4A: Social Capital Data Tables
4A.1 Community life and civil society
Community support issues
Because social capital can manifest itself in the links which emerge between individuals and organisations in society generally, it might be imagined that ethnic organisations of many sorts play a role in helping migrants adjust to a new land. It is instructive, therefore, to look at both the level of contact which migrants had with ethnic and community organisations in Australia and the degree to which these organisations provided help.
Results from the LSIAs show that at a national level there was minimal contact between migrants and ethnic clubs or voluntary welfare agencies on arrival in Australia (Table 4A.1.1). There was slightly more contact with churches and religious organisations than clubs or agencies but the extent of this was limited to about one in six migrants.
Table 4A.1. 1: Contact by primary applicants on arrival in Australia, LSIA (per cent)
|
LSIA 1 (Wave 1)
|
LSIA 2 (Wave 1)
|
Ethnic Club
|
6.3
|
1.8
|
Voluntary Welfare Agency
|
4.7
|
1.2
|
Church/Religious Organisation
|
15.6
|
14.5
|
Source: LSIA
After arrival, new migrants drew more on informal social links with relatives (in about two out of three cases) and friends (the main source of help for 40% of primary applicants) already resident in Australia (Table 4A.1.2). The limited extent to which ethnic and community organisations provided help after arrival suggests low measures of social capital in the middle ground between formal government structures and the core environment of family and friends.
Table 4A.1. 2: Sources of help for primary applicants after arrival, LSIA
Percentage
Ethnic Club
|
2.8
|
Voluntary Welfare Agency
|
3.6
|
Church/Religious Organisation
|
5.5
|
Relatives in Australia
|
65.0
|
Friends in Australia
|
40.3
|
Source: LSIA Wave 1
Although the national overview showed minimal contact between migrants and ethnic organisations, variations between states and territories were apparent (Table 4A.1.3). Higher levels of contact between migrants and ethnic clubs in South Australia led to greater degrees of help from that particular source in that state by comparison with elsewhere (but still extending to only about one in twenty households).
Table 4A.1. 3: Extent of contact, by states and territories
(per cent primary applicants)
LSIA 1
ACT NSW NT Qld SA Tas Vic WA Australia
Ethnic club 5 6 5 5 9 5 8 6 6
Ch urch/Rel ig ious org anisation Voluntary welfare
agency
15 16 26 9 12 21 17 19 16
5 5 0 3 4 1 5 4 5
LSIA 2
Ethnic club 4 1 5 6 0 1 1 2 2
Ch urch/Rel ig ious org anisation Voluntary we lfare
agency
12 15 19 21 12 14 11 15 15
5 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Source: LSIA 1 Wave 1 a nd LSIA 2 Wave 1
In all States and Territories, most help was provided by friends or relatives (Table 4A.1.4). Victoria, NSW and the ACT were strongest in terms of help from relatives; friends were more important in South Australia and the ACT than elsewhere. In short, there was no state or territory where, overall, ethnic or other formal organisations appeared to play a significant role in helping migrants on arrival. Of course, regional results do not permit interrogation at the level of SLA where significant help and support from community organisations might have occurred. For instance a distinguishing feature of Shepparton, not captured by any quantitative data set, was the extraordinary level of support between established and new and emergent migrant communities.
Table 4A.1. 4: Sources of help, by states and territories
(per cent primary applicants)
|
ACT
|
NSW
|
NT
|
Qld
|
SA
|
Tas
|
Vic
|
WA
|
Australia
|
Ethnic club
|
1
|
2
|
5
|
3
|
5
|
0
|
4
|
2
|
3
|
Voluntary welfare
|
3
|
4
|
0
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
agency
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Church/Religious
|
4
|
5
|
11
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
6
|
7
|
6
|
organisation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relatives in
|
68
|
66
|
39
|
61
|
51
|
57
|
71
|
593
|
65
|
Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friends in
|
45
|
39
|
34
|
41
|
44
|
36
|
41
|
42
|
40
|
Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Only data for LSIA 1 are presented because strictly comparable data are not available for LSIA 2
because the emphasis in the questions changed from migrating units to individual respondents. Source: LSIA 1 Wave 3.
Although formal organisations did not register as a major source of help, there were certain birthplace groups for which usage levels were comparatively high. From 16 down to 12 per cent of primary applicants from the Russian Federation, Iraq, Burma, and Somalia went to voluntary welfare agencies; and similar proportions of migrants from South Korea, Iran, Iraq, the Russian Federation, Ethiopia, Egypt and Burma used churches and religious organisations. In reality, though, the number of migrants from some of these birthplace groups was relatively small.
Humanitarian migrants used formal organisations the most although still only to a level that involved about one in eight migrants (Table 4A.1.5). Interestingly, a relatively significant proportion of business migrants (almost
12%) received help from churches and religious organisations. Conversely, this group – alongside independent migrants – made least use of relatives. These two groups, however, had the highest levels of help from friends, suggesting the existence of networks within business communities and robust levels of integration into the host society.
Table 4A.1. 5: Sources of help for migrants in different visa categories
(per cent)
Visa category
Ethnic clubs
Voluntary welfare agencies
Churches and religious organisations
Relative
s Friends
Preferential Family 2.3 0.9 3.8 74.1 31.9
Concessional Family 3.0 2.6 6.6 86.9 39.8
Bu siness S kills & Employer N omination
3.5 0.5 11.7 21.3 60.2
Indep end ent 1.8 6.4 3.3 29.5 67.6
Humanitarian 6.2 13.0 13.0 69.4 36.5
Source: LSIA
Table 4A.1. 6: Citizenship rates, overseas-born people resident in Australia for two years or more, by selected birthplace, 2001
Persons
‘000
Citizenship rate %
Standardised citizenship rate % 9
Philippin es 90.4 90.4 92.1
Viet Nam 141.8 95.3 91.5
China (excl. SARs and Taiwan Prov.) 114.2 80.3 90.1
Greece 108.3 97.1 89.2
Italy 204.6 79.5 65.2
United Kingdom 951.5 65.6 64.3
Germany 100.5 76.5 59.7
Netherlands 78.7 78.3 55.5
New Zealand 281.5 37.7 45.3
All overseas born
(where birthplace could be determined)
Source: ABS 2006c: 146
3,560.3 74.4 74.4
Table 4A.1. 7: Former nationality, people granted Australian citizenship
2003-04
|
Number
|
Per cent
|
Country of former nationality or citizenship
|
|
|
United Kingdom
|
17,201
|
19.8
|
New Zealand
|
13,052
|
15.0
|
China (includes Hong Kong & Macau SARs but
|
|
8.1
|
excludes Taiwan)
|
7,072
|
|
South Africa
|
4,098
|
5.6
|
India
|
3,638
|
4.2
|
Philippines
|
3,019
|
3.5
|
Viet Nam
|
2,215
|
2.5
|
Malaysia
|
1,846
|
2.1
|
Fiji
|
1,582
|
1.8
|
Sri Lanka
|
1,582
|
1.8
|
Bosnia-Hertzegovina
|
1,490
|
1.7
|
United States
|
1,409
|
1.6
|
Iraq
|
1,271
|
1.5
|
Taiwan
|
1,259
|
1.4
|
Lebanon
|
1,058
|
1.2
|
Serbia and Montenegro
|
984
|
1.1
|
Korea (Republic of)
|
943
|
1.1
|
Ireland
|
905
|
1.0
|
Indonesia
|
897
|
1.0
|
Pakistan
|
874
|
1.0
|
Other/not stated
|
19,817
|
23.0
|
Total 87,049 100.0
Source: ABS 2006c: 146
9 The rates of c itizenship that would be exp ected if a g iven ov ersea s- born p opulation h ad t he sa me age a nd period of resi de nce profile as the t otal o verseas- born p op ulati on
Share with your friends: |