The SMH has an article talking about the failure of the skilled migration program – apparently secondary applicants (usually the wives and children – the primary applicant is more likely to be male) are not employed to the same extent as the rest of the population.
Unemployment among skilled migrants and their families is 30 per cent higher than for the population as a whole, new research shows, but those who do have a job are more likely to be in a professional role.
…
Although the program is geared towards overcoming serious skills shortages, a significant number of skilled migrants are unable to find work.At the last census, 7.3 per cent of skilled migrants were unemployed compared with 5.2 per cent of the population as a whole.
”[This] highlights the fact that the skilled migration program is not working,” a Sydney University migration expert, Dimitria Groutsis, said.
”We are not fully utilising the skills and vocational experience offered by people living overseas.
”There needs to be better … information for individuals when applying in their home country for emigration to Australia about what the expectations are.”
The original ABS report is here. The conclusions drawn in the SMH are far too strong for the data reported by the ABS. This is the bottom line from the ABS (emphasis added).
In general, half (50%) of Skilled Program migrants aged 15 years and over were employed full-time compared with 35% of Family Program migrants and 17% of Humanitarian Program migrants. Almost a fifth (18%) of Skilled Program migrants were employed part-time. In comparison, in the 2006 Census, 37% of the Australian population aged 15 years and over were employed full-time and 17% were employed part-time.
When you drill down there is a lot of detail.
Almost two-thirds (63%) of Skilled Program migrants aged between 15 and 19 were ‘not in the labour force’, compared with almost a quarter (23%) of Skilled Program migrants of all ages. Most (96%) of the Skilled Program migrants aged between 15 and 19 who were ‘not in the labour force’ were studying at an educational institution and they were all ‘secondary applicants’
So the children migrants tend to get an education. As do their wives.
A large proportion (40%) of the female Skilled Program migrants 15 years and over, who were ‘not in the labour force’ were studying at an educational institution. Note that male Skilled Program migrants were also far more likely to be primary applicants (64%).
So the data are far more nuanced than the SMH suggest. But that isn’t the real story here. There are two other factors that should come into play. The length of time that migrants have been here has an impact on the employment statistic. The ABS recognises this, but doesn’t calculate a time-weighted unemployment figure.
As length of residency increases, Skilled Program migrants were more likely to be working full-time. The proportion of Skilled Program migrants who were employed full-time was higher for residents who had been living in Australia for a length of time between 4 and 6 years (54%) when compared with recent migrants (48%).
The other problem is that we are not comparing like with like. The secondary applicants’ unemployment rate is compared with the Australian average. But the wives and children of migrants are a select group – they are often the wives and children of high-income professionals.
A higher proportion of Skilled Program migrants (16%), 15 years and over, earnt over $1,300 a week when compared with the Australian population, 15 years and over (10%).
So a comparison should be made with the labour force characteristics of Australian high-income professionals not the general population. I doubt the ABS have that data easily to hand, or even at all.
So all up there are two problems with the SMH interpretation. First many of the people described as being unemployed are less likely to have full-time employment anyway and given the logistics of migration the secondary applicant (usually the wife) is less likely to start work anyway because she would be managing the settling in period and ensuring that the children are happy at school etc. before going out to work. (At the same time, of course, she would normally begin looking for a job).
So if you stay at home and look after the kids nowadays, you are unemployed?
Yobbo
1 Sep 10 at 9:13 am
Well that changes the story significantly. what a media beatup! A lot of migrant families are still traditional families. The wife is not expected to be in the workforce.
jtfsoon
1 Sep 10 at 9:21 am
Yobbo – not clear from the definitions the ABS have in that paper. More or less new secondary migrants are looking for a jo, but don’t want to work straight away because they’re looking after kids who find migration very trumatic. But there is a measurement problem.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Sep 10 at 9:40 am
I agree SD, although whether it is a beat up or the author is just not very bright, who knows.
conrad
1 Sep 10 at 9:41 am
The left isn’t very impressed with the skilled migration program. Supposedly they take jobs from locals, jack up house prices, and put pressure on the environment. About the only thing they do right is vote Labor, and even that’s questionable these days.
daddy dave
1 Sep 10 at 10:20 am
Sinclair, like Jason says I think the answer is more so that migrant families are much more conservative than the Australian average and that most of the wives would not only not really want to work, but wouldn’t be expected to.
Yobbo
1 Sep 10 at 10:32 am
Yes, I agree.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Sep 10 at 10:50 am
Sinclair, I am afraid these results on the labour market outcomes for the Independent Skilled migrants are not new and conform with previous findings.
It is partly because the Skilled Occupation List has been a joke for so long that immigrants enter with skills that are not really in demand, or require local knowledge to use effectively.
That said, taking a while to settle into the Australian labour market is probably OK, although any NPV type study will weight such outcomes heavily and negatively. Entrants under the Migration Program are not entitled to government benefits for two years, so the drain on the government purse is not too great(although they are entitled to Medicare, HECS, school education and the like).
This issue of the secondary applicant has been known for some time, although it is obviously an appropriate part of a migration program that people be allowed to bring with them their immediate family members.
The best labour market outcomes occur within the various skill sub-programs that involve employer sponsorship – not surprisingly.
But the idea that the Migration Program at 170,000 entrants per year is needed to deal with the skill shortages in the mining industry does not pass the laugh test, given that the stock of employment in mining is only about 160,000.
(And yes, I understand the second-round effects of the booming mining sector and that this generates new jobs that need to be filled … it is just the direct linking of the Migration Program with mining skill shortages that doesn’t work.)
Judith Sloan
1 Sep 10 at 11:05 am
Judith – I don’t doubt that these results are well-known. They shoud be well-known; they are exactly what I would expect. I’m not surprised that most jobs require local skills and knowledge, especially high-income jobs. I’m not surprised that people with poor English skills struggle to get jobs.* I’m not surprised that people who are recent arrivals are unemployed relative to the permanent population. I’m not surprised that the wives of high-income earners are more likely to be home-executives (is ‘house wife’ PC or not these days?). You get the idea. My quibble isn’t with the ABS per se, my quibble is with the SMH spin on the story.
* there has been an education rort going on in this area. I don’t know how big or small the problem is but there is a problem. It could be solved by having an English language test for those migrants claiming an Australian education as part of their migration application.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Sep 10 at 11:24 am
Sinclair, at least at the university level, there is already an English test to get in (i.e., you need to be above a certain level on the IELTS and TOEFL, although this differs across different courses and universities), so I don’t see what the rort is. If you’re worried, then you could just enforce miminum standards, but then you’re just creating more government rules, and it’s not like there arn’t enough of them already in HEd.
here it is for your university.
conrad
1 Sep 10 at 11:32 am
What is known about business migration?
From things I hear about the prices paid for marginal small businesses with poor prospects, the going rate could be $200,000 or more per person.
Small businesses from time to time get unsolicited offers, from banks and others which suggests large fees are involved.
Many solicitors now call themselves migration agents which also suggests large fees and dubious practice.
If business migration was made more transparent, we could get an idea of the market rate for Australian Residency. Are we giving it away?
Rodney
1 Sep 10 at 11:35 am
Conrad – it’s not the entry that’s the problem. It is the exit. The assumption is that students’ English will improve over the period of their studies, so the entry requirement is lower than the overall required standard.* The greater problem arises when students articulate from TAFE to higher ed. The entry standard there is lower again and there is an assumption that students have reached the required level. There is no mechanism at exit to determine if language has improved, the assumption is that if the student passes than the standard has been met, but we don’t examine language standards (and I wouldn’t want to anyway) but someone claiming a language standard on their migration application should have to provide evidence beyond simply claiming an Australian education that doesn’t test the actual claim being made.
*At least that was the situation in the days when I was an administrator.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Sep 10 at 11:41 am
It is partly because the Skilled Occupation List has been a joke for so long that immigrants enter with skills that are not really in demand, or require local knowledge to use effectively.
I know a guy who’s a doctor, from India. Speaks English very well. He came here. Paid the cash to re-qualify. Was certified. Six months later and he’s still unable to get anything but casual work.
Don’t we have a shortage of doctors?
Adrien
1 Sep 10 at 11:52 am
This might explain why there are unemployed docs:
http://www.qip.com.au/accreditation.asp
.
1 Sep 10 at 12:12 pm
Bump.
.
2 Sep 10 at 8:23 am
Don’t we have a shortage of doctors?
Yes, but not in the major metropolitan areas. Since you live in inner Melbourne, presumably does too – where there is no shortage of doctors at all. Is he not prepared to move to a regional area, outside of the Melbourne metro?
daddy dave
2 Sep 10 at 9:03 am