DIMIA Annual Report 2002-03
Report on performance
INTRODUCTION
The department has three outcomes. The outcomes are the results, impacts or consequences of actions by DIMIA on the Australian community.
They are expressed in relatively broad, societal terms. While the department is the primary driver of its stipulated outcomes, it does not work in isolation in realising its achievements.
These inter-relationships are recognised in the following outcome reports.
Performance reporting in this Annual Report is based on the outcomes and outputs structure as set out in the Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS)/Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements (PAES) 2002-03.
Each outcome report includes the following:
- A statement of the outcome, a list of supporting departmental outputs and a brief description about what is involved in the outcome.
- A performance table setting out the effectiveness measures and actual results achieved across the outcome.
- Highlights of key elements of work towards achieving the outcome.
- Separate reports on each of the departmental output components (goods and services DIMIA provides for or on behalf of the government) contributing to the relevant outcome, including analysis of performance against planned achievements.
- Separate reports on each of the departmental administered items (those items of expenditure controlled by government and managed by DIMIA on behalf of the government), including analysis of performance against planned achievements.
There has been ongoing review of the outcomes and outputs structure and refinements have been made in past years where required to reflect changing work.
Overall the framework first developed in 1998 has proven to be robust.
The structure of this report has been changed to improve readability by ensuring a clear relationship between planned achievements detailed in the PBS/PAES and the actual results achieved.
An attempt has been made to strike an appropriate balance between the need to describe our activities and to assess their impact on the achievement of outputs and outcomes.
In some parts of our work, this is more difficult than others, however it is an ongoing focus for improvement.
OUTCOME ONE
Outcome One seeks to contribute to Australia's society and its economic advancement through the lawful and orderly entry and stay of people.
The supporting departmental outputs are:
1.1 Non-Humanitarian Entry and Stay
1.2 Refugee and Humanitarian Entry and Stay
1.3 Enforcement of Immigration Law
1.4 Safe Haven
1.5 Offshore Asylum Seeker Management.
Under this outcome the department manages permanent migration, temporary entry, litigation, detention and the prevention of unlawful entry.
Outcome One covers a wide range of important activities that cut across many different areas of the department.
The complexity of this outcome requires coordinated management of both strategic planning and operational and administrative activities.
During the year the department worked on improving intra-departmental communication and coordination to ensure that the outcome could be delivered and appropriate emphasis given to longer-term strategic goals.
OUTCOME ONE PERFORMANCE TABLE - EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
| MEASURES OF IMPACT | RESULTS |
|---|---|
| The extent to which Australia is economically, socially and culturally enriched by non humanitarian migration and temporary entry | |
| The extent to which entry of migrants and long term residents results in a positive impact on living standards
as measured by models of the economic impact of immigration. |
Modelling by Econtech estimates that the 2002-03 Migration Program (if continued to 2007-08) together with changes
in migration policy since 1996-97 may add about $344 per head in living standards compared with the living standards
that would have prevailed if the 1995-96 Migration Program had continued to that time. |
| The extent of positive impact on the Commonwealth and state/territory budgets from immigration including long term
entry as measured by models of the impact of immigration on the Commonwealth and state/territory budgets. |
A preliminary report by Access Economics estimates that the Commonwealth Budget would gain around $1.9 billion
over 4 years or $6.1 billion over 10 years from the 2002-03 Migration Program. If the program was continued at 2002-03 planning levels, Access Economics estimates that the cumulative benefit could be around $4.4 billion after 4 years, and $30.3 billion after 10 years. For long-term temporary business residents, Access Economics modelling estimates the Commonwealth Budget will benefit by about $2 billion over 4 years from the 42,363 temporary business visas issued in 2002-03. On average, state and territory budgets could share around $800 million over 4 years. |
|
The extent to which migrants participate in the labour force, are employed and help to address skill shortages as measured by:
|
Of the 2002-03 Migration Program outcome of 108,070, 61% were in the Skill Stream and almost 38% were in the Family Stream. According to the second LSIA:
The percentage of migrants scoring MODL points has dropped in the last 2 program years, partly due to the removal of most computing specialisations from the list. Other factors include the increased share of general skilled grants onshore to recent Australian graduates who generally do not qualify for MODL points because they do not have recent work experience.
ABS Labour Force data comparing unemployment rates by birthplace (Australian-born, born in mainly English-speaking countries, and born in non-English speaking countries) show that unemployment has reduced for each group in recent years, with the greatest improvement being for migrants from non-English speaking countries. The long term trend shows reduced unemployment and a converging of unemployment rates in each category. Declines in participation rates for the full stock of migrants from non-English speaking countries are partly explained by the ageing of this group. |
| The extent to which divergence in the unemployment rates of migrants from English speaking countries, non-English speaking countries and Australia born, is minimised. | Unemployment rates for migrants from non-English speaking countries have been steadily declining and converging
towards the Australian average over recent years. In 1995-96 the unemployment rate for migrants from non-English speaking countries was 5.2% higher than the Australian born rate. In 2002-03, it was only 0.8% higher. Unemployment rates for migrants from English speaking countries over the same period have consistently been up to 1% lower than the Australian born rate. |
| Diversity of nationalities visaed in the Migration and Temporary Entry program. | Visas were granted to persons from 186 different nationalities in 2002-03. The top five nationalities were: United
Kingdom (20.5%); People's Republic of China (9.1%); India (9.0%); South Africa (6.7%); and Malaysia (4.5%). |
| Meeting the economic, social and cultural needs of the Australian community through the provision of an appropriate visa framework. | Grants of Family Stream visas increased by 7% in 2002-03 to 40,790. This is the largest Family Stream since 1996-97. Processing times for Partner visas in Australian offices have been halved to 2.5 months, and the median processing time for Partner visa applications overseas is now less than 4 months. At the same time, the number of unfinalised applications in Australia has decreased by 40% (from 8,040 cases in August 2001 to 4,780 cases in June 2003) and overseas by 35% (from some 13,000 cases in August 2001 to 8,800 cases in June 2003). |