portion of the 40-44 panel, only 10.2 per

cent were in receipt of a welfare benefit. This pattern is shown for all EP groups for

men and is thus contrary to the findings of Borjas4 in America. Borjas followed a panel

of migrants after arrival in the US and showed that their receipt of welfare benefits

actually increased with time spent in America.

4 George J. Borjas, 1999, Heaven’s Door, Princeton University Press, p. 108

22

However, the pattern is reversed for women. There is a slight tendency for women to

need more welfare assistance with time spent in Australia, especially for women in the

older age groups. Some of the factors shaping this finding are explored below.

Does age at time of arrival make any difference to this outcome? First of all the table

confirms the expectation built into the points assessment for skilled migrants that the

older a person arrives the more likely he or she will need welfare assistance in the first

few years of residence here. This applies to all EP categories. For example, for the

male EP3 category, 28.5 per cent of arrivals in 1991-1996 aged 35-39 were welfare

recipients as compared with 34.1 per cent of those aged 45-49.

So far we have been emphasising findings which are common across all EP groups.

However, there are also important differences. The most significant is that the level of

welfare need in EP groups 3 and 4 is much higher across all age groups and time-of-

arrival periods than is the case for EP groups 1 and 2. In the case of men, this can be

seen most clearly for the 50+ age groups. Table 4 shows that over 25 per cent of all

men from EP3 and 4 category birthplaces in this age group are in receipt of welfare

benefits including at least one in five of the men who arrived in Australia before 1986.

These rates are about double those for men in the 50+ age group from EP1 and 2

category birthplaces.

It appears that most of the EP group 1 and 2 migrants (particularly men) who arrived

in Australia before 1986 have been able to hold their employment into their late 40s

and 50s such that they do not need welfare assistance. Their welfare-recipient rates are

also well below those for Australia-born men and women in the 45-49 and above age

groups.

23

Table 4: Welfare recipients by Australian-born and EP categories for 5 year age groups by time of arrival by sex

Aust. EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4 TOTAL (Aust. &EP Groups)

FEMALES< 25 yrs Arrived pre Jul 1986

Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

10.7 7.1 6.8 9.612.1 5.2 5.4 12.817.9 6.1 8.5 20.0

16.1 13.6 4.4 8.9 18.4

16.48.5

11.214.9

25-29 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

13.7 10.3 10.8 16.013.4 10.2 12.4 18.99.9 9.6 13.7 24.3

16.8 13.1 6.9 13.0 21.4

18.313.513.415.7

30-34 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

13.7 11.6 11.8 16.18.5 8.7 11.1 12.6

10.0 9.4 12.7 20.516.4 12.3 7.4 12.5 16.8

15.99.9

12.315.0

35-39 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

13.3 11.4 13.2 16.08.4 8.1 10.7 14.2

10.3 11.7 14.8 20.216.8 12.2 8.0 13.5 16.9

14.89.7

13.815.3

40-44 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

10.6 11.0 14.2 17.18.4 9.5 13.1 14.9

13.5 14.0 18.3 21.416.4 10.8 8.9 15.8 19.2

13.210.816.815.0

45-49 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

9.3 11.5 17.3 21.49.8 12.5 18.4 17.8

18.4 22.3 29.0 24.617.3 10.5 10.7 20.4 25.4

13.413.723.916.2

50-54 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

13.9 18.2 29.5 33.218.8 21.6 34.6 26.431.4 37.9 47.4 31.8

24.0 16.8 16.4 34.1 39.2

21.024.337.723.5

55-59 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

27.8 33.8 50.1 46.840.5 38.8 61.9 36.457.0 48.0 61.3 34.6

38.7 33.0 26.4 54.0 51.3

38.644.850.838.9

60-64 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

66.2 70.6 81.2 72.653.8 57.4 82.7 48.752.6 44.9 66.3 32.0

66.6 64.3 43.2 79.2 59.2

74.260.648.165.4

MALES< 25 yrs Arrived pre Jul 1986

Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

9.4 6.2 7.1 9.310.9 5.4 5.3 14.118.4 4.5 8.9 16.6

15.9 12.9 3.8 9.6 17.9

9.08.2

10.414.6

25-29 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

11.0 8.5 9.7 13.514.0 8.7 15.4 20.912.5 9.6 26.1 34.6

17.3 12.7 5.8 18.6 25.2

11.514.818.416.4

30-34 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

10.5 8.4 9.7 14.28.1 6.7 14.6 12.7

12.4 12.6 29.6 38.315.8 11.0 6.8 18.3 20.7

11.210.220.414.9

35-39 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

9.5 8.3 10.2 14.58.1 5.6 13.1 13.1

10.69.6

14.2 14.0 28.5 41.9 21.614.9 10.4 7.0 16.5 20.8 14.0

40-44 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

8.5 8.6 11.3 13.8 10.38.8 6.8 13.7 13.3 10.2

15.8 16.7 30.8 39.314.2 9.7 7.8 16.0 19.7

23.713.4

45-49 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

7.9 9.3 13.1 15.011.2 9.1 19.6 16.218.7 21.4 34.1 40.7

14.0 9.4 9.2 16.9 21.1

10.513.127.113.3

50-54 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

10.6 13.5 20.4 26.816.3 17.0 30.2 23.228.0 29.9 53.0 47.7

17.4 12.5 12.6 24.2 31.9

15.320.538.517.1

55-59 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

19.0 21.1 31.4 33.936.4 30.5 55.3 39.843.0 45.3 58.2 50.5

26.7 22.2 18.5 35.3 41.6

25.040.149.926.6

60-64 Arrived pre Jul 1986Arrived Jul 86-1990Arrived 1991-1996Total

40.6 44.3 53.0 51.826.9 38.4 71.8 37.632.4 32.7 53.7 30.5

41.9 40.4 30.3 53.4 44.2

47.342.337.942.1

24

In the case of EP categories 3 and 4, an extended period of residence in Australia does

not insulate them from public assistance when they enter their late 40s or 50s to the

same degree as their counterparts from EP 1 and 2 birthplaces. By the time they reach

their fifties, a significant minority of long established residents from EP3 and 4

category birthplaces do need such help. The point can be made more clearly with

reference to selected birthplace groups. Table 5 shows the welfare recipient levels by

some of the larger birthplace groups drawn from each of the four EP categories. In the

case of EP categories 1, 2 and 3, the great majority of the men in the age group 45-64

in the listed countries arrived in Australia before 1986. Yet welfare-recipient rates vary

sharply. The rates for men from EP3 countries, including Greece and Former Yugoslav

Republics are about double the level for EP groups 1 and 2.

It is a serious matter that just on one in every five Australian and UK-born men in the

45-64 age group shown in Table 5 was receiving a welfare benefit in 1996. This

reflects the much discussed difficulties faced by older men in the Australian workforce.

In the case of the large Greek and Former Yugoslav Republics' population, at least one

in every three men in the 45-64 age group was in receipt of welfare assistance as of

1996. As with other men in this situation (including the 22 per cent of all Australia-

born men), these Greek and other overseas-born men are clearly in no position to save

for their retirement. They will need assistance for the rest of their lives. It is likely that

the higher welfare-recipient levels amongst the Southern and Eastern European-born

men reflects the fact that few possess the post-school qualifications or the kind of work

experience which would allow them to compete for jobs in the high growth sectors of

the economy. Many of the jobs they performed when they arrived, such as low skilled

process workers in the automobile assembly and parts industries, have been automated

or the products of the industries in question are now being imported.

25

Table 5: Welfare recipient rates for males and females aged 45-64 by major birthplaces

Birthplace Welfare recipient rateMales Females

EPGroup category

AustraliaUnited Kingdom Germany Netherlands MaltaGreeceItalyFormer YugoslaviaPolandVietnam

22.5 32.719.3 28.121.1 30.520.7 31.133.3 39.636.9 51.826.5 45.839.9 50.226.1 42.938.0 50.3

-EP1EP2EP2EP2EP3EP3EP3EP3EP4

Most of the focus in this section has been on men. But, as noted above, for some

groups of female migrants, extra time in Australia leads to higher rather than lower

welfare-recipient levels. Also the overall welfare-recipient levels for women are much

higher than for men, especially in the older age groups. Both Tables 4 and 5 makes this

point clearly. The tables also show that welfare-recipient rates for women are much

higher for the EP3 and EP4 categories than for Australia-born, EP1 and EP2 category

birthplaces. Female welfare-recipient rates mirror those of their male counterparts. If a

male partner is unemployed (perhaps because of lack of English) it is likely that his

female partner will experience similar labour market difficulties. In addition, as noted

earlier, females have a wider range of benefits and pensions that they can access (as

shown in Table 6), including (in 1996) the Age Pension at age 60.

Types of welfare benefits received by migrants

Table 6 shows the major pension or benefit rates for Australia-born men and women

and for overseas-born men and women aged 40+ by EP category. It helps explain why

women tend to have higher welfare-recipient rates than men. The table shows that

Wife, Carer and Widow’s Pension, as well as the Disability Pension and unemployment

benefit, are all important sources of welfare assistance for women. Women are likely

to need such assistance because many lack work experience and because their family

role often requires them to act as carers or housewives.

26

The pattern is different for men. For men in their 40s, the Disability Pension and

unemployment benefit are the two main forms of assistance, with the unemployment

benefit being the most important. For men aged 50+ the Disability Pension dominates

for all EP groups and the Australia-born. For recent arrivals (not shown separately in

Table 6) unemployment benefits are by far the most significant form of assistance. The

main reason is that the Disability Pension is not available to migrants during their first

10 years of residence in Australia if the cause of the disability relates to events prior to

migration.

27

Table 6: Welfare recipient rates by major pension or benefit type by English ProficiencyGroup; Females and Males, five year age groups, 40-64

AgeGroup

Disability Sole Parent Unemploy- Wife or Widows/Pension Pension Ment Carer Partners Other

Pension AllowanceTotal

FEMALEAust.-born 40-44

45-4950-5455-5960-64

3.1 7.3 3.1 1.9 0.7 0.24.5 3.4 3.8 3.2 2.1 0.47.1 1.3 3.7 6.2 4.9 0.89.5 0.4 2.6 12.6 7.8 5.90.8 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.9 62.6

16.417.324.038.766.6

EP1 40-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

1.5 5.7 2.1 1.0 0.3 0.12.3 2.6 2.4 1.8 1.0 0.34.4 1.1 3.0 4.1 3.5 0.66.9 0.3 2.6 10.2 7.9 5.00.8 0.0 0.2 2.7 1.2 59.5

10.810.516.833.064.3

EP2 40-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

0.9 3.7 1.7 1.9 0.4 0.22.0 2.2 2.3 2.9 1.1 0.33.9 1.0 2.8 5.2 2.9 0.65.4 0.3 2.1 9.4 5.3 3.80.6 0.0 0.1 2.4 1.8 38.3

8.910.716.426.443.2

EP3 40-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

2.5 5.0 3.0 4.1 0.9 0.34.8 2.7 3.3 6.9 2.3 0.49.6 1.2 3.2 14.0 4.9 1.2

13.7 0.3 2.3 25.0 6.9 5.91.6 0.0 0.1 5.7 1.7 70.1

15.820.434.154.079.2

EP4 40-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

1.8 8.2 5.4 2.3 1.1 0.44.4 4.6 7.1 4.7 3.9 0.68.9 1.8 9.6 8.8 8.6 1.68.5 0.6 9.2 11.3 15.6 6.11.0 0.1 0.4 2.7 14.1 40.9

19.225.439.251.359.2

MALEAust.-born 40-44

45-4950-5455-5960-64

5.0 7.5 1.76.0 6.6 1.49.1 6.7 1.6

15.9 8.9 1.925.0 2.8 14.1

14.214.017.426.741.9

EP 1 40-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

2.8 5.8 1.13.3 5.1 1.05.6 5.9 1.0

11.3 9.4 1.520.3 3.5 16.6

9.79.4

12.522.240.4

EP 2 40-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

1.8 5.2 0.83.2 5.1 0.95.8 5.8 1.0

10.2 7.1 1.217.3 2.5 10.5

7.89.2

12.618.530.3

EP3 40-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

4.4 10.3 1.47.2 8.4 1.3

14.0 8.4 1.824.8 8.7 1.838.6 2.7 12.1

16.016.924.235.353.4

EP4 40-4445-4950-5455-5960-64

2.3 15.8 1.64.3 14.9 1.9

12.7 16.8 2.417.8 21.2 2.516.2 10.7 17.3

19.721.131.941.644.2

Pension or benefit type

Period of arrival in Australia Age Disability Special Wife or Widows/ Other1

Carer PartnersTotal

Pre July 1986July 1986-19901991-1996

79.7 0.1 - - - 1.044.7 1.4 14.7 1.4 3.4 18.629.8 0.3 16.8 0.7 6.5 2.0

80.984.556.0

Total2 62.1 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.6 1.6 65.8

28

Welfare-recipient rates for persons aged 65+

The welfare-recipient rates for persons aged 65+ are quite different to the pattern

described above for migrants aged under 65, because their rates increase with time

spent in Australia rather than the reverse. Table 1 shows that the rate for all overseas-

born persons arriving in Australia over the years 1991-1996 was 56 per cent,

compared with 84.5 per cent for those arriving between 1986-1990 and 80.9 per cent

for those arriving prior to 1986. The main reason for this pattern is that the Age

Pension, which is the dominant source of assistance paid by the Commonwealth to

those in the 65+ category, is not available to migrants until they have lived in Australia

for at least 10 years.

This restriction raises the question as to why 56 per cent of those aged 65+ in 1996

who arrived in Australia between 1991 and 1996 and 84.5 per cent of those arriving

between July 1986 and 1990 in the 65+ age group were receiving a welfare payment.

Table 7 provides a basis for exploring this issue. About half of the recipients in each of

these two arrival groups were receiving the special benefit, Wife or Carers Pension,

Widows Pension or some other payment. The large ‘other’ category for July 1986-

1990 arrivals is mainly comprised of the Widow Pension Class B. This pension is being

phased out5, but is still available to women aged 50+ as of 1 July 1987 who

subsequently became a widow. A substantial minority of those arriving after 1986 was

nevertheless in receipt of the Age Pension.

Table 7: Welfare recipients rates by major pension or benefit type for overseas-born persons aged 65+ by the time of arrival in Australia

1 Most of those arriving 1986-1990 on ‘Other’ were on the Widows B Pension which was phased out 1July 1987 with some existing recipients continuing to receive the pension after that date.2 Total includes time of arrival not stated.

5 No new grants of Widow's B Pension have been made since 20 March 1997. Existing recipients continue to receive this pension until transferred to Age Pension.

29

Most of those receiving the Age Pension, even though in Australia for less than 10

years, did so under one of the 12 pension agreements the Australian Government has

signed, with such countries as Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Italy. These

agreements provide for reciprocal Age Pension payments. The Australian Government

pays Age Pensions to former residents of each of the Agreement countries (with

varying levels of contribution from the Agreement countries) regardless of date of

arrival in Australia. The other group not affected by the ten year rule on the Age

Pension are those who entered Australia under the Humanitarian visa category.

For aged migrants who arrived in Australia less than ten years before 1996, and not in

the above two categories, the main source of welfare assistance was the Special

Benefit available to persons not residentially eligible for the Age Pension. The great

majority of these persons would have originally migrated under the parent visa

category. In the initial two years of residence in Australia, a parent would not

normally seek access to Special Benefit because during those two years he or she

would be subject to an Assurance of Support. The amount of any Special Benefit

received by the parent while the Assurance of Support was in force would become a

debt, owed by the assurer (usually the adult child who sponsored the parent) to the

Commonwealth. Any such debt would be recovered in the first instance from the bond

(lodged by the assurer as a condition for granting the parent's visa). If the debt was

larger than the bond, the balance would be recovered directly from the assurer.

However after two years residence elapses parents do often seek the Special Benefit

for those not residentially eligible for the Age Pension. To be eligible, the applicant

must attest to Centrelink that he or she has little or no income and tiny accumulated

savings (defined as possessing less than $5,000 in accessible funds). There is no means

test applied to the adult child who sponsored the parent to Australia. If parents live

independently of their children after two years residence in Australia, then Centrelink

pays no regard to the circumstances of the sponsoring children. This situation would

change if the legal period of the Assurance of Support was extended beyond two years

(as was proposed by the Coalition Government in April 2000). However, where it can

be proved that the parent or parents continue to receive support from the child (for

30

example where a parent is living with the child) the Special Benefit may not be paid, or

the rate may be reduced in order to take account of the board and lodging provided.

Another important source of welfare assistance, which is only available for women is

the Widows Pension Class B and Widows Allowance. Women aged less than 60 who

are eligible for these benefits can remain on the benefit until they become eligible for

the Age Pension. That is, like the Special Benefit, these benefits are not subject to the

ten-year residence rule applying to the Age Pension.

Table 8 gives an indication of the extent of dependence on these Special Benefit and

Widows allowances for aged persons who have resided in Australia less than ten years

and are from countries where there is no pension agreement. Though not shown in the

table, only a very small proportion of the men and women from the countries listed had

entered under the humanitarian program, which would have made them eligible for the

Age Pension prior to ten years residence in Australia. Table 8 shows that near half or

more persons aged over 65 from the countries listed were receiving a benefit. The

figure for 1991-1996 arrivals is lower than for those arriving between 1986 and 1991

because the former group includes some persons still subject to the two-year bond.

The high level of eligibility for assistance on the part of persons not residentially

eligible for the Age Pension also applies to migrants from countries such as Malaysia

and India where the children sponsoring the parents usually occupy high status

occupations in Australia.

Table 8: Welfare recipient rates for persons age 65+ who arrived in Australia between July 1986 and 1990 and between 1991 and 1996 by selected birthplaces

Country of birth Arrived July 1986-1990 Arrived 1991-1996LebanonTurkeyMalaysiaPhilippines Vietnam ChinaIndia

100.0 72.797.0 52.147.5 32.969.4 54.077.1 76.548.4 24.351.1 35.4

31

Locational patterns of migrants eligible for welfare assistance

The best guide to the residential locations of those eligible for welfare assistance is the

residential pattern of migrants by the various EP groups. Since migrants from EP3 and

4 category birthplaces are those most likely to need assistance, any concentrations of

these groups imply parallel concentrations of those requiring welfare help. Table 9

indicates the residential location of each EP group by the age groups 25-44 and 45-64.

The focus is on the capital cities because most migrants have settled in these cities.

Table 9: Percentage of EP group aged 25-44 yrs and 45-64 yrs living in major cities and rest of Australia

EP125-44 45-64

EP225-44 45-64

EP325-44 45-64

EP425-44 45-64

MelbourneSydneyPerthBrisbaneRest

15.3 15.521.8 19.215.2 13.810.5 9.837.2 41.7

22.1 22.729.8 25.21.2 1.68.2 7.4

28.7 43.1

29.9 34.242.3 34.0

6.6 6.44.5 3.7

16.7 21.7

33.5 30.646.2 47.14.4 4.44.8 5.8

11.1 12.1

Total Australia 100.0 100.0567,102 506,524

100.0 100.0467,271 391,904

100.0 100.0358,494 416,736

100.0 100.0162,718 62,897

Table 9 shows that migrants from EP3 and 4 category birthplaces are concentrated in

Melbourne and Sydney. As of mid-1996, 21.2 per cent of Australia’s population lived

in Sydney and 17.9 per cent lived in Melbourne 39 per cent in total. By comparison,

some 80 per cent of EP group 4 migrants aged between 25 and 64 lived in Melbourne

or Sydney and over 70 per cent of those in EP group 3. Very few of these migrants

lived in Perth or Brisbane or any other locations in Australia. There is a significant

concentration of EP group 1 migrants in Perth and Brisbane but, as we have seen, the

welfare needs of migrants in the EP1 category are relatively low.

Table 10 provides information on welfare-recipient rates by EP group for Melbourne,

Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and Australia as a whole. As would be expected from the

earlier analysis, these rates are much higher for EP groups 3 and 4 than for EP groups

1 and 2. The welfare-recipient rates for EP groups 3 and 4 in Melbourne and Sydney

approximate the Australian level, though the rates in Melbourne are somewhat higher

than the national rates for migrants in these groups. In the case of Sydney the rates are

generally lower than the Australian rates for these two EP groups. Given the high

concentration of EP groups 3 and 4 in Melbourne and Sydney, it follows that there are

32

large numbers of migrants needing welfare assistance located in these cities. By

contrast, there are relatively small numbers of EP groups 3 and 4 in Perth and Brisbane

(Table 9). Those who do live in Perth show the lowest welfare-recipient rates of the

four cities (Table 10).

Table 10: Welfare recipient rates for men aged 24-44 yrs and 45-64 yrs by EP group forAustralia’s major cities

City Aust.-born25-44 45-64

EP125-44 45-64

EP225-44 45-64

EP325-44 45-64

EP425-44 45-64

MelbourneSydneyPerthBrisbane

12.3 17.911.7 17.412.6 17.014.5 19.3

8.5 14.37.7 12.27.7 14.2

10.8 16.1

7.1 17.16.5 13.56.5 13.28.0 15.8

18.0 33.316.6 28.416.3 26.717.5 27.4

29.4 34.617.2 28.815.6 23.822.6 30.2

Total Australia 15.6 22.5 10.8 18.4 6.9 15.9 17.2 31.5 21.5 31.7

The question of whether the migrants needing welfare assistance within Australian

cities are concentrated in particular residential areas within these cities is another

matter. To explore this issue, a detailed analysis of the distribution of welfare recipients

by birthplace by locality expressed as a ratio of the relevant population by the same

locality was required. Data meeting these criteria were only available for Melbourne

and Sydney to Statistical Local Area (SLA) level. In addition the range of countries for

which such data were held was limited. Thus no analysis by EP category was possible

to the SLA level. Instead welfare-recipient rates by major country of birth for the age

groups 15-24, 25-44, 45-64 and 65+ by sex to SLA level for Melbourne and Sydney

were computed for 1996. Even at this level, the data generated were voluminous. The

following commentary summarises the results.

Studies based on the 1996 Census have shown that within Melbourne and Sydney,

recent arrivals from birthplaces included in the EP 4 category, or those arriving

predominantly in the 1950s and 1960s (the EP3 group), tend to concentrate in

particular suburban areas. In the case of Sydney, the concentration is in a belt of south-

western suburbs, including Canterbury, Auburn and Fairfield. In each of these suburbs

the majority of adult residents are overseas born, mainly from NESB countries. In the

suburbs adjoining their borders around a half of the residents are overseas born, again,

mainly from NESB birthplaces.6 In Melbourne there is a similar, though somewhat

more dispersed, pattern in that there are several areas of such concentrations, including

6 Bob Birrell and Byong-Soo Seol, 1998, ‘Sydney’s ethnic underclass’, People and Place, vol. 6, no. 3

33

Maribyrnong and Sunshine to the west, Preston, Coburg and Broadmeadows to the

north and Springvale and Dandenong in the south east of Melbourne. There is also a

tendency for these concentrations to increase in both Melbourne and Sydney. This is

despite very considerable residential ‘churning’ on the part of both NESB residents and

fellow Australian and English-Speaking Background (ESB) residents. What is

distinctive about all the suburbs mentioned is that they are low cost housing areas

relative to most other parts of Sydney or Melbourne. This is a major reason why

migrants in the EP3 and 4 groups concentrate in them.

The reason for this tendency towards concentration is partly that the Australian and

ESB residents tend to move out at a higher rate than do their NESB counterparts. But

the most important factor contributing to increasing concentrations of NESB origin

residents in these suburbs is that they are the main initial settlement points for recently

arrived low income migrants7, most of whom have entered Australia during the 1990s

under the family and humanitarian programs.

The implications for welfare distribution patterns are displayed in Table 11. This table

shows the welfare-recipient levels for all males and females aged 45-64 in the suburbs

discussed above. The reason for focussing on this age group is that, as noted earlier,

this is the age group of greatest concern from the point of view of the long-term

implications of welfare dependency. This is because men and women in this age group

who are reliant on a welfare benefit or pension are likely to be struggling to provide for

their families and are very unlikely to be able to save for their retirement.

The long-term prospect is that they will have to rely on the Age Pension in retirement.

The welfare recipients included in Table 11 encompass persons from all birthplaces

who live in the municipalities in question. But because the Australia-born and

Western European born residents usually constitute a minority of the residents, the

7 For Sydney, see Bob Birrell, 1999, ‘Residential relocation in Sydney and the NSW coast over the period 1991 to 1996, People and Place, vol. 7, no. 2. For Melbourne, see Bob Birrell, Kevin O’Connor and Virginia Rapson, 1999, ‘Explaining spatial concentrations of the poor in metropolitan Melbourne’, People and Place, vol. 7, no. 1

34

table gives a good indication of the extent of concentration of migrants from EP3 and

4 birthplaces who need welfare assistance. For example, in the SLA of Fairfield in

1996, only 3,950 of all 17,930 men in the 45-64 age group were Australia-born.

We calculated welfare-recipient rates for all major countries of birth in each Melbourne

and Sydney SLA but, as indicated, the results were too voluminous to include in this

report. Nevertheless, it is important to note that inspection of the rates for the

Australia-born group in Fairfield and the other suburbs in question indicate that they

are almost as high as their counterparts from EP3 and 4 birthplaces.

Table 11: Welfare recipient rates and population, men and women aged 45-64 yrs in SLAs* with high proportions of residents from EP3 and EP4 birthplaces, Melbourne and Sydney

Females 45-64 yrs

Recipient Population rates (%)

Males 45-64 yrs

Recipient Population rates (%)

MelbourneYarra (C) - RichmondBrimbank (C) - Sunshine Hobsons Bay (C) - Altona MaribyrnongMoreland (C) - Brunswick Moreland (C) - Coburg Moreland (C) - North Darebin (C) - Northcote Darebin (C) - PrestonHume (C) - BroadmeadowsGreater Dandenong (C) - DandenongGreater Dandenong (C) - Balance (Springvale) Mornington Peninsula (S) - SouthMelbourne Statistical Division

42.7 2,05449.4 8,22344.3 5,16054.1 5,30751.7 3,59251.9 4,57553.1 5,02748.7 4,15853.7 8,11748.6 6,50644.5 5,99340.8 7,74350.1 4,51532.4 326,712

34.3 2,05037.2 8,52829.9 5,11244.9 5,38142.9 3,51837.4 4,41336.6 4,36838.4 4,08337.8 7,69135.9 6,57130.3 6,01927.7 7,93834.6 3,93221.7 322,429

SydneyMarrickville (A)Bankstown (C) Canterbury (C) Fairfield (C) Auburn (A) Liverpool (C) Wyong (A)Sydney Statistical Division

40.9 7,20536.9 16,42838.6 12,96844.5 17,19842.5 4,30139.7 11,24849.3 11,85127.2 383,654

34.8 7,96525.1 16,24827.3 13,44632.1 17,93033.3 4,78927.0 11,46637.3 11,05918.8 386,463

Australia 32.1 1,847,915 22.4 1,873,373

* Mornington Peninsula (S) – South and Wyong (A) have low numbers of EP3 and EP4 residents. Theywere included in the table for comparative purposes.

Table 11 shows that the welfare-recipient rates for persons aged 45-64 in the suburbs

listed are well above the average for Melbourne and Sydney respectively. This reflects

35

the over-representation of EP groups 3 and 4 in Melbourne and Sydney and, within

these cities, the tendency for such residents to concentrate in the suburbs with the

lowest housing prices. Lower income Australian and English-speaking residents are

more dispersed across Sydney and Melbourne. However, there are some outer suburbs

including Wyong (which is part of the Sydney Statistical District) and the Mornington

Peninsula in Melbourne (both shown in Table 11) which are also relatively low-cost

housing areas where the great majority of residents are Australia-born. These areas

tend to attract low-income Australia-born residents and thus show similar high welfare-

recipient rates to those with high concentrations of EP3 and 4 birthplace migrants.

From a settlement point of view, Table 11 gives a good indication of the appropriate

location for migrant welfare assistance. The direction of welfare policy discussed at the

beginning of this report towards the ‘mainstreaming’ of welfare payments is working in

the sense that a substantial proportion of migrants coming from backgrounds without

the skills to find employment in Australia’s current economy are being provided with

income support benefits or pensions. At least that is what is implied by the high

percentage receiving such help as indicated in Table 11 and earlier tables. However,

the concentration of such migrants in Melbourne and Sydney and within particular

suburbs in these cities indicates that the data should be a good guide to the location of

ethnic specific grant in aid workers and Migrant Resource Centres.

36

Appendix: Country classification used forEnglish Proficiency Groups

AUS Australia

EP1 New Zealand UK exc. Ireland IrelandNorth AmericaSouth Africa

EP2 AustraliaMicronesia & MelanesiaPolynesia Malta SpainFormer YugoslaviaAustria Germany NetherlandsFormer CzechoslovakiaFormer USSR & Baltic StatesOther EuropeOther Mid East & Nth AfricaMalaysia Philippines IndiaSri Lanka Other Asia North AmericaOther Cent, Sth Amer & Carib Other Africa exc Nth Africa All other incl not stated

EP3 Micronesia & MelanesiaPolynesia Cyprus Greece ItalyFormer YugoslaviaHungaryPolandFormer USSR & Baltic StatesOther EuropeIraq Lebanon EgyptOther Mid East & Nth AfricaIndonesia Other Asia ChileOther Cent, Sth Amer & Carib Other Africa excl. Nth Africa All other incl. not stated

EP4 Turkey Cambodia VietnamChina exc Taiwan ProvinceOther Asia