Welfare Recipient Patterns Among Migrants
Executive summary - 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-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 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 EP 3 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.