Welfare Recipient Patterns Among Migrants
Welfare recipient rate findings - Statistical overview
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 EP 3 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.
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).
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.