MIGRANTS AND SOCIAL WELFARE IN AUSTRALIA

Stephen Frost

Nothing quite unnerves the Australian government like illegal 'boat people' landing on its shores. The outcry over the 8,000 or so who washed up on beaches during 1998-99 proves that much at least. Perhaps the thought of a welfare recipient 'getting something for nothing' is the only thing that comes as close to upsetting the government. Or so it would seem if recent moves to reform the welfare system are anything to go by. 'Work for the Dole' schemes have been on the agenda for years, but not until this year has the government taken steps to implement one.

Now, for the first time, some of the most vulnerable members of society - the unemployed, single parents, and the disabled - will face the loss of their benefits if they refuse to participate in employment or voluntary work schemes. Roundly condemned by social activists, the get-tough approach to welfare probably comes as no surprise to migrants. After all, new arrivals have seen their entitlements wither away over the last twelve months, and there seems no end in sight.

Unlike other vulnerable groups in Australia though, migrants are being hammered on two fronts. On the one side, the government fears a flood of illegal immigrants. The Minister for Immigration, Philip Ruddock, spoke of nothing less than a 'national emergency' in November last year after a comparatively heavy influx of migrants over a month or two. He invoked images of whole villages in the Middle East packing up and setting sail for Australia. Such depictions fed a media and radio chat show frenzy, presenting the government with a mask of credibility for a raft of hard hitting policies designed to further tighten Australia's immigration procedures. Refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq were portrayed in the media, and by the government too, as selfish 'queue jumpers'. They were made out to be ruthless and self-centred, or worse, presented as prohibited substances smuggled into the country.

So on one side, migrants face an anti-immigrant backlash. But on the other side, they are caught in a pincer movement of wholesale reform to the welfare system. Prime Minister John Howard now talks in vague terms about 'mutual obligation'. A perhaps deliberately indistinct expression, it is hauled out by the government whenever it wants to imply that recipients of welfare should make the most of the opportunities provided for them. Or to put it more bluntly, that the socially vulnerable should not only be grateful for the welfare benefits they receive, but should provide something useful in return.

Nevertheless, all the Prime Minister's talk of mutual obligation cannot conceal the government's primary objective: to significantly reduce welfare payments. Be it the unemployed or single mums, the government is making welfare tougher to get and harder to keep. In fact some of the most vulnerable sectors of the community are now denied complete access to a welfare system simply on the basis of their migrant status. Entitlements that other Australians take for granted - such as basic social security payments if you lose your job - are no longer accessible to some newly arrived migrants.

The changes in migration policy combined with the reforms to the welfare system do not bode well for particular types of migrants, especially those from Asia with few skills. What is evident from these changes is that the government is more interested in saving money, or making it, than it is about human suffering and dignity. That should come as no surprise given its fascination with policies popularised by the leading lights of economic rationalism, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Explanation of this government's rejection of a century of welfare provisions demands more space than this short article allows. Following are major turning points along the way, starting with putting the welfare system in its historical context.

Recent history

The welfare system's scope is national and funded by taxation. It provides support to those deemed eligible and covers income payments, pensions and allowances, child support allowances, and services for children, the aged, and those with disabilities. The number of people of working age (excluding retirement pensions) receiving income support has grown from around 200,000 in 1965 to just over 2.6 million in 1998. 18 percent of Australians of working age now receive some benefit. During the last 30 years, spending on welfare payments as a percentage of GDP has risen from approximately three percent to more than seven percent. In real terms this was an increase from about $5.5 billion to $38.9 billion in 1998.1 Total welfare spending is around $50 billion per year; or close to one-third of total federal budget outlays. On top of this are significant contributions from state and territory governments.

The amount spent on welfare has been the source of ongoing debate since the 1970s, when spending as a proportion of GDP began to rise sharply. Both Liberal and Labor governments have tackled the issue, balancing concerns of interested parties calling for increases or reductions in welfare spending. Since election in 1996 the current administration has sought to reduce the amount spent on welfare. Major changes were signalled in September 1999 when the Minister for Family and Community Services Senator Jocelyn Newman announced that social policy would be the next major reform priority for the government. Since then, a Reference Group consisting of representatives from the community, business, academia, and government have received 366 submissions from interested groups about welfare assistance. The final report was published at the end of June. The broad direction in which the current government is pushing reform is clear, and has been so since before their election, but the interim report released in March and Newman's speech spelt it out.2

Reform of the system

In her speech, Senator Newman spoke of revising Australian welfare by reforming dependence on welfare. That the unemployed are dependent on welfare is debatable. Nevertheless, the current government often makes the claim despite their being little evidence to sustain it. The notion of dependency is simply taken for granted, and forms the basis upon which the senator demands reform. "No nation," she stated, 'can afford to leave unchecked the waste, economic and social isolation that is the consequence of welfare dependency".3 Using a term that Howard himself has used on occasion, Newman spoke of a 'social coalition', where all players in Australian society must work together. Invoking the 'irresistible phenomenon' of globalisation, she went on to say that the modernisation of the welfare system should "complement other policies that promote a skilled, adaptable and productive workforce". In short, reforms are hoped to encourage self-reliance and assist people in escaping from the dependency trap.

For the senator, escaping the trap of dependency is contingent on a process of mutual obligation. This is another way of saying that the government expects people on income support to contribute to society through increased social and economic participation. An example of the government's mutual obligation is the controversial 'Work for the Dole' scheme. Aimed at changing - as Newman says - the 'expectation among some young people that the taxpayer owes them something for nothing', this scheme requires welfare recipients to undertake voluntary or other work in exchange for welfare payments. This has given rise to concerns about the formation of a new underclass comprising the unemployed who are now forced to labour for wages considerably lower than the minimum. Furthermore, the majority of jobs offered under such schemes tend to be repetitive, boring and dirty, and provide little or no chance for participants to acquire new skills. The creation of a pool of cheap labour appears to be a more important goal for the government than training the unemployed and providing long-term job opportunities.

In short, the Australian welfare system is extensive in its provision for the vulnerable but is now undergoing substantial change. Reformers seeking to cut the overall budget, and keen on implementing efficiencies, are currently in the political ascendancy. It is not surprising then that migration levels and welfare assistance to migrants is also under review.

Migration to Australia

Other than a small population of indigenous inhabitants, Australians are overwhelmingly recent migrants or the descendants of recent migrants. Since the earliest days of European settlement in the late 18th century, migration has accounted for up to 50 percent of Australia's population increase. For instance, as late as the period from 1987 to 1989 net immigration contributed more than 55 percent to Australia's total population growth.4 Since 1945 - when the government initiated mass migration programmes to boost what was seen as a small, white, and relatively defenceless population geographically located in Asia - almost 5.7 million have arrived in Australia as new settlers. During the same time, Australia's population has risen from around 7 million to just under 19 million. One of the consequences of such a programme is that today nearly one in four Australians was born overseas, and has arrived from one of over 150 countries. The five major countries from which migrants are now drawn are New Zealand (19 percent), the United Kingdom (11.9 percent), South Africa (5.5 percent), Hong Kong (4.1 percent), and India (3.6 percent).5

Closing the door on Asians

This ethnic variety - with Asian countries well represented in the migration mix - has not always been the norm. Whilst it is true that Chinese in particular made up a large proportion of arrivals in the period from the 1850s to the 1880s, the beginning of the twentieth century saw Australia shut its door on Asian migrants. One of the first acts of the newly formed federation of Australia's parliament in January 1901 was to pass legislation restricting entry to non-whites. Denying them access was the result of several diverse factors. The majority of Australians during the 1880s seemed to fear mass Asian migration to a large and under-populated continent. Many also expressed a strong desire to keep Australia culturally homogeneous; that is, culturally British. A budding trade union movement argued that capital's desire to import cheap Asian labour would see white workers lose jobs and benefits. Others spoke of the licentious and depraved social habits of the Chinese with their supposed fondness for gambling, opium, and lewd sexual behaviour.

Public distaste for Asians was acted upon by implementing the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 - or as it is otherwise known, the White Australia Policy. From 1901 to 1945, the Act was strictly enforced. Australia's migrant intake was overwhelmingly British. However fears of Asia, this time underscored by fears of communism which gave rise to the slogan 'Populate or Perish', prodded the authorities in the late 1940s and early 1950s to embark on an ambitious mass migration policy. In consultation with the British, some European partners, and the International Refugee Organisation, the government encouraged displaced persons from war-ravaged Europe to migrate to Australia. In the years from 1945 to 1960, 1.6 million settlers arrived. This group included, for the first time since 1901, significant numbers of southern and eastern Europeans, among them settlers from Italy, Greece, Poland, and Yugoslavia. This was a major first step in changing Australia's ethnic mix from a predominantly British one.

Refugees from southern and eastern Europe were not met with uniform delight. Jewish refugees in particular initially found their entry officially blocked in what now seems to be policy underpinned by thinking similar to that of the Nazis. Southern and Eastern Europeans who migrated before the mid 1960s discovered that the Australian population expected them to assimilate; that meant, shed their cultures and languages and be absorbed into and indistinguishable from the host population. From the 1960s to 1972, assimilation policies were relaxed, and new migrants were expected instead to integrate.

In the shift from assimilation to integration, the government recognised some of the problems migrants had in adapting to life in Australia. In doing so, it began to provide more direct assistance. One major change was that the government officially recognised the importance of ethnic organisations. But most importantly in the context of welfare, expenditure on migrant assistance rose sharply in the early 1970s in response to the perceived needs of new settlers.

All the while officials from the then Department of Immigration inspected every potential migrant for the possibility that they might not be of European - or the right - stock. This included assessing eye shape and skin colour (an almond-shaped eye or swarthy appearance might indicate Asian heritage and thus denial of one's application).

Ending the White Australia Policy

However, the White Australia Policy was under quiet attack. Several refugees from Southeast Asia who had sheltered in Australia during World War II married Australians and initiated court battles against the government's attempts to deport them. The government unofficially changed its stance on some Asian migration, allowing 'distinguished' non-white people to enter. By 1972, when the first Labor government since 1949 swept to power on a tide of discontent with Liberal rule, the time was ripe for official change. The White Australia Policy was laid to rest.

Since then ideas about assimilation or integration have given way to those based on multiculturalism. It has been notoriously difficult to achieve consensus in Australia on what the term means, let alone whether it is a good thing. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) defines it as 'a term which describes the cultural and ethnic diversity of contemporary Australia'.6 Further, the Department 'recognises that Australia is, and will remain, a culturally diverse country and seeks to ensure that the diversity is a positive force in our society'.7 The most important implication of this refers to cultural identity. In DIMA's terms, this means 'the right of all Australians, within carefully defined limits, to express and share their individual cultural heritage, including their language and religion'.8

The argument that has flourished since then is over how much support should be given to maintain such a policy. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, governments have significantly increased welfare assistance to migrants, and liberalised migration procedures - particularly family entry rules in relation to parents.9 In effect this meant that by the mid 1980s all parents were eligible for sponsorship by their Australian children as permanent residents. Even though it was a more difficult process, Australian citizens could also sponsor brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews. One of the outcomes of this was the increase in the family reunion component of the migration programme. There was also a significant rise in the spouse and fiance categories. Because they were Australian residents, new migrants in the family reunion category had full access to the range of welfare and related benefits. During the years 1983-1996 - under Labor Party rule - these benefits were significantly expanded.

The number of migrants peaked at 124,700 in 1988-89. Since then these numbers declined to 82,500 in 1995-96, and will be cut under the Liberal government to 70,000 from June this year.

The current government has reoriented both the focus of the migration programme and the range of entitlements open to migrants upon arrival. The migration programme is now divided into two: migration, and refugee\humanitarian.

The first reforms to the migration programme consisted in cutting overall numbers, and a shift in emphasis away from the family reunion component to the skills component. Since overall numbers peaked in 1988-89, the total numbers of migrants has almost halved. There has also been a dramatic shift away from 1995-96 when the family reunions accounted for 68.7 percent of the total. By the year ending June 2000 this rate was down to just over 45 percent, reflecting the government's economic imperatives.

These imperatives are reflected in a 1998 report commissioned by the government and designed to audit the net impact of migrants on the Commonwealth budget.10 The economic modelling that formed the basis of the report determined government outlays for the migrant programme (benefits, services, and allowances), and receipts (direct and indirect taxes paid by migrants). The report concluded that across all categories outlays peaked in the third year and then declined to a plateau. Receipts, on the other hand, tended to rise steadily over a five-year period.

The report argued that reductions in family reunions and increases in skilled migration showed positive results as far as the federal budget was concerned.

These changes in the focus of the programme away from family reunion to skills are only one aspect of the current reform package. The other aspect concerns the access to a range of welfare entitlements by newly arrived migrants. Migrants in many categories, including some in the refugee and humanitarian stream, have been denied access to some social welfare.

Most migrants arriving under the humanitarian and refugee stream have immediate access to many special (such as settlement programmes) and general (such as income support) welfare benefits. Government responses to recent events though have changed even this.

Hostility lingers

During 1999 and into 2000 the media has been awash with stories concerning a new wave of 'boat people' into Australia. These refugees, mainly from the Middle East, have been greeted with 'unremitting and undeserved hostility'.11 While many Australians seem resentful about welfare provided for the vulnerable (such as single mothers, 'dole bludgers' and Aborigines), there appears to be even less sympathy for refugees.

In the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill passed in November 1999, the government tightened rules for refugees seeking asylum. Supposedly aimed at protecting Australian fishing rights from 'illegal' Indonesian fishermen, the legislation opened the way for the government to prevent certain categories of refugees having access to full health, welfare or education services. This is achieved by an amendment that denies people arriving illegally by boat the chance of refugee status if on their way to Australia they bypassed a country where they could make a refugee claim. The bill gives Australia the right to intercept boat people in international waters and turn them back.

At the same time, the government was able to ram a bill through parliament which restricts refugees to a three-year temporary visa if they arrive without papers. Even if they are granted a permanent visa after being accepted as 'genuine' under Australia's refugee determination process, refugees are unable to sponsor their families for a period of more than three years. This means that if a person is granted refugee status, their spouse and dependent children will be removed from Australia after three years. On top of this, refugee claimants who arrive in Australia without a visa are apprehended and placed in detention centres. Amnesty International's investigation of the mandatory detention of refugees has described the policy as 'not permitted under international human rights commitments' and that it 'denies human rights'.

Institutional racism

It should be noted at this point that just over 20 percent of illegal immigrants are from Britain and the US. While the government scrambles to convert disused barracks and government quarters in isolated locations into detention centres for refugees from the Middle East, no such effort is being expended on the citizens of Britain or the US.

For some in the refugee and humanitarian programme conditions are harsh, but even for new arrivals in migrant programmes the conditions that greet them are deteriorating. There is now a two-year waiting period for almost all social security benefit payments for most new arrivals. Given that one third of recently arrived adult migrants depend on welfare shortly after landing, and that at least 25 percent are still dependent on welfare payments in their second year in Australia, the consequences of such reform are severe.

In stark contrast to this, the government announced in December 1999 that it would boost the number of backpackers who could legally work in Australia. On 7 December 1999, the Minister for Immigration announced that the number of working holidaymaker visas would jump from 65,000 for 1999 to 78,000 for 2000. This visa programme allows young holidaymakers from selected countries (Britain and Europe in the main) to work for up to 12 months. With the government focusing on increasing the numbers of skilled migrants, unskilled jobs are increasingly being left to people willing to do the dirty work - backpackers, temporary residents and the government's own estimate of 55,000 unlawful immigrants hidden around Australia.

The current reforms to migration levels and the provision of welfare assistance to migrants have come in for much criticism in Australia, but it seems unlikely that the government will be swayed from implementing further measures to make access to welfare payments more difficult for new arrivals. Concentrating on the arrival of skilled labour at the expense of family reunion has, from the government's perspective, paid a financial dividend. However, Australians must now consider the moral implications of allowing people to enter the country and become permanent residents or citizens whilst denying them full access to social security.

Notes

Currency is expressed in Australian dollars. At the time of writing AUS$1 = US$0.59.
Participation Support for a More Equitable Society: The Interim Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform, March 2000.
Jocelyn Newman, 'The future of welfare in the 21st century', Speech delivered at the National Press Club, Canberra, 29 September 2000.
ACIL Consulting, Impact of Migrants on the Commonwealth Budget: A Report to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, June 1999.
Information for most of this paragraph was taken from, DIMA (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Fact Sheet 2, http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/02key-1.htm (accessed 5 June 2000). The latter figure showing percentage of migrants was for the year July 1997 to June 1998.
'DIMA Fact Sheet 8: The Evolution of Australia's Multicultural Policies', http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/08multi.htm, (accessed 7 June 2000).
Ibid.
Ibid. My italics.
9. Much of the information in this paragraph is drawn from the following paper: Bob Birrell, 'Family reunion reform under the coalition government', Paper presented at the Population and Immigration Seminar, University of Sydney, 4 February 1999.
ACIL Consulting, Impact of Migrants on the Commonwealth Budget: A Report to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, June 1999.
Robert Manne, Refugees without a refuge, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 December 1999.