Untitled - Comites Melbourne

2 downloads 140 Views 8MB Size Report
auspices of the Italian Catholic organisation Fondazione Migrantes. The core aspect of this study is the growing interes
FROM 2004 TO 2016

A NEW ITALIAN ‘EXODUS’ TO

AUSTRALIA? Report produced by Dr. Riccardo Armillei Deakin University, Melbourne And

Assoc. Prof. Bruno Mascitelli Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne July 2016

CONTENTS

2

Prefaces

4

by Marco Maria Cerbo, Italian Consul General

6

by Francesco Pascalis, President of COMITES - Victoria and Tasmania

8

Acknowledgements / Ringraziamenti

10 Glossary 12

List of visa categories

14

List of tables and figures



Chapter 1

18

Executive summary

30

Sintesi della ricerca (in Italian)

42

Chapter 2 Introduction and methodology

52

Chapter 3 Italian migration to Australia of yesterday

64

Chapter 4 Italian migration to Australia of today

86

Chapter 5 Survey of the ‘New Italian migrants’ to Australia

106

Chapter 6 ‘New Italian migrants’ to Australia: the view of the focus groups

116

Chapter 7 The view of migration agents on recent Italian migration

124

Chapter 8 Findings and recommendations

128

About the authors

130 References Appendices

136

Arrivals and departures 2004-2015

155

The migration program 2004-2015

163

Temporary entry to Australia 2004-2015

174

Online survey responses 3

PREFACES

4

Consolato Generale d’Italia – Melbourne

2004where al 2016 - Un nuovo 'esodo' Italiano Prefazione allo studio We must fully understand the Dal context Conoscere una realtà èin il Australia? presupposto essenziale we operate, in order to be prepared for any ed imprescindibile per qualsiasi azione di intervento. possible futureuna intervention. is the reasoning per imprescindibile questo che le autorità hanno deciso Conoscere realtà èThat il presupposto essenzialeÈ ed peritaliane qualsiasi azione behind the Italian authorities’ decision to support di sostenere la realizzazione di questa ricerca sulla di intervento. È per questo che le autorità nuova italiane hanno deciso di sostenere la this research on the new wave of Italian migration emigrazione italiana in Australia, realizzata su di questa ricerca sulla nuova italiana in Australia, realizzata torealizzazione Australia. Commissioned by COMITES in emigrazione commissione del COMITES di Melbourne. Si trattasudi Melbourne, this study focuses on a totally new un fenomeno con connotazioni del tutto nuove rispetto commissione del COMITES di Melbourne. Si tratta di un fenomeno con connotazioni phenomenon with rispetto different characteristics ai movimenti del passato. panorama del tutto nuove ai movimentiand migratori del passato. migratori Il panorama che loIlstudio ci implications compared to past migration flows. che lo studio ci offre è variegato e ricco di sfumature, offre è variegato e ricco di sfumature, composto da persone che lasciano l’Italia alla volta It uncovers a rich and often varied tapestry of composto da persone che lasciano l’Italia alla volta degli antipodi, mosse motivazioni incanalate individuali experiences, life choices andda journeys of peopleeterogenee degli eantipodi, mossesudapercorsi motivazioni eterogenee who leave Italy for the Antipodes. e incanalate su percorsi individuali difficilmente difficilmente assimilabili. The Italian youth is attracted to Australian assimilabili. cities by their desire for a change of life, their Giovani e meno giovani si accostano alle metropoli Giovani to e prove menothemselves giovani in si aaccostano australiane spinti dalla curiosità per willingness new context,alle as metropoli australiane spinti dalla curiosità per una realtà diversa, unaasrealtà diversa,todalla volontà confrontarsi dalla con volontà un contesto nuovo,condal di well their curiosity discover anotherdiculture. di confrontarsi un desiderio contesto nuovo, Incambiare terms of numbers, movement of people di is un flusso dal desiderio di cambiare I numeri vita. I this numeri raccontano paragonabile a vita. quello dei raccontano decenni comparable to the migration flows of the decades di un flusso paragonabile a quello dei decenni immediatamente successivi al Dopoguerra, quando migliaia di famiglie lasciarono l’Italia post second world war, when thousands of families immediatamente successivi al Dopoguerra, quando in Italy cercain di un futuro diverso. Un’analisi ci consente di comprendere left search of a different future. However più accurata, migliaia però, di famiglie lasciarono l’Italia in cerca di un staaccurate avvenendo non sia comparabile conUn’ quanto accaduto in passato. acome deeperquanto and more analysisoggi reveals that futuro diverso. analisi più accurata, però, ci consente we cannot draw too many parallels between the di comprendere come quanto sta avvenendo oggi non Oggi, chi arriva in Australia non affronta un viaggio di sola andata e non si appresta a current situation and that of the past. Today those sia comparabile con quanto accaduto in passato. Oggi, cominciare un’avventura destinata a durare unachivita. Per molti, l’esperienza australiana who arrive in Australia will not face a long and arriva in Australia non affronta un viaggio di sola non rappresenta che and unaoften tappa, con un inizioandata ed una fine, che assume sfaccettature strenuous one way journey do not have e non si appresta a cominciare un’avventura diverse per ognuno. abitiamo tutti in undestinata mondoa durare globale presto sarà normale intentions to remain here Ormai indefinitely. For many, unae vita. Per molti, l’esperienza innascere fact, their Australian experience is defined as australiana non rappresenta che una tappa, con un in un Paese, crescere in un altro, lavorare in un altro ancora. one stage of life, marked by a clear beginning and inizio ed una fine, che assume sfaccettature diverse per an end. In this increasingly globalised world, it ognuno. Ormai abitiamo tutti in un mondo globale e La soon comprensione poliedricità di queste esperienze esistenziali will be normal to della be born in one country, presto sarà normale nascere in è un l’obiettivo Paese, crescere che in un grow up involume another, and in another still. in un altro ancora. questo si work era proposto di raggiungerealtro, e lavorare il traguardo che ha efficacemente The well-accomplished of this un utilissimo La strumento comprensione didella poliedricità di queste tagliato. Ora che abbiamoobjective a disposizione analisi, sarà possibile study was to gain a better understanding of these è l’obiettivo che questo volume raffinare gli strumenti operativi che abbiamo esperienze attivatoesistenziali e individuarne di nuovi, per multifaceted life experiences. We now have at si era proposto di raggiungere e il traguardo che ha sintonizzarli precisione sulle necessità dei nuovi Italiani senza our disposal an con excellent tool of analysis, which del popolo efficacemente tagliato. Ora ched’Australia, abbiamo a disposizione will enabledimenticare us to refine the services we already un utilissimo strumento sarà possibile peraltro il prezioso patrimonio di esperienze detenuto da dichianalisi, in questo Paese offer, while designing and streamlining new tools raffinare gli strumenti operativi che abbiamo attivato si è spostato già da tempo, dando vita a una comunità integrata ed aperta in quest’angoloe more appropriately suited to the needs of the individuarne di nuovi, per sintonizzarli con precisione di mondo, i neo-arrivati sono sempre accolti. new presence in of cui Italians in Australia. We strive sulle necessità del popolo dei nuovi Italiani d’Australia, to do this without forgetting to acknowledge the senza peraltro dimenticare il prezioso patrimonio di immense and precious wealth of experiences of esperienze detenuto da chi in questo Paese si è spostato our compatriots who moved here long ago and già da tempo, dandoCERBO) vita a una comunità integrata ed (Marco Maria created a well-integrated community, one that aperta in quest’angolo di mondo, in cui i neo-arrivati readily welcomes all those newly arrived. sono sempre accolti. Marco Maria Cerbo Italian Consul General

Marco Maria Cerbo Console Generale d’Italia

5

The aim of the research From 2004 to 2016 – A new Italian ‘exodus’ to Australia?, edited by the scholars Riccardo Armillei and Bruno Mascitelli, is to understand the reasons and the size of the trend that in recent years has been bringing into Australia a significant number of young Italians. It can be also a useful tool in evaluating any social actions that could facilitate and make this experience of life and work as productive as possible for those involved who in the vast majority, due to visa reasons, may use the same experience only for a limited period of time. COMITES of Victoria and Tasmania, since its establishment in May 2015, considered that a close examination of the reasons and the needs that lie behind this phenomenon was particularly important and necessary. Wanting to commission specific research to that effect, in November of the same year it submitted an economic contribution request to the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Showing sensitivity and alertness, the Ministry successfully approved the requested grant. Heartfelt thanks must be addressed to the Ministry for making possible the realization of the study. For the last eight years we have been watching a fairly steady flow of young people from Europe to non-European countries. Because of their specific characteristics, their economic dynamism and the types of visas they issue, these Countries can provide them with a temporary work experience, often useful to enrich their Curriculum Vitae, and also, in certain cases and under certain conditions, with better opportunities for stable employment. It is a phenomenon which affects all European Countries, Italy included, and Australia is seen by these young people as one of the most important destinations. To better understand the dynamics that underpin these circumstances it might be worth making a brief reflection on what is happening in Europe. The process of European integration is going ahead and it will go ahead, despite the ‘Brexit’ and despite the reservations and open opposition that often occur - sometimes rightly - across the board in many Member States against certain policies sometimes too bureaucratic and too ‘accounting oriented’ adopted by the European

Scopo della ricerca Dal 2004 al 2016 - Un nuovo ‘esodo’ Italiano in Australia?, curata dagli accademici Riccardo Armillei e Bruno Mascitelli, è quello di capire le dimensioni e le ragioni dell’approdo in Australia in anni recenti di un consistente numero di giovani italiani e di essere uno strumento utile a valutare eventuali azioni di natura sociale che agevolino e rendano produttiva al massimo questa esperienza di vita e di lavoro dei diretti interessati che nella stragrande maggioranza, per ragioni di visto, possono usufruirne solo per un limitato periodo di tempo. Il COMITES del Victoria e della Tasmania, fin dal suo insediamento nel maggio del 2015, ha ritenuto particolarmente importante e necessario un approfondimento, serio e ragionato, sulle ragioni ed i bisogni che si nascondono dietro questo fenomeno. Volendo commissionare una specifica ricerca in tal senso, nel novembre dello stesso anno ha avanzato richiesta di contributo economico al Ministero Affari Esteri che, con sensibilità e prontezza, ha positivamente risposto. Al Ministero deve quindi essere preliminarmente rivolto un sentito ringraziamento per aver reso possibile la realizzazione dello studio. Da circa otto anni a questa parte stiamo assistendo ad un flusso abbastanza costante di giovani dall’Europa verso Paesi extraeuropei che, per loro caratteristiche intrinseche, per il loro dinamismo economico e per specifiche tipologie di visto, possono offrire una temporanea esperienza lavorativa utile ad arricchire il Curriculum Vitae ed anche, in certi casi ed a certe condizioni, migliori opportunità d’impiego stabile. È un fenomeno che interessa tutti i Paesi europei, e quindi anche l’Italia, e che trova nell’Australia una delle sue piú importanti destinazioni. Ma per capire piú compiutamente le dinamiche che sono alla base di queste circostanze vale forse la pena fare una breve riflessione su quanto avviene in Europa. Il processo di integrazione europea va e andrà avanti, malgrado la ‘Brexit’ e malgrado le riserve e le aperte opposizioni che spesso si manifestano – non sempre a torto – in modo trasversale in molti Paesi membri contro certe politiche a volte troppo burocratiche e troppo ‘contabili’ adottate dal Governo dell’Unione Europea.

6

Union Government. For years, however, the policies of interstate cultural, social and economic osmosis initiated by the Authorities of the old Continent are making the younger generations of Europeans used to a ‘mobility’ never seen before. It is a fact that is contributing significantly to the civil and social development of these generations, to give them a new and particular supranational sensitivity and awareness and, ultimately, make them stronger and more able to compete with the difficult challenge of living and work within societies with customs, languages and cultures other than their original one. It is certain that the continuing global economic downturn has resulted, especially in Europe, in a tightening of youth unemployment and, with it, a tendency to ‘escape outside Europe’, but it is very likely that this same ‘escape’ would be less conspicuous if the above ‘social mobility’ had not developed. Considering this trend as a massive emigration to Australia, such as occurred after World War II, is obviously inappropriate especially because the statistics don’t show this and because no policy to that effect by the Australian Federal Government exists and probably it will never exist again. Apart from humanitarian visas, there are very selective measures that tend to filter out carefully the new immigrant entries into the country. Temporary visas too, although not directed to permanent emigration, are clearly part of this strategy. Finally, COMITES would like to sincerely thank Dr. Riccardo Armillei and Prof. Bruno Mascitelli and for having developed and concluded ‘in record time’ an accurate and well documented research. Their careful work and their professional dedication have allowed the creation of a study that is not only a scientific analysis, but also an excellent starting point for further investigations on the same topic.

Già da anni comunque, le politiche di osmosi culturale, sociale ed economica interstatale avviate dalle Autorità del vecchio Continente stanno abituando le giovani generazioni europee ad una ‘mobilità’ mai vista prima. È un fatto che sicuramente sta contribuendo in modo determinante allo sviluppo civile e sociale di queste generazioni, a dare loro una nuova e particolare sensibilità e coscienza sovrannazionale e, in ultima analisi, renderle piú forti e capaci di misurarsi con la non facile prova di vivere e lavorare all’interno di società con usi, lingue e culture diverse da quella d’origine. È certo che il perdurare della recessione economica mondiale ha determinato, soprattutto in Europa, un inasprimento della disoccupazione giovanile e, con essa, una tendenza alla ‘fuga extraeuropea’, ma è molto probabile che questa stessa ‘fuga’ sarebbe stata meno vistosa se quella suddetta ‘mobilità’ sociale non si fosse sviluppata. Parlare di massiccia emigrazione verso l’Australia, come quella avvenuta nel secondo dopoguerra, è ovviamente fuori luogo soprattutto perché i dati statistici lo dimostrano e perché non esiste, e probabilmente mai piú esisterà, alcuna politica in tal senso da parte del Governo Federale australiano. Esistono, a parte i visti di natura umanitaria, soprattutto provvedimenti molto selettivi che tendono a filtrare con attenzione gli ingressi di nuovi immigrati nel Paese. Anche i visti temporanei, malgrado non finalizzati all’emigrazione permanente, fanno indubbiamente parte di questa strategia. Il COMITES rivolge infine un sentito ringraziamento al Dottor Riccardo Armillei ed al Professor Bruno Mascitelli per aver sviluppato e concluso ‘a tempo di record’ un’opera di ricerca puntuale e documentata. Il loro lavoro accurato e la loro dedizione professionale hanno consentito la realizzazione di uno studio che non è solo un’analisi scientifica ma che è anche un pregevole punto di partenza per ulteriori approfondimenti futuri.

Francesco Pascalis President of COMITES - Victoria and Tasmania

Francesco Pascalis Presidente del COMITES - Victoria e Tasmania

7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RINGRAZIAMENTI

8

Il rapporto Dal 2004 al 2016 - Un nuovo ‘esodo’ italiano in Australia? si occupa di un nuovo periodo dell’emigrazione italiana in Australia, molto diversa da quella di massa degli anni ‘50 e ‘60. Questo studio ha lo scopo di capire meglio un nuovo fenomeno migratorio per accertare le sue caratteristiche e per vedere se ci sono questioni che meritano ulteriore approfondimento. La presente ricerca si basa sulla premessa che ci fosse una crescente migrazione italiana in Australia e che ciò dovesse essere oggetto di indagine. Il nostro approccio è stato quello di accertare quei fatti, così come quelle esperienze di vita, che potessero fare luce sugli sviluppi che finora non sono stati ampiamente studiati o capiti. Questa nuova esperienza di emigrazione, per molti versi diversa dal passato, è iniziata spesso come un’avventura per coloro che hanno voluto lasciare l’Italia per l’Australia. Mentre la necessità di intraprendere un tale studio non ha bisogno di giustificazioni, la visione e lungimiranza che l’hanno alimentata sono venute dal COMITES (Comitato degli Italiani all’Estero) di Victoria e Tasmania. Per questo motivo noi siamo in debito con il COMITES di Victoria e Tasmania ed il suo Presidente Francesco Pascalis per averci dato l’opportunità di portare avanti questo studio e per aver mostrato la necessaria leadership nel suggerire il bisogno di una tale ricerca. Tuttavia, questo studio non sarebbe potuto giungere a buon fine senza il supporto dei tanti che ci hanno aiutato. Questi includono Matteo Zinanni, il quale ha fornito assistenza continua nella fase di ricerca su Facebook, così come in quella relativa all’analisi delle statistiche in materia di immigrazione degli italiani in Australia. Siamo stati anche incoraggiati ed aiutati dai membri del NOMIT (Rete Italiana di Melbourne) che hanno promosso e diffuso le finalità di questa ricerca. Siamo altrettanto grati alle nostre rispettive università, Deakin e Swinburne University per aver sostenuto questa ricerca nel modo in cui le università sanno fare. Una delle prime attività per lanciare questa ricerca è stata quella di elaborare uno strumento di indagine online. Lo scopo del nostro sondaggio era quello di raggiungere il maggior numero di italiani all’interno del gruppo d’indagine affinché ci parlassero delle loro esperienze. Un sondaggio di questa portata ha avuto bisogno del sostegno di più parti e non siamo in grado di ringraziare tutti. Tuttavia, dobbiamo riconoscere il supporto ricevuto da un’ampia gamma di mass media per aver pubblicizzato e fatto arrivare questa indagine ad un gran numero di ‘nuovi migranti italiani’. Tra questi organi di informazione sono degni di menzione SBS Radio (programma italiano), il NOMIT, il giornale della comunità italiana Il Globo, Antipodi News e Radio Italia Uno. Desideriamo inoltre ringraziare gli agenti di immigrazione e tutti gli italiani che hanno partecipato ai focus group organizzati per questo studio. Questo rapporto è stato sviluppato come uno studio originale. Siamo certi che altri ricercatori si uniranno a noi nell’affrontare questo ed altri aspetti dell’emigrazione italiana in Australia e li incoraggiamo a farlo. Ci auguriamo comunque che questo possa essere un buon inizio. Gli Autori, 30 maggio 2016

The report From 2004 to 2016 – A new Italian ‘exodus’ to Australia? is looking at a new period of Italian migration to Australia, quite different from the mass migration of the 1950s and 1960s. This study investigates the different and varied features of this new wave of Italian migration to Australia to ascertain its characteristics, components, and whether there are matters of further consideration. This research began on the premise that there was a growing Italian migration and that it needed to be investigated. The approach was to establish the facts as well as the life experiences to pinpoint developments not yet widely known or understood. The new migration experience is different from the past as in most cases it started as an adventure of a new emerging cohort of Italians wishing to migrate to Australia. While the need for this study requires little justification, the vision and foresight undertaking it came from the COMITES (Committee of Italians Abroad) of Victoria and Tasmania. We are as such much indebted to the COMITES in Victoria and its President Francesco Pascalis for giving us the opportunity to undertake this study and for showing the leadership in suggesting the need for such a research. Our research, however, could not have come to fruition without the support of many who have assisted us. These include Matteo Zinanni who provided ongoing assistance with Facebook research as well as many of the statistics on immigration from the statistical jungle on this matter. We were also encouraged and assisted by the members of NOMIT (Italian Network in Melbourne) who have shared and spread the word about this research. We are equally thankful to our respective universities, Deakin and Swinburne University for supporting this research in the way universities do. One of the first activities to kick-start this research was to establish a survey instrument. The intention of the survey was to reach as many Italians as possible in the relevant cohort to comment on their experiences. A survey of this magnitude needed support from many quarters and we are unable to thank each and every one of you. However, we do need to acknowledge the range of media outlets for publicising this survey to a wide number of new immigrants. Some of these outlets included SBS Radio (Italian program), NOMIT, the Italian community newspaper Il Globo, Antipodi and Radio Italia Uno. We also wish to thank the migration agents who made themselves available for the focus group for this study as well as the 20 or so participants of the focus groups of newly arrived Italians. This report has been compiled as an original piece of study. We are sure other researchers will join us in addressing this and other aspects of Italian migration and we encourage them to do so. We nonetheless hope to have made a good start. The Authors, 30 May 2016

Riccardo Armillei – [email protected] Bruno Mascitelli – [email protected]

9

GLOSSARY

10

Glossary ABC

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

ABS

Australian Bureau of Statistics

ACT

Australian Capital Territory

AIRE

Electoral Registry of Italians Abroad

CALD

Culturally and linguistically diverse

CGIE

General Council of Italians Abroad

CGIL

Italian General Confederation of Labour

COASIT

Committee of Assistance to Italians

COMITES

Committee of Italians Abroad

COEMIT

Committee for Italian Emigration

CURA

Centre for Urban Research and Action

DIAC

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

DIBP

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

DIMA

Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

DFAT

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

DP

Displaced person

ENAS

National Agency of Social Assistance

FILEF

Italian Federation of Migrant Workers and their Families

FOI

Freedom of Information

IELTS

International English Language Testing System

INAS

National Institute of Social Assistance

LOTE

Languages other than English

MAE

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Italy)

MARA

Migration Agents Registration Authority

MP

Member of Parliament

NESB

Non-English speaking background

NOM

Net Overseas Migration

NOMIT

Melbourne Italian Network

NSW

New South Wales

NT

Northern Territory

QLD

Queensland

SA

South Australia

SSA

Social Security Agreement

TOEFL

Test of English as a Foreign Language

Vic

Victoria

WA

Western Australia

WHV

Working Holiday Visa

11

LIST OF VISA CATEGORIES

12

LIST OF VISA CATEGORIES Long-term resident departures (LTRD) Residents in Australia who state that they intend to stay abroad for 12 months or more (but not permanently). Long-term resident returns (LTRR) Residents in Australia returning after a recorded absence of 12 months or more overseas. Long-term visitor arrivals (LTVA) Overseas visitors who state that they intend to stay in Australia for 12 months or more (but not permanently). Long-term visitor departures (LTVD) Overseas visitors departing after a recorded stay of 12 months or more in Australia. Permanent arrivals (Settler arrivals) Permanent arrivals (settlers) comprise: • travellers who hold permanent visas (regardless of stated intended duration of stay); • New Zealand citizens who indicate on their passenger card an intention to migrate permanently; and • those who are otherwise identified as eligible to settle. Permanent departures Permanent departures are: Residents (including former settlers) who on departure state on their passenger card that they are departing permanently. Short-term resident departures (STRD) Residents in Australia who intend to stay abroad for less than 12 months. Short-term resident returns (STRR) Residents in Australia returning after a recorded stay of less than 12 months overseas. Short-term visitor arrivals (STVA) Overseas visitors who intend to stay in Australia for less than 12 months. Short-term visitor departures (STVD) Overseas visitors departing after a recorded stay of less than 12 months in Australia. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics ([ABS], 2016)

13

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES1 Chapter 1 List of Tables Table 1.1: Table 1.2: Table 1.3:

Main Visa Categories 2004-2015 visa granted to Italian citizens Italian citizens holding a temporary visa in Australia 2004-2015 Italian component of the Migration program by visa category 2004-15

Chapter 3 List of Tables Table 3.1: Table 3.2: Table 3.3: Table 3.4:

Italy-born population in Australia, 1871-1947 Italy-born residents in Australia, 1901-2001 Italy-born population in Australia by State and Territory, 2001 Overseas-born population in Australia, top 15 countries of birth, 1996 and 2006

Chapter 4 List of Tables Table 4.1: Table 4.2: Table 4.3: Table 4.4: Table 4.5: Table 4.6: Table 4.7: Table 4.8: Table 4.9: Table 4.10: Table 4.11: Table 4.12:

Australia’s main overseas birthplaces Italian born overseas population by States and Territories Italian overseas born population by year of arrival Top 10 ancestry by birthplace of parents Top 10 birthplace by birthplace of parents 2011 census Top 10 languages spoken at home 2006 to 2011 Overseas arrivals to Australia top20 source countries 2004-05 to 2014-15 Overseas departures to Australia top 20 source countries 2004-05 to 2014-15 Net migration top 20 source countries 2004-05 to 2014-15 Total net migration top 20 source countries 2004-05 to 2014-15 Summary of total movement for Italian citizens in Australia 2004-05 to 2014-15 Net migration Italian citizens by long/short-term residents/visitors in Australia 2004-05 to 2014-15 Italian arrivals by visa category 2004-05 to 2014-15 Italian departures by visa category 2004-05 to 2014-15 Net Italian departures and arrivals by visa category 2004-05 to 2014-15 Italian arrivals by age group 2004-05 to 2014-15 Italian departures by age group 2004-05 to 2014-15 Italian arrivals by States and Territories 2004-05 to 2014-15 Italian departures by States and Territories 2004-05 to 2014-15 Net migration Italian citizens by States and Territories 2004-05 to 2014-15 Italian arrivals by gender 2004-05 to 2014-15 Italian departures by gender 2004-05 to 2014-15 Australia’s Migration Program outcomes by eligibility category 2004-05 to 2014-15 Migration program: Top 10 source countries of migrants from 2004-05 to 2014-15

LIST OF TABLES 1 AND FIGURES Table 4.13: Table 4.14: Table 4.15: Table 4.16: Table 4.17: Table 4.18: Table 4.19: Table 4.20: Table 4.21: Table 4.22: Table 4.23: Table 4.24: 1

Here follows a list of all Tables and Figures that have been produced by the authors of this study. Only the most significant ones are also included and duplicated within the report itself. In other cases and mainly due to the Table’s or Figure’s dimensions, the authors ask the reader to consult the Appendices.

14

TABLES Chapter 1 Table 1.1: Main Visa Categories 2004-2015 visa granted to Italian citizens Table 1.2: Italian citizens holding a temporary visa in Australia 2004-2015 Table 1.3: Italian component of the Migration program by visa category 2004-15 Chapter 3 Table 3.1: Italy-born population in Australia, 1871-1947 Table 3.2: Italy-born residents in Australia, 1901-2001 Table 3.3: Italy-born population in Australia by State and Territory, 2001 Table 3.4: Overseas-born population in Australia, top 15 countries of birth, 1996 and 2006 Chapter 4 Table 4.1: Australia’s main overseas birthplaces Table 4.2: Italian born overseas population by States and Territories Table 4.3: Italian overseas born population by year of arrival Table 4.4: Top 10 ancestry by birthplace of parents Table 4.5: Top 10 birthplace by birthplace of parents 2011 census Table 4.6: Top 10 languages spoken at home 2006 to 2011 Table 4.7: Overseas arrivals to Australia top20 source countries 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.8: Overseas departures to Australia top 20 source countries 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.9: Net migration top 20 source countries 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.10: Total net migration top 20 source countries 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.11: Summary of total movement for Italian citizens in Australia 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.12: Net migration Italian citizens by long/short-term residents/visitors in Australia 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.13: Italian arrivals by visa category 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.14: Italian departures by visa category 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.15: Net Italian departures and arrivals by visa category 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.16: Italian arrivals by age group 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.17: Italian departures by age group 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.18: Italian arrivals by States and Territories 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.19: Italian departures by States and Territories 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.20: Net migration Italian citizens by States and Territories 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.21: Italian arrivals by gender 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.22: Italian departures by gender 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.23: Australia’s Migration Program outcomes by eligibility category 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.24: Migration program: Top 10 source countries of migrants from 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.25: Migration program outcomes by stream and visa category where citizenship country is Italy Table 4.26: Permanent settlers 2004-05 to 2014-15 by State and Territory Table 4.27: Italian settlers 2004-2015 by State/Territory Table 4.28: Top 10 countries of nationality or citizenship of persons who became Australian citizens between 2004 and 2015 Table 4.29: Number of Italian citizens who acquired Australian citizenship (by conferral) by State/Territory of conferral location (1 July 2011 to 30 April 2016) Table 4.30: Temporary entry visa granted 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.31: Italian temporary visa holders in Australia by visa holder component 2004-2015 Table 4.32: Top 10 source countries of (first and second) Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa applications granted by citizenship country Table 4.33: Top 10 source countries for student visa granted from 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.34: Stock of students by State and Territory of intended residence 2004 to 2015 Table 4.35: Number of student visa applications granted by visa subclass from 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.36: Student visa granted from 2004-05 to 2014-15 where citizenship country is Italy Table 4.37: Temporary work (skilled) visa (subclass 457) granted (primary and secondary) – Top 10 source countries 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.38: Temporary Work (skilled) visa: Number of applications granted by nominated position 2004 to 2015 Table 4.39: Offshore visitor visas granted – Top 10 source countries from 2004-05 to 2014-15 Table 4.40: Visitor visas granted by subclass from 2004-05 to 2014-15 where citizenship is Italy

15

FIGURES Chapter 4 Figure 4.1: Overseas resident population in Australia top 10 source countries 1996-2015 Figure 4.2: Overseas resident population in Australia top 10 source countries 2015 Figure 4.3: Italian overseas born population by States and territories and by census year Figure 4.4: Italian overseas born population by States and territories 2011 census Figure 4.5: Overseas arrivals top 20 source countries Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.6: Overseas departures top 20 source countries Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.7: Net migration top 20 source countries 2004-05 to 2014-15 Figure 4.8: Italian citizens by departures and arrivals Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.9: Net migration Italian citizens Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.10: Net migration Italian citizens by long/short-term residents/visitors Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.11: Net migration Italian citizens by long/short-term residents/visitors Total 2004-2015 Figure 4.12: Net Italian departures and arrivals by visa category Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.13: Arrivals and departures 417 WHV Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.14: Arrivals and departures 457 business long stay Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.15: Arrivals and departures student visas Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.16: Arrivals and departures visitor visas Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.17: Italian arrivals and departures by age group 2004-15 Figure 4.18: Italian NOM by age group 2004-15 Figure 4.19: Net migration Italian citizens by States and territories Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.20: Italian arrivals by gender Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.21: Italian departures by gender Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.22: Migration program top ten source countries Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.23: Migration program top ten source countries total 2004-2015 Figure 4.24: Migration program main streams Trend 2004-15 Italy Figure 4.25: Migration program by visa category 2004-15 Italy Figure 4.26: Permanent settlers by State/Territory Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.27: Permanent settlers Percentage of total 2004-15 by State/Territory Figure 4.28: Italian settlers by State/Territory Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.29: Percentage of total Italian settlers by State/Territory 2004-2015 Figure 4.30: Australian citizenship conferral top 10 countries 2004-2015 Figure 4.31: Conferral Australian citizenship to Italian citizens Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.32: Italian temporary visa holders by visa category 2004-2015 Figure 4.33: Italian temporary visa holders by visa category Trend 2004-2015 Figure 4.34: Top ten source countries WH visa granted Total 2004-15 Figure 4.35: WH visa top 5 EU countries Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.36: Student Visas granted Top 10 source countries Total 2004-15 Figure 4.37: Student Visas granted Top 10 source countries Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.38: Stock of students by State and Territory of intended residence Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.39: Stock of students by State and Territory of intended residence Total 2004-15 Figure 4.40: Student visas granted to Italian citizens by visa subclass Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.41: Student visas granted to Italian citizens by visa subclass Total 2004-15 Figure 4.42: Temporary work (skilled) 457 top source countries 2004-15 Figure 4.43: Temporary work (skilled) 457 top 5 EU countries Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.44: Temporary work (skilled) 457 by State/Territory Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.45: Temporary work (skilled) 457 by State/Territory Total 2004-15 Figure 4.46: Offshore visitor visas granted Total 2004-15 Figure 4.47: Offshore visitor visas granted selected EU countries Trend 2004-15 Figure 4.48: Visitor visas granted by subclass Trend 2004-15 Italy Figure 4.49: Visitor visas granted by subclass Total 2004-15 Italy Chapter 5 Figure 5.1: Age bracket Figure 5.2: Longest experience living abroad before coming to Australia Figure 5.3: Period of residence in Australia Figure 5.4: Visa status (major categories) Figure 5.5: Educational level completed

16

Figure 5.6: Field of study/qualification Figure 5.7: Years of residence in Australia Figure 5.8: Usual/last occupation before coming to Australia (multiple answer allowed) Figure 5.9: Initial and present accommodation arrangements Figure 5.10: Initial and present occupations in Australia (multiple answers were allowed) Figure 5.11: Monthly income before and after moving to Australia Figure 5.12: Level of English before and after moving to Australia Figure 5.13: Improving language skills main strategies Figure 5.14: The importance of getting professional and educational qualifications recognised in Australia Figure 5.15: Were you able to get your professional and educational qualifications recognised in Australia? Figure 5.16: Opinion regarding the recognition process of previous professional and educational qualifications Figure 5.17: I had enough information regarding Australian culture, economy and policies before my arrival Figure 5.18: I am experiencing (have had) difficulties finding accommodation or job in Australia Figure 5.19: The visa system in Australia is very confusing and too expensive Figure 5.20: WH: Is this an experience that you would do again or recommend to your friends? Figure 5.21: How would you define your WH experience? Figure 5.22: Have you ever had a difficult work experience in Australia in which you felt you were being exploited? Figure 5.23: How would you define your experience with your (former) WH employer/managers? Figure 5.24: How much of your monthly income was obtained from working ‘off the books’? Figure 5.25: Intentions about staying permanently in Australia Figure 5.26: Reasons for staying in Australia (multiple answers were allowed) Figure 5.27: Public policies in Australia work better than in Italy Figure 5.28: Number of times going back to Italy while being in Australia Figure 5.29: It is (was) very important to establish and maintain good relations with the Italian community in Australia Figure 5.30: My closest friends in Australia are (were) mostly Italians Figure 5.31: The Italian Consulates/Embassy have been supportive and helpful during my settlement process Figure 5.32: Australian public officials have been very helpful when I need (needed) information or help Figure 5.33: The Italian and Australia authorities should do more for newly arrived Italian migrants Figure 5.34: Have you ever done any of the following things to express your views or represent your interests in Australia?

17

CHAPTER 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 18

Chapter 1 - Executive summary A new Italian ‘exodus’ to Australia? Italian migration is a long standing and well documented phenomenon in migration literature. It has been extensive in its reach, socially and economically, disruptive and transformative in its internal dimension. With large expatriate communities around the world, there is speculation that there are more Italians abroad than there are inside Italy. It is a fact, however, that in the last decades of the 20th century, Italians ceased migrating as they had done before and Italy has started to become a country of immigration. Despite these Italian migration movement changes, a new generation of Italians have again become mobile even if in numbers far lower to those of the past. Australia has become one of the chosen destinations for Italians especially after the introduction in 2004 of the Working Holiday arrangement between Australia and Italy. Mobility further intensified since the global financial crisis as younger and more educated Italians seek new opportunities in Australia. This recent migratory movement, predominantly with a temporary character, has often been compared to the Italian migration of the 1950s and 1960s. The reasons for the ‘new’ migration have arisen from different economic and social conditions in Italy. Yet, the drivers of Italian migration, though located in a different context, remain that of seeking a better life with more opportunities. It is a reality that there is a knowledge gap about ‘new Italian migrants’ to Australia at present as is the failure to analyse the effect of a supposed exodus not only for the host society, but also for the home country. This study, which seeks to redress this lack of information, is based on a survey of newly arrived Italians (since 2004), for the most part on a special visa arrangement ensuring a younger age (maximum 30 years of age) seeking to reside temporarily in Australia. This research thus explores the nature of this new migration, its differences from the traditional and existing Italian-Australian community, the social inclusion process and ensuing options, opportunities and problems. While acknowledging the existence of an increasing trend of Italian people coming to Australia, our investigation also aims to show that recent reference to this new phenomenon is based on a possible overstatement of what the data demonstrates and, equally, its prospects for the future. Summary of findings There are two major narratives regarding the ‘new Italian migrants’ to Australia. The first one comes from the analysis of statistical data produced by the Australian authorities. The second

19

emerges from the data collection during the fieldwork conducted between January and May 2016. The statistical analysis Contrary to a number of recent media pieces and reports produced by independent scholars, our understanding is that the suggestion of a massive migratory flow towards Australia is overstated and that the contribution of the Italian cohort of migration to the national permanent population in Australia is rather low, as shown by Table 1.1 snapshot (below). Table 1.1: Main Visa Categories 2004-2015 visa granted to Italian citizens Total Italy 2004-15

% of Australian total 200415

587,496

1.5%

6.2%

83,462

4.2%

31.2%

2.2%

11,681

1.1%

24.3%

1.9%

24,797

0.9%

Migration Program (MP) 521 11.6% 1.1% 636 37.1% 1.3%

3,691 3,221

0.8% 0.8%

97

795

0.2%

Category

200405

200910

Visitor Visas 417 Working Holiday Visa 457 Business Long Stay Student Visas

50,038

53,450

2014-15 as % Change a % of Australian from Total 201314 Temporary Entry (TE) 54,954 0.1% 1.3%

1,894

5,481

14,138

-11.9%

360

657

2,110

700

1,758

5,602

Partner 254 330 Employer 79 214 Sponsored Skilled 53 86 Independent Source: The Authors (2016)

201415

6.6%

0.2%

In the last decade, there was without doubt a gradual increase in both temporary and permanent visas granted to Italians to visit and reside in Australia. When taking a closer look at the available data, it is evident that this increase was mainly driven by a ‘temporary’ type of migrant. The Working Holiday (WH) visa program, introduced in 2004, produced a new migratory flow, becoming particularly popular after 2011. In the period under investigation, 126,233 of Italian temporary visa holders,2 40.7% fell into the WH visa program category The term ‘Visa holders’ indicates the stock or actual number of migrants in Australia holding a particular type of visa at 30 June. It takes into consideration the net figure between those that had been 2

20

(Table 1.2). This component of temporary visa holders was followed by Visitor visa holders making up a further 24.3% of the total. Other major groups were represented by Temporary skilled (457) and Student visa holders making up 14.0% and 13.5% respectively. Table 1.2: Italian citizens holding a temporary visa in Australia 2004-2015 Visa Holder Component Working holiday maker visa holders

Total 2004-15 51,373

% of Total 2004-15 40.7%

Temporary skilled visa holders

17,682

14.0%

Bridging visa holders

5,321

Visitor visa holders

Student visa holders

Other temporary visa holders

Temporary graduate visa holders Total

Source: The Authors (2016)

30,584 17,024 3,984

265

126,233

24.3% 13.5% 4.2% 3.1% 0.2%

100%

In broader terms, the Italian share of the Australian Temporary visa program between 2004 and 2015 was a very small 1.5% of the total (this figure is calculated by looking at the four major temporary visa subclasses as shown in Table 1.1). In terms of the Italian contribution to the national Migration Program, the figure is slightly lower at 0.5%, with 8,711 visas granted of the total of 1,832,548. By incorporating economic and family migration, this program represents a key tool in obtaining Australian permanent residency. Partner visas constitute the larger proportion of the latter group accounting for 42.4% of the Italian share of the Migration Program from 2004 to 2015. This visa category is followed by Employer sponsored migrants with 37%, while the third largest group is made up of those applying for a Skilled independent visa (9.1%). The number of Partner and Employer sponsored visas, in particular, has been growing steadily over the period under examination. The number of Partner visas went from 254 in 2004-05 to 521 in 2014-15 (+105%). The number of Employer sponsored visas increased eightfold since 2004. In both cases, however, the aggregate figures are still very low (they both represent 0.8% of the national total of that specific visa category).

granted a visa and arriving in Australia and those departing (personal communication, 8 June, 2016). There is thus a discrepancy between the number of visas granted and the number of Italians effectively holding a certain type of visa at the time the statistical analysis was conducted.

21

Table 1.3: Italian component of the migration program by visa category 2004-15 Stream

Category

Family

Partner Child Other Family Parent

Family Total Skill

Total 2004-15

Distinguished Talent Employer Sponsored Skilled Independent Skilled Regional State/Territory Nominated Visa Classes Business Innovation and Investment

Skill Total Special Eligibility Total Grand total Source: The Authors (2016)

% of Total 2004-15

3,691 35 66 209 4,001 48 3,221 795 112 297

42.4% 0.4% 0.8% 2.4% 46.0% 0.5% 37.0% 9.1% 1.3% 3.4%

178

2.0%

4,651 58

53.3% 0.7%

8,711

100%

Despite the seemingly temporary character of the recent Italian migration (accounting for the length of time Italian migrants stay in Australia), and the small number of Italian temporary and permanent entries, Italy had a relatively high level of Net Overseas Migration (NOM) rate compared to other countries. This is an important tool which is used to measure how national population changes. NOM is the balance between the number of immigrants arriving in Australia and the number of emigrants leaving (DIBP, 2014a). In general shortterm movements, such as tourists, are not counted as either NOM arrivals or departures, as NOM includes only long-term temporary and permanent migration. With a total NOM of 20,188 (or 1.4%) Italy occupies the 12th place in the NOM top 20 source countries’ list, higher than the relevant French and German figures with 19,091 (or 1.4%) and 5,614 (or 0.4%) respectively. This figure, however, is far below that of the more than 100,000 Italian nationals who migrated to Australia between 1950 and 1960 (Italian Historical Society, n.d.). As for the geographical distribution of Italian nationals, the majority arrive in New South Wales ([NSW], 41.1%). Victoria (Vic) has the second highest numbers of arrivals (26.3%). Western Australia (WA) and Queensland (QLD) follow with 13.7% and 11.5% respectively. Statistics regarding permanent migration (see Chapter 5) and citizenship conferrals also show that NSW is the destination where a large portion of ‘new’ Italians ends up residing. Moreover, 33.9% of Italian settlers decide to settle in NSW, with the second 22

largest group (26.6%) giving preference to Victoria instead. It is worth noting that in terms of net migration of Italian citizens, Victoria is the state with the highest number. This accounts for 26,394 more arrivals than departures in the period under investigation. This value is much higher than that recorded for NSW in the same period, where the net balance of arrivals over departures amounts to 22,287 Italian nationals. The data collection and analysis The second aspect of this study draws heavily upon the analysis and interpretation of the data collected. Between January and May 2016, more than six hundred online surveys were collected from Italians who had arrived in Australia after 2004. This represents the central and original part of this research. A large number of the respondents (224) were located in Victoria and Tasmania (TAS). Focus groups were also conducted with ‘new Italian migrants’ and migration agents in order to ensure validation of the results of the online survey responses. The online survey The analysis of the survey data confirms the dominant trend that sees a consistent part of Italians arriving in Australia through the Working Holiday (WH) visa program. Fifty percent of all respondents in Victoria and Tasmania were on a WH visa when they first gained residence in Australia. This group was followed by 15% of Italian nationals on a Student visa and 11% on a ‘457’ visa. Continuing to draw a picture of our survey participants, most (87%) were young (in the 18-40 age bracket), highly educated, with 62% holding either a Bachelor Degree, a Master Degree, or even a PhD. Only a small group (9%) were unemployed before moving to Australia. The social differentiation which emerged from this survey indicated 24% had been white-collar employees, 17% professionals, 15% students (without scholarship) and 12% blue-collar employees. As for their field of study and/or qualification, 13% of the survey participants were involved in the hospitality industry, another 13% in the education and training sector, 12% in arts, design and entertainment, and 10% in architecture and engineering to mention the more significant categories. Unlike the Italian migration of the 1950s and 1960s, many of the respondents (45%) were from northern Italy while 26% and 22% came from Central and Southern Italy respectively. A large portion of the survey respondents (53%) had never lived outside of Italy or had a short-term experience living overseas. Among those who had close relatives in the new host country, the majority defined this connection as ‘quite important’ (34%) or ‘very important’ (33%). As for the period of residence in Australia, at the time of this report, more 23

than two-thirds of the sample indicated that they had been living in Australia either ‘more than a year but less than 4 years’ (42%) or ‘more than four years’ (37%). While many participants stated to have at least a good level of English, there was a significant number of respondents indicating no English (8%) or limited English ability (32%). While many respondents indicated that one of the main reasons for coming to Australia was to find better job opportunities, it was the category ‘to have a new life experience’ with the greatest number of responses (52%). Understanding what had changed before and after their migration to the new host society was one of the central issues of our study. Accommodation, occupation, work requirements, English language proficiency, standard of living were all issues under scrutiny. After the initial difficulty of settlement, many of them (58%) could afford to rent a house/apartment, with another group of respondents (14%) also owning a house/flat. Those ‘out of work’ had dropped considerably from 15% when they arrived in Australia to only 5% at the time of the survey response while ‘professional’ (23%), ‘white-collar employee’ (21%) and ‘selfemployed’ were the categories recording the highest growth. One of the most interesting outcomes to emerge from the analysis of the survey responses is the change in the increase of monthly salary rates earned by the respondents together with the improvement of their standard of living (76%). However, at the same time 16% of participants claimed to have experienced financial hardship. Also, a large part of the sample (34%) perceived the cost of living in Australia (e.g. visa, health insurance, rent, food, household bills, legal advice, school fees, etc.) to be quite expensive. Other challenges also emerged from the data analysis. Recognition of foreign qualifications, for instance, has been a problem for a number of respondents (37%). There were cases of Italian professionals who arrived with high-level credentials but were unable to have them recognised. As a consequence, they could not work in their field until they had their credentials re-assessed according to Australian standards. This explains the presence of high levels of dissatisfaction when dealing with Australia’s bureaucracy. Although a number of respondents (37%) had a positive experience with Australia’s bureaucracy, there was an almost equal number (30%) who were somewhat dissatisfied. In particular, the visa process negotiations emerged as one of the more difficult settlement aspects as conveyed by survey respondents. Some 48% of the sample agreed that the visa system in Australia was very confusing and too expensive. Among other issues was also the fact that almost 40% of all respondents felt that they did not have enough information about Australia before their arrival.

24

A specific focus in our survey was dedicated to certain aspects of the WH visa program. In particular, over the last few years the issue of labour exploitation has taken on a high profile as a result of a sizeable number of cases of exploitation recorded among this type of visa holders, new Italian arrivals included. The present study, while confirming previous research on the existence of this phenomenon, addresses the causes and consequences of this occurrence. More than 40% of all Italian respondents reported a difficult work experience in Australia where they felt they had been exploited. This indicates that this problem might not be confined only to those who experienced the WH program. Despite recognizing the difficult conditions they had to face and the potential for exploitation, 55% of them chose it as a way to better understand the Australian job market and eventually to stay, while for 28% of participants defined it as a temporary life/work experience. Finally, it is worth noting that despite the problems and challenges faced by the survey respondents, the majority of all respondents (58%) stated that they were planning to stay permanently in Australia. The high standard of living (health care, educational system, economy, public transport, etc.), more job opportunities, the view that Australia was a country where merit was still recognised were the major reasons provided for opting to stay. The focus groups of ‘new Italian migrants’ The focus groups confirmed the existence of a variety of difficulties experienced by ‘new Italian migrants’ from the initial visa application to more complex settlement issues. While the focus groups took place in Victoria, their responses had a comprehensively Australian outlook and could not be pigeon-holed merely as a ‘Victorian response’. The picture which emerges from the focus groups is that Italians migrating from Italy do so for a variety of reasons. A sizeable minority said they were migrating for strictly economic reasons and not all felt welcomed on their arrival in Australia – though this depended on circumstances and varied from city to country and between Australian cities. Many of these young and highly skilled migrants saw the idea of settling permanently in Australia as a positive, what concerned them was the lengthy and complex process of obtaining permanent residency. In many cases, their journey started with a Working Holiday Maker visa, often with a further 12 months’ extension. The journey often included transferring to other visa categories as well as seeking sponsorships more than once. The difficulties in obtaining a visa sometimes depended on the nature of the visa. Student visas, for instance they explained, appeared to be relatively trouble free. Of course, the ultimate goal was to gain permanent residence (and possibly citizenship) which many indicated they would seek. 25

A sizeable number of participants in the focus groups expressed concern about being exploited in the labour force as a result of their vulnerable and uncertain visa status. This tended to occur mostly in the hospitality and farm sectors. Most in the focus groups complained about their dealings with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). They complained about unclear and at times conflicting information provided by the Department as well as difficulty in actually speaking to a person for guidance. Many newly arrived Italians noted that they had not received adequate information on what lay before them in coming to Australia but acknowledged the very useful information and support provided to them by NOMIT based inside the Italian Consulate in Melbourne. Despite recognizing the functional aspects of Australian society and the efficiency of public services, very few had high expectations in terms of assistance from the Australian government. The one area of dissatisfaction was the failure of the government to recognise professional qualifications, especially in the field of architecture and engineering. While acknowledging the array of difficulties, many were experiencing with their visa and conditions related to settlement in Australia, the widespread opinion was that overall, the living conditions in Australia were much better than what they could expect in Italy. Focus group of migration agents Migration agents agreed on the main themes of the new migration. There was a general consensus that the number of Italian working holiday and temporary visas for Australia while showing some volatility would in the medium term increase though not necessarily to extreme heights. In the view of the migration agents, visa regimes require some modification to avoid applicants being caught between conflicting instructions and processes. They expressed frustration with the recent changes in the accessibility of staff in the Department of Immigration, effectively shutting down dialogue with agents and visa-seeking clients, a move in their view which would lead to more problems in the future. As a group, the migration agents noted that prospective Italian migrants need to be better informed and prepared for Australian visa requirements and working conditions. Abuse and possible exploitation of temporary visa holders is not uncommon especially in the trades, hospitality and farming. Australia can do so much more to streamline its visa process. It could provide clearer instructions and avoid applicants being caught in between visas.

26

Conclusions This study has been important in exploring the reality of the current levels of Italian migration to Australia, which are qualitatively different in quantity and characteristics from the migration of the 1950s and 1960s. This study is based on a thorough literature review of Italian migration, ascertained the views of the relevant cohort of prospective Italian migrants to Australia through a survey and sought to validate these findings through three focus groups. While investigating this migration we have uncovered and brought to the surface a variety of concerns, events and consequences of this migration flow which we wish to provide constructive recommendations to relevant authorities to provide some redress or remedy to these concerns. The ‘new Italian migration’ to Australia is not driven by a single driver as it might have been with the migration of the 1950s and 1960s. While some Italians have migrated for better economic opportunities, not all did so for this particular reason. It was mostly the Working Holiday Maker which has recorded the largest numbers of prospective migration who more often than not was in the search of an international experience. Many of the other temporary applicants (e.g. ‘457’ and Student visas) registered different concerns. Yet, many of them shared the desire of staying permanently in Australia. Another consideration, which emerges from this study is that the levels of Italian migration are not as high as first thought. In certain visa categories, Italians entering Australia do reach higher levels (mainly in the last four years) such as Working Holiday Maker where Italians registered 83,462 (first and second) visas granted over the last decade. Other visa categories on the other hand made up a much smaller numbers. The study has shown that the visa procedures are less than adequate and that the DIBP is withholding its ‘dialogue’ with its visa applicants. Moreover, the more complex visa procedures seem to attract the greatest level of unreliable information flow thereby creating even greater hurdles and conflict. As a result, many are obliged to consult a migration agent thus adding to the costs of already existing fees required for these applications. Student visas on the other hand appear to be relatively clear and smooth in their functioning and focus groups and surveys appear to confirm this finding. The study has provided evidence of exploitation of temporary migrants across three main sectors – hospitality, trades and farming, cash-based sectors, which are more prone to exploitative relations. The important role of accurate and reliable information for newly arrived migrants was also mentioned. Despite its informal status and the impromptu manner

27

of its establishment, NOMIT was identified as a major contributor to information provision services for newly arrived Italians in Melbourne. Recommendations As part of the study objectives of this report, it was incumbent on the authors of this report to offer recommendations to refocus the direction of the Government activity, indicate areas for improving the processes and bring out into the open the factors which define this new migration. These recommendations include: 1. Provide greater levels of assistance to prospective Italian migrants to Australia; 2. Provide access to reliable and accurate information about conditions in Australia related to work, economy and cultural aspects; 3. Seek to provide a ‘one-stop shop’ which can assist temporary Italian migrants with basic information on affordable housing, employment, job placements, legal issues, labour and work rights; 4. Provide English language training on arrival; 5. Re-assess the financial provision for visa sponsorship which is itself a cause of some migrant exploitation; 6. Provide access to Fair Work Australia mechanisms and establish a Migrant Ombudsmen; 7. Find ways and means to overcome the lack of recognition of certain qualifications and work experiences from Italy; 8. That the Italian government ensure some form of institutional representation through bodies such as the Committee of Assistance to Italians (COASIT) or an appropriate equivalent body charged with the responsibility to be a first point of call for new Italian prospective migrants; 9. That the Department of Immigration should seek to re-establish direct contact with applicants to assist the processing of visa applications, especially given the high costs of applications. This contact with case officers would restore the provision of reliable and accurate information thereby aiding the visa processing; 10. Australia is very much a product of immigration and as such, we feel that the Australian Government needs to ensure there is a settlement plan in relation to all migrants.

28

29

SINTESI DELLA RICERCA 30

Un nuovo ‘esodo’ italiano in Australia? L’emigrazione italiana è un fenomeno di lunga data e ben studiato all’interno della letteratura sulle migrazioni. E' stata trattata in modo estensivo per il valore della sua portata, sia in termini di impatto sociale ed economico, che per le caratteristiche della sua dimensione interna. Per aver creato grandi comunità di espatriati in tutto il mondo, è stato addirittura ipotizzato che ci sono più italiani all'estero che dentro l'Italia stessa. E' un fatto, tuttavia, che negli ultimi decenni del ventesimo secolo, gli italiani hanno cessato di emigrare come avevano fatto in passato e l'Italia si è trasformata in un paese d’accoglienza. Nonostante i cambiamenti avvenuti nel movimento migratorio italiano, una nuova generazione di italiani è diventata nuovamente mobile, anche se con numeri di gran lunga inferiori a quelli di una volta. L'Australia ha ripreso ad essere una delle destinazioni preferite dagli italiani soprattutto dopo l'introduzione nel 2004 del ‘Working Holiday Visa’ (Permessi vacanza – lavoro [WH]) tra l'Australia e l'Italia. Il movimento migratorio verso l’Australia si è ulteriormente intensificato con la crisi finanziaria globale, con molti italiani giovani ed istruiti che si sono spinti a cercare nuove opportunità in questa terra per molti versi ancora nuova. Questa recente immigrazione, prevalentemente con un carattere temporaneo, è stata spesso associata alla migrazione italiana degli anni ‘50 e ‘60. Le ragioni di una ‘nuova’ migrazione derivano da alcune condizioni economiche e sociali in Italia. Eppure, anche se ciò avviene in un contesto diverso, i fattori chiave di questa migrazione italiana rimangono quelli di una volta, ovvero la ricerca di una vita migliore. Si tratta di una realtà ancora poco studiata. Al contempo si registra l'incapacità di analizzare gli effetti di un presunto ‘esodo’ non solo per la società ospitante, ma anche per il paese di origine. Questo studio, che cerca di colmare questa lacuna, si basa su un sondaggio che è stato condotto su italiani appena arrivati (dal 2004 in poi). Nella maggior parte dei casi si tratta di italiani titolari di un tipo speciale di visto che presuppone una giovane età (massimo 30 anni di età) e che hanno l’intenzione di risiedere in Australia temporaneamente. Con questa ricerca ci siamo prefissi di esplorare la natura di questa ‘nuova’ emigrazione italiana in Australia, le differenze rispetto a quella tradizionale e all’attuale comunità italo-australiana, il processo di inclusione sociale e conseguenti opportunità e problemi. Pur riconoscendo l'esistenza di una tendenza in crescita di persone italiane che arrivano in Australia, la nostra indagine mira anche a mostrare che il recente riferimento a questo nuovo fenomeno si basa su una lettura in parte distorta dei dati statistici e delle sue prospettive future. 31

Sintesi dei risultati Si possono distinguere due tipi principali di ‘narrative’ che hanno guidato la nostra ricerca sui ‘nuovi migranti italiani’ in Australia. La prima viene dall’analisi dei dati statistici prodotti dalle autorità australiane. La seconda invece emerge dai dati raccolti durante il lavoro sul campo condotto tra gennaio e maggio 2016. L'analisi statistica Contrariamente ad una serie di articoli di recente pubblicazione e le relazioni prodotte da alcuni studiosi indipendenti, la nostra comprensione del fenomeno sotto esame è che affermazioni riguardo un massiccio flusso migratorio italiano verso l'Australia sono esagerate. Come dimostra l’istantanea fornita dalla Tabella 1.1 (di seguito), il contributo del segmento italiano alla popolazione nazionale permanente in Australia è piuttosto basso. Tabella 1.1: Principali categorie di visto concesse (o ‘visas granted’) a cittadini italiani 2004-2015 Categoria

200405

200910

201415

Visitatore Permessi vacanza – lavoro (‘417’) Lavoro Specializzato Temporaneo (‘457’) Studente

50,038 1,894

53,450 5,481

360

657

700

Partner Sponsorizzato dal datore di lavoro Qualificato Indipendente

cambiamento % dal 201314

Ingresso Temporaneo 54,954 0.1% -11.9% 14,138

2014-15 come % del totale australiano

Totale Italia 200415

% del totale australiano 2004-15

1.3% 6.2%

587,496 83,462

1.5% 4.2%

2,110

2.2%

11,681

1.1%

24,797

0.9%

254 79

1,758 5,602 24.3% 1.9% Programma Immigrazione (permanente) 330 521 11.6% 1.1% 214 636 37.1% 1.3%

3,691 3,221

0.8% 0.8%

53

86

795

0.2%

97

31.2%

6.6%

0.2%

Fonte: Gli Autori (2016).

Negli ultimi dieci anni, c’è stato senza dubbio un graduale aumento del numero dei visti temporanei e permanenti concessi agli italiani per visitare e soggiornare in Australia. Nel dare uno sguardo più da vicino ai dati disponibili, è evidente che questo aumento è stato guidato principalmente da un tipo ‘temporaneo’ di migranti. Il programma Permessi Vacanza – Lavoro (WH), introdotto nel 2004, ha prodotto un nuovo flusso migratorio, diventando particolarmente popolare dopo il 2011. Nel periodo in esame, dei 126.233 italiani titolari di 32

visti1 temporanei, il 40,7% di questi erano nell'ambito del programma WH (Tabella 1.2 di seguito). Questa componente di titolari di visti temporanei è seguita da coloro che hanno un visto Visitatore (o ‘Visitor visa’), i quali costituiscono un ulteriore 24,3% del totale. Altri gruppi principali sono composti dai titolari del visto Lavoro Specializzato Temporaneo (‘Temporary work skilled’ o ‘457’) e del visto Studente (‘Student visa’) che formano rispettivamente il 14,0% ed il 13,5% del totale. Tabella 1.2: Italiani titolari di visto temporaneo in Australia 2004-2015 Tito di Visto Temporaneo Titolari del visto WH

Totale 2004-15 51,373

% del Totale 2004-15 40.7%

Titolari del visto Visitatore

30,584

24.3%

Titolari del visto ‘457’

17,682

14.0%

Titolari di un ‘Visto Ponte’ (Bridging visa)

5,321

4.2%

Titolari di altri visti temporanei

Titolari di visto Laureato Temporaneo

3,984

265

3.1%

Totale

126,233

100%

Titolari del visto Studente

Fonte: Gli Autori (2016).

17,024

13.5%

0.2%

In termini più generali, la quota italiana del programma australiano dei visti temporanei tra il 2004 e il 2015 è stato solamente l’1,5% del totale (questo tiene in considerazione le quattro principali categorie temporanee di visto come riportato nella Tabella 1.1) Per quanto riguarda il contributo italiano al programma australiano di migrazione permanente (‘Migration Program’), la cifra è di poco superiore allo 0,5%, con 8.711 visti concessi su un totale nazionale di 1.832.548. Questo programma incorpora sia la migrazione economica che familiare, e rappresenta uno strumento chiave per ottenere la residenza permanente in Australia. I visti Partner costituiscono la percentuale maggiore di questo schema con il 42,4% della quota italiana del ‘Migration Program’ dal 2004 al 2015 (Tabella 1.3). Questa categoria di visto è seguita da coloro che sono sponsorizzati dal datore di lavoro (o ‘Employer Sponsored’) con il 37%, mentre il terzo gruppo più grande è composto da coloro che fanno richiesta per un visto come Qualificato Indipendente (o ‘Skilled Independent’) con il 9,1%. I visti Partner e Sponsorizzato dal datore di lavoro, in particolare, sono cresciuti costantemente nel corso del periodo in esame. Il visto Partner è passato da 254 nel 2004-05 a Il termine ‘titolari di visto’ (o ‘visa holders’) indica il numero effettivo di immigrati in possesso di un particolare tipo di visto al 30 giugno (comunicazione personale, 20 maggio 2016). C’è dunque una certa discrepanza tra il numero di visti concessi e quello di coloro effettivamente in possesso di un certo tipo di visto al momento dell’analisi statistica.

1

33

521 nel 2014-15 (+ 105%). Nel caso del visto ‘Employer Sponsored’, questo è aumentato di 8 volte rispetto al 2004. In entrambi i casi, tuttavia, i dati aggregati sono ancora molto bassi (entrambi formano lo 0.8% del totale nazionale per quella categoria specifica di visto). Tabella 1.3: Componente italiana del Programma Immigrazione per categoria di visto 2004-15 Gruppo

Categoria

Famiglia

Partner Figlio Altro Famigliare Genitore

Totale Specializzazione

Totale Idoneità Speciale

Talento Eminente Sponsorizzato dal datore di lavoro Qualificato Indipendente Qualificato Regionale Visti nominati dallo Stato/Territorio Innovazione e Investimento Impresa

Gran totale

Fonte: Gli Autori (2016).

Totale 2004-15

% del Totale 2004-15

3.691 35 66 209 4.001 48 3.221

42.4% 0.4% 0.8% 2.4% 46.0% 0.5% 37.0%

795 112 297

9.1% 1.3% 3.4%

178

2.0%

4.651 58

53.3 0.7%

8.711

100%

Nonostante il carattere transitorio che la recente migrazione italiana sembra avere (se si considera il periodo di tempo che i migranti italiani soggiornano in Australia) e il numero limitato di ingressi sia temporanei che permanenti, l'Italia ha avuto un livello relativamente alto di Migrazione netta dall'estero (‘Net Overseas Migration’ [NOM]). NOM è un importante strumento che viene utilizzato per misurare quanto la popolazione cambia: rappresenta il saldo tra il numero di immigrati che arrivano in Australia e il numero di coloro che invece emigrano (DIBP, 2014a). Con l'adozione della regola ‘12/16 mesi’, NOM include tutta la migrazione temporanea e permanente di lungo termine. Ciò significa che quasi tutti i movimenti a breve termine, come i turisti, non vengono considerati tra i NOM arrivi o partenze. Con un NOM totale di 20.188 (o 1,4%), l'Italia occupa il 12° posto nella lista NOM dei top 20 paesi di origine. Questo dato è superiore a quello di paesi come la Francia o la Germania che hanno rispettivamente un NOM di 19.091 (o 1,4%) e 5.614 (o 0,4%). Questa cifra è comunque molto distante dai 100.000 cittadini italiani che emigrarono in Australia tra il 1950 e il 1960 (Italian Historical Society, n.d.).

34

Per quanto riguarda la distribuzione geografica dei cittadini italiani, la maggior parte arriva nel New South Wales (41,1%). Victoria ha il secondo numero più alto di arrivi (26,3%). Seguono il Western Australia ed il Queensland rispettivamente con il 13,7% e il 11,5%. Anche le statistiche in materia di migrazione permanente e conferimenti di cittadinanza dimostrano che NSW è la destinazione in cui una gran parte dei ‘nuovi migranti italiani’ finisce col risiedere. Inoltre, il 33,9% degli immigrati permanenti italiani scelgono di stabilirsi nel NSW, mentre il secondo gruppo più ampio (26,6%) preferisce il Victoria. Vale la pena notare che in termini di NOM, invece, il Victoria è lo Stato con il punteggio più alto, con 26.394 cittadini italiani in arrivo in più di quelli in partenza nel periodo 2004-15. Questo è un valore superiore a quello registrato dal NSW nello stesso periodo di tempo, con un saldo netto arrivi-partenze di 22.287. L'analisi della raccolta dati Il secondo aspetto di questo studio si basa sull'analisi e l'interpretazione dei dati raccolti durante la ricerca sul campo. Tra gennaio e maggio 2016, più di seicento questionari online sono stati raccolti tra gli italiani che erano arrivati in Australia dopo il 2004. Questo dato rappresenta la parte centrale e più originale di questa ricerca. Una gran parte dei questionari (224) ha fornito risposte da parte di italiani residenti nel Victoria e Tasmania. Al fine di garantire la validazione dei risultati ottenuti con il sondaggio online, dei ‘focus groups’ (o gruppo di discussione) sono stati organizzati sia con ‘nuovi migranti italiani’ che con agenti di immigrazione. Il sondaggio online L'analisi dei dati raccolti con il sondaggio online conferma la tendenza dominante che vede una parte consistente degli italiani arrivare in Australia attraverso il programma WH. Il cinquanta per cento di tutti i rispondenti del Victoria e della Tasmania avevano un visto WH quando hanno preso residenza in Australia la prima volta. Questo gruppo è seguito da cittadini italiani con un visto ‘Studente’ (15%) e con il ‘457’ (11%). Nel continuare a delineare un quadro dei nostri partecipanti al sondaggio, la maggior parte di loro (87%) erano giovani (nella fascia di età 18-40) ed altamente istruiti (il 62% aveva una laurea, un master, o persino un dottorato di ricerca). Solo un piccolo gruppo (9%) era composto da persone disoccupate al momento del loro trasferimento in Australia. La differenziazione sociale che è emersa dal sondaggio, invece, ha indicato che c’erano: 24% di impiegati, 17% di professionisti, 15% di studenti (senza borsa di studio) e 12% di operai. Per quanto riguarda il loro campo di studio e/o qualifica professionale, il 13% dei partecipanti al sondaggio erano impiegati e/o formati 35

nel settore alberghiero, un altro 13% nel settore dell'istruzione e della formazione, il 12% in quello delle arti, del design e dello spettacolo, il 10% in architettura e ingegneria, per citare solo le categorie più significative. Diversamente dall’immigrazione italiana degli anni ‘50 e ‘60, molti degli intervistati (45%) provenivano dal Nord Italia, mentre il 26% e il 22% rispettivamente erano del Centro e del Sud Italia. Una gran parte di loro (53%) non aveva mai vissuto fuori dall'Italia o aveva avuto solo un'esperienza di breve durata all'estero. Tra coloro che avevano dei parenti stretti nel nuovo paese ospitante (61 ovvero il 28%), la maggior parte ha definito questa relazione come ‘abbastanza importante’ (34%) o ‘molto importante’ (33%). Per quanto riguarda il periodo di residenza, al momento di scrivere questa relazione, più di due terzi del campione hanno indicato di aver vissuto in Australia ‘più di un anno, ma meno di 4 anni’ (42%) o ‘più di quattro anni’ (37%). Anche se molti dei partecipanti hanno dichiarato di avere almeno un buon livello di inglese, c’era anche un numero significativo di intervistati che hanno indicato ‘nessuna abilità (8%) o una ‘conoscenza limitata’ (32%) della lingua inglese. Mentre molti dei rispondenti hanno indicato che uno dei motivi principali per venire in Australia era quello di trovare migliori opportunità di lavoro, è stata la categoria ‘fare una nuova esperienza di vita’ che ha avuto il maggior numero di risposte (52%). Capire che cos’è cambiato ‘prima’ e ‘dopo’ l’essere arrivati nella nuova società ospitante è stato uno dei nodi centrali del nostro studio. Sistemazione, occupazione, requisiti lavorativi, conoscenza della lingua inglese, qualità di vita, erano tutti aspetti sotto esame. Dopo le difficoltà iniziali legate al processo di insediamento, molti italiani (58%) possono permettersi di affittare una casa/appartamento. Un altro gruppo di rispondenti (14%) ha anche dichiarato di aver investito in una proprietà, segno della loro intenzione di costruirsi un futuro in Australia. La percentuale degli italiani ‘senza lavoro’ è scesa notevolmente passando dal 15% al loro arrivo in Australia al 5% nel momento del sondaggio, mentre i professionisti (23%), impiegati (21%) e lavoratori autonomi sono le categorie che hanno registrano la crescita più alta. Uno dei risultati più interessanti che emerge dall'analisi delle risposte al sondaggio è l'aumento degli stipendi mensili guadagnati dagli intervistati insieme al miglioramento del loro tenore di vita (76%). Tuttavia, c’è da registrare che il 16% dei partecipanti hanno avuto o stavano ancora avendo difficoltà finanziarie. Inoltre, gran parte del campione (34%) ha definito il costo della vita in Australia (ad esempio il visto, assicurazione sanitaria, affitto, gli alimenti, le bollette, la consulenza legale, le tasse scolastiche, ecc.) come piuttosto dispendioso. L’analisi dei dati raccolti ha portato alla luce altre sfide che i ‘nuovi migranti italiani’ hanno dovuto affrontare. Il riconoscimento dei titoli di studio e professionali stranieri, per 36

esempio, è stato un problema per un gruppo consistente di intervistati (37%). Ci sono stati casi di professionisti italiani che sono arrivati con qualifiche di alto livello, ma non sono stati in grado di vedersele riconosciute in Australia. Di conseguenza, non hanno potuto lavorare nel loro campo/settore di competenza fino a quando le loro qualifiche non fossero riesaminate secondo gli standard australiani. Questo spiega anche la presenza di elevati livelli di insoddisfazione tra coloro che hanno avuto a che fare con la burocrazia australiana. Sebbene un certo numero di rispondenti (37%) ha avuto un'esperienza positiva con la burocrazia del Paese ospitante, c’è un numero altrettanto elevato (30%) di italiani che erano in qualche modo insoddisfatti. In particolare, il percorso per l’ottenimento del visto è emerso come uno degli aspetti di insediamento più difficili come dichiarato dai partecipanti al sondaggio. Il 48% del campione ha affermato che il sistema dei visti in Australia è poco chiaro e troppo costoso. Tra le altre questioni emerse anche il fatto che quasi il 40% dei rispondenti ritiene di non avere avuto abbastanza informazioni sul contesto australiano prima del loro arrivo. Un focus specifico nella nostra indagine è stato dedicato ad alcuni aspetti del programma WH. Particolarmente negli ultimi anni, il problema dello sfruttamento sul lavoro ha assunto un profilo pubblico di alto livello in seguito ad un numero considerevole di casi di abusi registrati tra i titolari di questo tipo di visto, ‘nuovi migranti italiani’ inclusi. Il presente studio, nel confermare i risultati di precedenti ricerche sull'esistenza di questo fenomeno, ha cercato anche di capirne le cause e le conseguenze. Più del 40% di tutti i rispondenti italiani ha riferito di aver avuto una difficile esperienza di lavoro in Australia nel corso della quale si sono sentiti sfruttati. Ciò indica che il problema non può essere limitato solo a coloro che hanno sperimentato il programma WH. I titolari di questo tipo di visto hanno riconosciuto di aver dovuto affrontare condizioni di lavoro difficili, che spesso aumenta il rischio di un potenziale sfruttamento. Tuttavia, per il 55% di coloro che hanno scelto il visto WH questo è stato definito come un modo per comprendere meglio il mercato del lavoro australiano ed eventualmente di rimanervi. Per un altro 28% dei partecipanti, invece, questo ha costituito solamente un’esperienza di vita/lavoro temporanea. Infine, vale la pena notare che, nonostante i problemi e le sfide affrontate dai partecipanti al sondaggio, la maggioranza degli intervistati (58%) ha dichiarato che stavano progettando di rimanere permanentemente in Australia. L'elevato tenore di vita (sanità, sistema educativo, economia, trasporti pubblici, ecc.), più opportunità di lavoro, l’opinione che l'Australia è un paese in cui il merito è riconosciuto come un valore fondamentale, sono stati i motivi principali forniti da coloro che stavano cercando di rimanere.

37

Focus groups con i ‘nuovi migranti italiani’ I focus groups hanno confermato l'esistenza tra i ‘nuovi migranti italiani’ di una serie di difficoltà che vanno dalla prima applicazione per il visto a questioni di insediamento più complesse incontrate in seguito. Anche se i focus groups sono stati condotti nel Victoria, le risposte emerse hanno avuto un carattere largamente ‘australiano’ e non possono essere classificate semplicemente come una risposta di tipo ‘vittoriana’. Il quadro che emerge dai focus groups è che gli italiani emigrano dal loro paese per una serie di motivi. Un gruppo consistente ha dichiarato che stavano migrando per ragioni strettamente economiche, ma non tutti poi si sono sentiti accolti al loro arrivo in Australia, sebbene questo dipenda da circostanze diverse e vari dal contesto cittadino alla campagna e tra le varie città australiane. Molti di questi migranti, giovani ed altamente qualificati, hanno visto l'opportunità di stabilirsi in modo permanente in Australia come un evento positivo. Quello che maggiormente li preoccupa è il processo lungo e complesso per ottenere la residenza permanente. In molti casi il loro percorso è iniziato con un visto WH, esperienza che spesso viene estesa di ulteriori 12 mesi. Il loro inserimento nella società di accoglienza prevede poi l’utilizzo di altri tipi di visto, così come pure la ricerca più volte di una sponsorizzazione. La difficoltà di ottenere un visto qualche volta è dipeso dalla natura stessa del visto. Riguardo al visto ‘Studente’, per esempio, i partecipanti hanno spiegato essere il meno problematico. Naturalmente lo scopo finale era quello di ottenere la residenza permanente ed eventualmente la cittadinanza, che molti hanno affermato di volere. Una parte consistente dei partecipanti ai focus groups hanno espresso preoccupazione sul tema dello sfruttamento nel mondo del lavoro, le cui cause vanno cercate nella vulnerabilità e incertezza del loro status giuridico/tipo di visto. Ciò si verifica soprattutto nel settore alberghiero e nelle ‘farms’/aziende agricole. Molti si sono lamentati del loro rapporto con il Dipartimento di Immigrazione e Protezione del Confine (‘Department of Immigration and Border Protection’). In particolare hanno criticato il fatto che a volte le linee guida e procedure emanate dal ‘Dipartimento Immigrazione’ sono poco chiare e contrastanti, così come la mancanza di funzionari ai quali poter parlare per avere assistenza. Molti degli italiani appena arrivati hanno sottolineato di non aver avuto informazioni adeguate su ciò che li aspettava in Australia ma hanno anche riconosciuto il supporto fornito loro dal NOMIT con sede presso il Consolato Italiano a Melbourne. Grazie all’aspetto funzionale della società australiana e l’efficienza di molti servizi, ci sono poche (o nessuna) aspettative nei confronti del governo australiano, anche se c'è sicuramente il desiderio che le qualifiche professionali ed educative, soprattutto nel campo dell'architettura e dell'ingegneria, vengano riconosciute. Pur ammettendo l’esistenza di un certo numero di difficoltà connesse alla questione del visto, 38

insieme ad altri ostacoli che possono emergere dalla ricerca di un insediamento permanente nel paese ospitante, l'opinione diffusa è stata che, dopo tutto, le loro condizioni di vita in Australia erano di gran lunga migliori di quelle che avrebbero avuto in Italia. Focus groups con gli agenti di immigrazione Gli agenti di immigrazione sono stati notevolmente uniti nella loro analisi dei temi principali legati alla recente migrazione dall’Italia. Tutti hanno riconosciuto che il numero degli italiani in possesso di un visto temporaneo (come il WH), seppur variabile e mutevole, sembrerebbe in progressivo aumento. Allo stesso tempo erano concordi nel considerare questo aumento un fenomeno di breve periodo, che non necessariamente raggiungerà elevati livelli. Entrando nel merito di questioni burocratiche specifiche, gli agenti di immigrazione hanno dichiarato che il regime dei visti ha bisogno di alcune modifiche sostanziali per evitare che i richiedenti restino intrappolati all'interno di direttive e procedure complesse ed onerose. Congiuntamente hanno anche espresso frustrazione per i recenti cambiamenti introdotti da parte del Dipartimento di Immigrazione che rende difficile l’accesso al loro personale, di fatto chiudendosi al dialogo con gli agenti e i potenziali clienti in cerca di un visto. A loro avviso, l’atteggiamento tenuto dal Dipartimento di Immigrazione in termini di comunicazione renderà le pratiche per l’ottenimento del visto ancora più difficili, ponendo al contempo le basi per possibili disavventure. Gli agenti di immigrazione hanno anche notato che i futuri migranti italiani hanno bisogno di essere meglio informati e preparati sui requisiti per i visti australiani e sulle condizioni lavorative australiane, dal momento che la maggior parte dei nuovi arrivati non sembrano esserlo. Casi di abusi e di sfruttamento dei titolari di un visto temporaneo stanno diventando molto comuni soprattutto nel settore commerciale, alberghiero e nelle ‘farms’ delle zone rurali. Il governo australiano potrebbe fare molto di più per semplificare ed inviare linee guida più chiare per evitare ‘trappole burocratiche’ per i migranti di Paesi come l'Italia. Conclusioni Questo studio è stato importante perché ha consentito di verificare la realtà degli attuali livelli di emigrazione italiana in Australia, i quali hanno caratteristiche qualitative e quantitative differenti rispetto all’emigrazione di massa degli anni ‘50 e ‘60. La ricerca ha effettuato una revisione approfondita della letteratura esistente sull’emigrazione italiana, ha accertato il punto di vista dei ‘nuovi migranti italiani’ in Australia attraverso un sondaggio online e ha cercato di convalidare i risultati ottenuti attraverso tre focus groups. Nell’indagare questa recente migrazione italiana si è scoperto e dato rilievo ad una realtà con caratteristiche, problemi e implicazioni nuove rispetto al passato. E’ speranza di tutti che questo studio 39

fornisca indicazioni costruttive alle autorità competenti, affinché queste possano intervenire e trovare le soluzioni più adatte alle problematiche emerse. La 'nuova migrazione italiana' in Australia non è guidata da un solo fattore trainante come accaduto con la migrazione di massa negli anni ‘50 e ‘60. Mentre alcuni italiani sono sicuramente emigrati alla ricerca di migliori opportunità economiche, non tutti lo hanno fatto per questo motivo particolare. E' stato soprattutto il programma Working Holiday ad aver registrato il maggior numero di migranti italiani, i quali il più delle volte erano alla ricerca di una esperienza internazionale. Molti degli altri ‘migranti temporanei’ (ad esempio con un visto ‘457’ o visto ‘Studente’) hanno fatto considerazioni in parte diverse. Ma molti di loro erano accumunati dal desiderio di rimanere in modo permanente. Un'altra considerazione che emerge da questo studio è che i livelli di migrazione italiana non sono così elevati come avevamo inizialmente pensato. Per alcune categorie di visto gli italiani che entrano in Australia fanno sicuramente raggiungere dei livelli più elevati (soprattutto negli ultimi quattro anni), come per il programma WH in cui gli italiani hanno registrato 83.462 visti concessi (primo e secondo) negli ultimi dieci anni. Altre categorie di visto, d'altra parte, hanno evidenziato numeri molto inferiori. La nostra ricerca ha dimostrato che le procedure per ottenere un visto non sono sempre adeguate e che il Dipartimento di Immigrazione sta evitando la possibilità di avere un vero ‘dialogo’ con i richiedenti di un visto. Inoltre, che le procedure per il visto siano diventate sempre più complesse nel corso degli anni è un fatto che sembra aver contribuito a generare un flusso elevato di informazioni inaffidabili, creando al contempo maggiori ostacoli e problemi. Come risultato, molti sono obbligati a rivolgersi ad un agente di immigrazione il cui costo si aggiunge alle tasse già elevate per ottenere il visto. Ad ogni modo, il visto ‘Studente’ sembra essere quello il cui funzionamento è relativamente più chiaro e con meno problemi, un dato confermato dai focus groups e dalle risposte del sondaggio. Questo studio ha dato voce a molteplici testimonianze ed esperienze di sfruttamento dei migranti temporanei in tre settori principali: alberghiero, commercio e agricoltura. Poiché queste attività si sviluppano principalmente sulla base di transazioni ‘cash in hand’ (in contanti) sono anche quelle maggiormente soggette a questo tipo di sfruttamento. Molti di coloro che hanno partecipato alla nostra ricerca hanno riconosciuto il ruolo chiave di mettere a disposizione informazioni corrette e affidabili ai nuovi arrivati. Nonostante il modo non ufficiale e improvvisato con cui è emerso, il NOMIT è stato identificato come un fattore potenzialmente importante nella fornitura di informazioni e servizi per gli italiani appena arrivati a Melbourne.

40

Raccomandazioni Nell'ambito degli obiettivi di questo studio, gli autori del rapporto hanno pensato di offrire delle raccomandazioni alle autorità competenti che possono essere utili per riorientare la direzione delle loro attività, capire meglio le aree per un potenziale miglioramento delle procedure e portare alla luce quegli aspetti che possono aiutare a definire meglio questa ‘nuova migrazione italiana’. Queste raccomandazioni includono: 1. Fornire un maggior livello di assistenza ai potenziali migranti italiani in Australia; 2. Fornire l’accesso ad informazioni affidabili e corrette sulle condizioni in Australia legate al lavoro, economia e aspetti culturali; 3. Realizzare uno ‘sportello informativo’ in grado di assistere i migranti italiani temporanei con informazioni di base su alloggi a prezzi accessibili, occupazione, inserimento lavorativo, aspetti legali, diritti dei lavoratori e sul lavoro; 4. Fornire formazione in lingua inglese al momento dell'arrivo; 5. Rivalutare la dotazione finanziaria richiesta per la sponsorizzazione che di per sé è alla base di alcuni casi di sfruttamento dei migranti; 6. Ottenere l'accesso al meccanismo di Fair Work Australia e stabilire un Difensore Civico per i migranti; 7. Trovare modi e mezzi per superare la mancanza di riconoscimento di alcune qualifiche ed esperienze di lavoro conseguite in Italia; 8. Garantire una qualche forma di rappresentanza istituzionale, come ad esempio il Comitato di Assistenza agli italiani (COASIT) o un organo equivalente idoneo, cui affidare la responsabilità di essere un primo punto di approdo per i nuovi migranti italiani; 9. Fare in modo che il Dipartimento di Immigrazione ristabilisca un contatto diretto con i candidati durante il percorso di richiesta del visto, soprattutto in considerazione degli elevati costi che questo comporta. Questo contatto con i funzionari governativi sarebbe in grado di ripristinare il rilascio di informazioni affidabili e precise, facilitando così anche il processo di elaborazione del visto; 10. L'Australia è in gran parte un prodotto dell’immigrazione e come tale si ritiene che il governo australiano abbia bisogno di assicurarsi che ci sia un piano di insediamento per tutti i migranti.

41

CHAPTER 2

INTRODUCTION AND

METHODOLOGY 42

Chapter 2 - Introduction and Methodology Much of our understanding of Italian migration to Australia is mostly associated with the mass migration that took place between 1951 and 1971. It was a two-decade period in which more than 200,000 Italians arrived in the cities and the countryside of Australia and took rapid steps to integrate and improve their economic and social position. Many Italian migrants at that time were in search of a better life, an escape from the very difficult circumstances they faced in their Italian homeland. To some extent the perception and understanding of Italians in Australia to this day has remained stuck in the paradigm of the post-war migration despite the fact that Italian ancestry population has superseded the Italian-born population according to census information. What this study seeks to do is to address a new dimension of Italian migration, a completely different cohort which has little in common with those of the past except for the origin country – Italy. Italian migration to Australia after 1971 substantially declined but did not completely cease. As early as the 1970s, a new and demographically different Italian migrant arrived in Australia, many with entirely different characteristics and certainly better educated than their predecessors. Moreover, the reasons for migrating to Australia in the post 1970s were very different to those of the past as Italy was no longer a country in ruins. Migration often takes place within a context of national dialogue and international agreement, as was the case between Italy and Australia. After the 1970s it could be said that both Italy and Australia seemed to go their separate ways as they pursued different geo-political strategic ends and objectives. In some respects, the close bond between these two countries fundamentally loosened as the migration link between them went into decline until the signing of the Working Holiday Visa arrangement in January 2004. Much has been said about the Italian migration of the 1950s and 1960s but little is known or understood of the new, young, skilled and educated migrants of the current period. To address this deficiency, this study is designed to establish the movement in temporary and permanent migration to Australia from 2004 until late 2015. We chose 2004 as our starting point primarily because it was the date of the signing of the Working Holiday agreement between Australia and Italy, a scheme that Australia has with some 28 countries around the world. This attracted greater levels of interest and resulted in higher numbers of prospective Italian requests for residency and, ultimately, Australian citizenship. Irrespective of the visa,

43

entry pathway or scheme, we were witnessing a spike in Italian interest in migration to Australia. Our purpose was to establish the existence of a spike in Italian migration, to understand what it might mean, if anything, and to document it in all its aspects. Ultimately, this research is meant to provide some guidelines, understanding and, hopefully, recommendations on how to address any issues that emerge from this growing trend. The need for this study The reason for undertaking this research is to address a new cohort of Italian migrants, referred to as a ‘new Italian migration’, to Australia, to explore their needs and objectives in an Australia different from that of previous migrant cohorts. We can attest to the absence of findings, discussion and sourcing of primary data on this new phenomenon. It is thus an incontestable reality that the ‘new Italian migration’ remains to be researched. We can also testify that migration studies of all ethnic derivation into Australia is minimal not just that relating to Italians. In addition, contemporary migration is radically different to that of the 1950s and 1960s with India, China, Philippines and Vietnam being the top source countries closely following the UK and New Zealand. Italy, on the other hand, was part of the group of countries of birth with decreasing numbers; showing the highest decrease, a loss of 33,300 people (ABS 2012) between 2001 and 2011. Nevertheless, over the last decade there was a slow but constant increase of ‘new Italian migrants’ with a peak between 2012 and 2014. The opportunity to try a new life also came at a cost for a number of Italians. A recent investigation conducted by Four Corners (Meldrum-Hanna & Russell 2015, para. 6) ‘has uncovered gangs of black market workers run by unscrupulous labour hire contractors operating on farms and in factories around the country’. As the president of the Committee of the Italians Abroad based in Brisbane, Mariangela Stagnitti, notes, in just one year she received 250 complaints from young Italians regarding the terrible conditions they had to endure while working on a farm in a temporary capacity (Giaconi 2015). Cases of ‘exploitation’ were recorded particularly among those who obtained temporary entry in Australia, new Italian arrivals included. More recently, a report, entitled title A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders (Parliament of Australia, 2016), focusing on this particular situation was released by the Australian Senate. Yet, despite these experiences of exploitation, some of these ‘new Italian migrants’ try to go back home after one year or even earlier, others try to stay longer (Marchese 2014).

44

Therefore, the major contribution of this research is to provide a clearer picture of the contemporary phenomenon of Italian migration to Australia. While highlighting its main causes and characteristics, our analysis will suggest possible courses of action that could make existing policy initiatives more effective. By any measurement, it would be deceptive to argue that Italian migrations numbers (of all categories) can be compared to the numbers from India and China. However, we can safely say that Italian migration has grown significantly from its low point between the 1970s and 2000, and that in some categories such as Working Holiday Maker the number of Italian migrants is relatively high. To call this a ‘boom’, though, is in our view an overstatement. While requested to approach this study along Australian state/territory lines, the geographical dispersion of this migrant cohort made confining our research and its findings to Victoria and Tasmania exceptionally difficult and counterproductive. Therefore, while Victorian and Tasmanian data forms part of the dataset and analysis, the results and findings will have a national character and perspective. The methodology: A mixed method approach This study undertook a three-prong approach in seeking out three fundamental and original sources of information. The first aspect was to address the existing literature on recent migration that, as we discovered (though not to our surprise), was limited to a handful of sources. These sources provided mostly statistical information with little analysis or interpretation. During the first phase the existing legislative and policy framework was also mapped and analysed. This process is based mainly on different types of documentary research sources (McCulloch, 2004). They include policy reports, committee papers, published treatises, newspapers and journals. The background analysis was essential for the preliminary collection of contextual information. The project used a composite methodology to create a comprehensive picture of both the situation of ‘new Italian migrants’ living in the metropolitan target areas and the challenges this group posed to service providers (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The research approach combined theoretical conceptual analysis, qualitative empirical and exploratory analysis, social documents analysis, quantitative data analysis and critical analysis of public policies. The data collection also relied on the contributions of a number of community-based and advocacy organisations. The roles of partner organisations included: the provision of support during the fieldwork to forge links with relevant communities; logistical guidance

45

with regard to meetings, conferences and interviews; provision of feedback on interim reports and other project materials; and assistance in exploring the project’s policy implications. The second approach was to seek out the views of the cohort of new immigrants through an extensive online survey. The approach of the survey was to ascertain the range of experiences these ‘new Italian migrants’ had encountered on the visa journey; understand who they are;, their first contact with Australia and other experiences encountered as a result of this journey. The survey commenced in late January 2016 and closed in late May 2016. This should be noted as a very short time frame to collect much valuable data. This instrument allowed the researchers to collect data from a large number of respondents while maintaining uniform responses (Van Slyke 2008). Numerous modes of outreach were utilised from the media, the COMITES, Italian Consulate and NOMIT networks, to word of mouth. The last source of data collection emerged from social media interrogation as many if not most Italians travelling to Australia used social media to gather information on the do’s and don’ts of living and residing in Australia. This ultimately provided valuable and informative results in terms of survey responses. As set out above, the geographical focus as per the terms of reference of the project was the Victoria and Tasmania cohort. It can be reported that the survey was completed by 224 respondents residing in Victoria and Tasmania of a total of 558 collected nationally.3 The survey, whose results are analysed in this section, was targeted at all Italian citizens who had resided in Australia in the period between 2004 and 2016 (it thus includes people who left the country). A wide array of tools was used to promote the survey. This involved the assistance of the Italian community of Victoria and Tasmania, Italian media outlets (such as SBS Radio Italia, Antipodi News, Radio Italia Uno), word of mouth, particularly via new Italian arrivals, and an advertising campaign on Facebook. The survey itself contained 58 questions across a number of themes. Although not all respondents answered all questions in the survey, a high completion rate was recorded: 86.16% (or 193 individuals) completed over 80% of the survey; 1.79% (or 4 respondents) answered 70% of the questions; 9.38% (21) replied to 30%; 2.67% (6) to 20%. The vast majority (206 or 92%) of those who answered the questionnaire were (or

Although, as initially commissioned, the geographical focus of the study was Victoria and Tasmania, the research team decided to extend its radius to Australia more broadly. As a result, by the time of publication of this report, 598 surveys had been collected, which (excluding Victoria and Tasmania) can be subdivided as follows: 207 respondents in New South Wales; 69 in Western Australia; 55 in Queensland; 24 in South Australia; 6 in the Australian Capital Territory; 6 in the Northern Territory and 7 abroad. 3

46

had been) living in the city of Melbourne, with 16 individuals (or 7%) indicated ‘Other Victoria’. Only two survey responses were recorded in Tasmania (one of which in Hobart).4 An important consideration was to establish the number of valid and completed survey responses required to represent a sizeable sample, which may be deemed acceptable for statistical and analytical purposes. Literature on this issue indicates that the sample size of approximately 400 completed surveys of a total cohort of 119,940 is valid for statistical and analytical purposes. Given this survey reached more than 558 valid responses then according to literature on the subject (Cavana, Delahaye and Sekaran 2007, p. 278) the sample collected for this survey is well above that required to ensure that we have numbers that will validate trends.5 The third and final original addition to this study was to seek out and provide focus groups of these new migrants and question them directly. The purpose of the focus groups was in part to create some triangulation for the evidence emerging from the surveys as well as allowing new and separate issues to emerge from this migration – which there were many. The use of a semi-structured consultation tool emphasised the importance of getting the study’s subjects themselves thinking about, and reflecting on, their experiences, both individually and collectively (Narayanasamy, 2009). Two focus groups were carried out with Italian ‘migrants’ and one with migration agents handling these applicants. The migrant focus groups are at times the centralisation and depository of aggregate experiences and case studies of prospective Italian migrants sometimes experiencing difficulty with their application. Their perspective was invaluable and can be consulted in this report in Chapter 7. For both the survey and the focus group data collection, gaining University Ethics approval for our questions and our approach was an important component of the research process. These three approaches ensured the originality and novelty of this research on the new migration, which to the authors’ knowledge at the time of carrying out the study had not been undertaken previously.

As part of the ‘Terms of reference’ for this study, Tasmania was one area which this study had intended to investigate. Our findings however, after much contact with different representatives of the Italian community, Italian clubs, Italian language radio and a marketing campaign using Facebook in Tasmania, discovered there were few ‘new Italian migrants’ in Tasmania except for those undertaking a ‘farm experience’. The response rate for Tasmania was as such exceptionally low as can be evidenced from the description in the report. 5 Our own estimation if we aggregate the total number of differing visa categories which Italians coming to Australia have come under would provide a total figure of 119,940 (working holiday, student visas and temporary work skilled visa) over the period of 2004 and 2015. 4

47

Target group, recruitment methods and ethical approach Participation arrangements for the focus groups involved seeking out young Italian immigrants that meet the research criteria (arriving in Australia after 2004) and ensuring a balanced and proportionate demographic representation. This also included equal gender representation, age distribution (between the ages of 19 to 65) and different visa processes. Two focus groups were organized with 10 Italian participants in each. Another focus group was conducted with six migration agents. In the first case, the participants’ selection was made based on their relevance to the category of newly arrived immigrants from Italy. As for the migration agents, these were selected from the Migration Agents Registration Authority’s (MARA) search site. The prospective focus group attendees were initially contacted by email and their agreement to attend was confirmed in the same manner. All three focus groups were organized between January and February 2016. Participants were provided with an Introduction to Project and Invitation to Participate together with a Consent Form, outlining the reason for the project to be undertaken, conditions for the participations (free consent and right to withdrawal), risks and benefits, privacy and confidentiality. All interviews during the fieldwork had the interviewees’ prior consent. All recorded interviews were fully or partly transcribed. By analysing the transcripts, it was possible to observe that some topics predominated. Thematic repetition guided us in choosing which themes to develop when elaborating the report. The process of theme identification was consistent with the phenomenological approach, which is an inductive research methodology, seeking to build theory from the information gathered, rather than to apply pre-existing theory to data sets (Curry, Nembhard & Bradley, 2009). Despite the amount of data collected and the breadth of issues discussed, only the most relevant aspects were analysed in detail. These were the themes most often reiterated by participants that could provide a theoretical insight and a contribution to understanding Italian migration (Bryman, 2012). The selection of statements quoted in this project was dictated by the profundity of the information contained in them and how well they clarified the topic under investigation. The most significant statements were given priority (Mason, 2010). As for the online survey, responses were collected anonymously. Participants were able to withdraw from the survey at any time of the response and their responses were anonymous at all times. It is important to note that we were able to reach 937 Italians via the online system, but 338 dropped out of the survey question. Ensuring that the online survey would reach as many of the cohort as possible required utilising field sites. This meant accessing the multitude of existing social media sites designed for young Italian immigrants as well as existing 48

institutional sites (e.g. Italian Consulate and regional Italian entities based in Australia) and Italian media (e.g. SBS Italia). The secure package used for this on line survey is Qualtrics. Online survey participants were recruited through purposive sampling via the above mentioned website, and snowball sampling, i.e. Facebook advertising campaign, referral by people who have completed the survey or who have heard about the survey from other members of the Italian community. Flyers and/or postcards of the project were also distributed in the largest venues of the Italian community. Participants were not asked about family details or life memories. Questions were rather about their age group, visa status, settlement process, relations with their culture and community and the host society, and any problems encountered therein. Results were grouped by the categories that were most meaningful to our research (e.g. visa segment type, period of time spent in Australia, level of English, etc.). After categorizing the data by groups, tables and graphs were built to report and record the data. Cross-tabulation is one of the analytical tools that we used to analyse the data collected. Also known as contingency table analysis, it helped displaying the multivariate frequency distribution of the variables, thus providing a basic picture of the interrelation and interactions between them. Report overview The report is subdivided into eight chapters. Chapter 1 (Executive Summary) provides a quick synopsis of the report and summarises the essential parts. It outlines the following information: the purpose of the report, a summary of findings, the conclusions drawn from the research and recommendations for future actions. Chapter 2 offers an introduction, canvasses the methodological approach and fieldwork process (data collection and analysis). Here we also provide the impetus for conducting this project, selection of the methodology, the target group, the sampling strategy and limitations of this study. Chapter 3 traces the history of Italian migration to Australia. It defines the field of research, the object of study and its focus and the significance of this research. Chapter 4 discusses the analysis of statistical data released by the Australian Government in the period between 2004 and 2016. This chapter also locates the visa framework designed around the settlement of foreign citizens in Australia. Chapter 5, 6 and 7 represent the most original contribution of this report. These chapters draw heavily upon the analysis and interpretation of fieldwork material and were organised according to themes arising from the online survey and focus groups’ interviews. The voices of ‘new Italian migrants’ and migration agents have been central to these chapters, forming the heart of this study. In Chapter 8 we emphasise the report’s central contribution and outline 49

the implications of this research for policy-makers. Finally, the Appendices provides a list of Tables and Figures numbered in sequential order according to the chapter they refer to. These items have been produced by combining statistical elements of Government policy reports. The most significant ones will also appear throughout the report. Limitations of the research Every research project has its limitations and many of these are unsurprising. However, this study wishes to register these limitations both for future reference but also for those looking for certain answers in this study and not finding them. In the first place, the study was completed with a very narrow scope and tight timeline not of our choosing. There were a range of aspects in this research that required more time and analysis. The terms of reference for this research were to explore the Victoria and Tasmania angle of Italian migration to Australia. In effect, this was a very difficult task, given the mobility of Italians once they reached Australia and the difficulty in ascertaining where they might be residing today. The census data relates to 2011 with a more recent census occurring soon. This was an unfortunate coincidence and renders the data somewhat dated. The data, which was retrieved from the DIBP was quite raw and required greater levels of cross checking. Unfortunately, this data is not readily available and must be sourced from various localities and institutions. The authors would have preferred to gain access to certain literature on the Italian migration question in order to undertake some cross checking. However, this was not possible. One final consideration was the need to establish personal contact with the DIBP would have been beneficial given their central role in the issues investigated in this study. However, establishing this contact proved beyond our capabilities.

50

51

CHAPTER 3

ITALIAN MIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA OF YESTERDAY 52

Chapter 3 - Italian immigration to Australia - The way it was Introduction Italians and their descendants in Australia until recently represented the largest non-English speaking ethnic group. They are a small percentage of the wider presence of the Italian expatriate community spread throughout the world. From official Italian migration sources it is recorded that between the period of 1876-1999, some 27 million Italians migrated overseas and in that same period some 10 million returned to Italy in what is defined as ‘return migration’. In the 1990s, official Italian government sources estimated that there are as many as 60 million Italians by ancestry spread across the globe (Gallo & Tintori 2006, p. 132). This is thought by many to be an overstatement. The post-war period in Australia started from standpoint feeling of vulnerability. The events of the war had made apparent that Australia required a much larger population for economic development and even defence and security purposes. Moreover, it also lacked unskilled labour. As a result, Australia embarked on an ambitious immigration program pioneered by the then Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell. The program would encourage migrants primarily from Europe to settle in Australia and provide the labour required for infrastructure projects and increase manufacturing investment. Prior to the migration agreement between Australia and Italy in 1951 related to arrangements for Italians migrating to Australia, relations between these two countries were somewhat minimal and framed within very different boundaries. While a small number of Italians wound up in Australia, from the landings of Captain Cook through to the Eureka Stockade with Raffaele Carboni, this presence was generally of an accidental nature. Italian migration to Australia is largely remembered as the major migration that took place between 1952 and 1969. It was this period of strong Italian migration which is much commented on and that has defined the Italian presence in Australian cities. As a result of the immigration intake from Italy, the number of Italian-born residents in Australia grew from 33,632 in 1947 to 289,476 in 1971. The legacy of the Italian migration period has left an indelible mark on Australian society with hundreds of thousands of people of Italian descent actively integrated in Australian society. Some of these pursue an interest in keeping the connections with Italy alive. But this was a relationship which began and continued mostly based on this migration relationship.

53

Italians in Australia before 1947 Though much of the discourse of Italians in Australia relates to the migration in the post-war period from 1947 until 1969, the earlier presence of Italians is nonetheless worthy of comment. As early as 1871, some 860 Italian-born migrants were registered by the Australian colonies. A few years later, in the 1880s, the average number of Italians migrating to Australia annually had reached 250 (New South Wales and Victoria were the most popular destinations). For economic reasons Italian migration to Australia came to a standstill in the 1890s though it recommenced with the discovery of gold in Western Australia in 1896. By the time of Australian Federation (1901), the number of Italians in Australia had reached 5,678, still only a fraction of Australia’s 3.8 million population at the time. Prior to the First World War, Italian emigration flows mainly represented an educated type of migrant; this migration had a high rate of return and was overwhelmingly male (90% in 1901) (Ware 1981, p. 12). In 1914 the number of Italians coming to Australia reached a peak of 1,682 (Ware 1981). Throughout this period Australia continued the use of its infamous immigration policy, rooted in the Immigration Act of 1901, and better known as the ‘White Australia Policy’, which discouraged, restricted or hampered immigration from predominantly non-white countries. Table 3.1 - Italy-born population in Australia, 1871-1947 Year of census

Males

Females

Male/Female Ratio

Total

1871

802

58

13:8

860

1881

1,715

165

10:4

1,880

1891

3,394

496

6:8

3,890

1901

4,871

807

6:4

5,678

1911

5,543

1,176

4:7

6,719

1921

6,306

1,829

3:4

8,135

1933

20,064

6,692

3:0

26,756

1947

22,506

11,126

2:0

33,632

Source: Ware (1981, p. 13)

The end of the Second World War and a new immigration phase in Australia From the end of the Second World War, the Australian government revised its immigration policy shifting it from a restrictive policy to a more flexible one, which would encompass the 54

new migration cohort planned. While originally the immigration cohort was conceived as British, authorities eventually settled on (besides British migrants) an intake of mostly European skilled and unskilled labour which included Poles, Germans, Dutch, Italians, Yugoslavs, and Greeks; Lebanese migrants were also included. The causes that prompted the post-war immigration program were situated in the geostrategic and socio-economic circumstances of twentieth-century Australia. At the time, Australia faced three crucial issues: national security, under-population and, as the war ended, post-war renewal. A new, more aggressive immigration program was considered by the Australian government to be a cure-all solution to these problems and already ‘[…] in late 1943 an inter-departmental committee was established to investigate and report specifically on immigration’ (Wilton & Bosworth 1984, p. 7). The implementation of the new immigration policy was, however, neither swift nor did it imply a sudden U-turn in Australia’s traditional stance on ethnicity and race. In reality, the immigration program initially put emphasis on increasing the quota of immigrants, leaving unchallenged the traditional policy regarding ethnicity and race. The idea was to recruit ‘white British subjects’ and, failing that, ‘white aliens’ (Wilton & Bosworth 1984, p. 7). To keep Australia as white and as British as possible, the first Australian Immigration Minister, Arthur Calwell (Labor, 1945-1949), even set an ideal ratio of ten new British migrants for every foreigner (Wilton & Bosworth 1984, p. 11). The 1949 Australian immigration policy promoted an assimilationist view of the new settlers, mainly of non-English speaking background. Moreover, it articulated social attitudes that were to last until the introduction of more mainstream multiculturalism. When the immigration program was first implemented in 1945, the bulk of the annual quota of newcomers, approximately 70,000, was to be composed of people from the British Isles. Eventually, an agreement between the British and Australian governments was signed in March 1946 to ‘provide free and assisted passages for British ex-servicemen and their dependants’, followed a year later by another agreement for selected British civilians (Appleyard 2001, p. 62). Yet, the two schemes failed to generate the expected outcome. The subsidised ten-pound fare to Australia did not lure enough Britons: barely 30,000 a year made the trip to Australia (Appleyard 2001, p. 62). One of the reasons was that, like Australia’s economy, the UK’s booming economy had generated a high demand for labourers, and therefore the UK government was reluctant to let thousands of young workers migrate abroad (Appleyard 2001, pp. 62-63).

55

It is worth noting that Australian authorities did not encourage the immigration of Italians at first. Calwell’s immigration program, in fact, ‘did not envisage recruiting south of the Alps’ (Bosworth 2001, p. 505). Statistics on assisted passages suggest that Italians were deeply restricted in their access to the assisted passage scheme (1947-73). Only 16.6% of Italian migrants arrived in Australia in this way, compared to 86.5% of the British and 75.3% of the German migrants (Jordens 2001, p. 68). By and large, in the post-war period Italians emigrated to Australia by means of unassisted passage, often by what is known as ‘chain’ migration (Bosworth 2001, p. 506) that is, the emigration of migrants’ immediate family members or relatives. Australia faced a range of concerns including national security deficiencies during wartime evidenced by an under-population issue. The low natural-growth population increase, in turn became a labour supply dilemma for the Australian manufacturing industry as the war ended. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, there was an urgent need for extra skilled and particularly unskilled labourers to unleash Australia’s industrial potential. Ambitious public works projects such as the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme needed a substantial labour force for it to be realised (Collis 1989, pp. 31-33). The new immigration program became the solution for the paucity of local workers. The great majority of the Italian immigrants paid their own fares, often with considerable hardship. In the 1950s, when over two thirds of Australia’s Italians migrated, there were many adjustment difficulties. These were especially acute in the early years when expansion of industries had not kept up with the increased pool of labour from migration, or when in times of economic downturn immigrants were the first to experience the contraction of the labour market. Italian immigrant men in the 1950s found work in the heavy industries, in labouring work, building and construction, and as skilled tradesmen. Others were attracted to the large infrastructure projects such as the Snowy Mountains Scheme. Generally, they were clustered at the lower end of the occupational scale. 1951-1961 - The first decade of mass Italian migration to Australia The real migration from Italy began in earnest in the early 1950s when the migration agreement was signed between Italy and Australia. The numbers increased exponentially. In 1947 the number of Italy-born residents registered was 33,600 (Ware 1981). By 1954, only 3 years after the expanded entry of Italians into Australia, that figure jumped to 119,900 (Italian Historical Society 1988). Already in 1954, chain migration was occurring and amongst the

56

locations following this pattern was the migration to numerous Victorian localities including the urban centre and capital, Melbourne (Price 1963). Italian migration to Australia did not enjoy the smoothest of beginnings. Bonegilla, the converted army barracks near Albury – hundreds of kilometres from both Sydney and Melbourne – became the first temporary home for many arriving Italians. In the same year, Australia faced its first post-war recession with a credit squeeze and a doubling of unemployment. In July 1952, 2,000 Italian men who had come to Australia on two-year contracts with promise of work, rioted when they found they had no jobs and faced long delays in housing and their complaints extended to the lack of heating, the poor quality of the food and the lack of the recreation facilities at Bonegilla. Incidents in hostels like Bonegilla immediately suspended the assisted passage accord between Italy and Australia and subsequently (if momentarily) reduced the Australian intake of Italian migrants. But as the Australian economy revived in 1954, the immigration agreement with Italy was once again reactivated. This event placed the Italian-Australian relation in a tense mode and it would change with guarantees offered by the Australian government to improve the treatment of the Italian migrants. The situation improved when the economy recovered the following year, but riots broke out again in July 1961 involving Italians and other assisted-passage migrants from Germany and refugees from Yugoslavia. In 1961 the Italian government under Prime Minister Fanfani refused to renew the migration agreement with Australia until Italian migrants were treated on par with British migrants. The Italian authorities were looking for assisted passage, settlement benefits and guarantees of employment (Pascoe 1987, p. 229). The Australian authorities were eventually forced to make some concessions. At first, there were few services that catered to the particular needs of Italians in Australian society but gradually Italian-language newspapers, social clubs and a range of official and semi-official facilities emerged. Not accidently Il Globo was established in Melbourne in November of 1959 which, along with La Fiamma based in Sydney, would be instrumental in providing identity to these newly arrived immigrants as well as providing a tool of social and political connection and action. A new second generation of Italians – the advent of ‘multiculturalism’ The second decade of mass migration from Italy to Australia, from 1960 to 1970, saw some 150,000 more Italians arrive in Australia. As the numbers grew - with Italian emerging as the second most spoken and taught language in Australia after English - the impact of the Italian 57

presence began to make itself be felt in the country. This was most notable in food, beverages and related industries, with Italians prominent in city markets and the smallholdings that supplied them, and in the restaurants run by Italians and the products requested. The ‘chainmigration’ element in the overall program reinforced this new diversity. Post-war emigration of Italians to Australia did not only lay the groundwork for ‘Little Italies’ scattered around the country, but also contributed to the transformation of Australian urban space (Castles et al. 1987, p. 35). It radically transformed the pattern of the residential distribution of the Italian-Australian community, with a major shift occurring from rural to urban environments. Migrants joined other family or community members often from the same village or region and sought to settle near each other in the large cities of this new land. Thus emerged the suburbs like Brunswick, Carlton, Leichhardt and the like. From the 1950s onwards, Italians tended to live in the industrial and urban centres, with the highest concentrations recorded in Melbourne and Sydney. In 1976, two thirds of Italians were concentrated primarily in two states, Victoria (42%) and New South Wales (27%), while the remaining third were distributed among South Australia ([SA] 11.4%), Western Australia (10.5%), and Queensland (6.7%) (Ware 1981, pp. 39-43). Towards the end of the prime of Italian migration to Australia (1951-1971) settlement and integration (instead of further migration) became the main priority. This was enhanced by acts of cooperation in fostering this need for integration exemplified by the opening of the Italian Cultural Institute in Melbourne in 1961. Further development ensued from the visit of Italian President Saragat in 1967 to Australia offering to help finance the establishment of a welfare agency for Italians in Victoria which became known as the COASIT (Committee of Assistance for Italian Immigrants) (Mayne 1997). This development alone provided the structure and support for the new phase of Italian settlement in Australia. In line with the growth of Italian representation, social clubs of Italian regions emerged such as the Abruzzo and Veneto clubs, both established in 1967 as well as the Italian Trade Commission with an office in Melbourne. The demographic curve of the Italy-born population of Australia recorded both highs and lows. It steepened strongly in the period from 1947 to 1951, peaked around 1961, and progressively declined from the early 1970s onwards (Castles et al. 1987, p. 43). By 1971, the Italy-born population represented 2.2% of the total Australian population (over 289,000 as per Table 3.2), 9.3% of the total foreign-born population, just over half of the total SouthernEuropean-born population (Ware 1981, p. 16).

58

Table 3.2 - Italy-born residents in Australia, 1901-2001 Year 1901 1911 1921 1933 1947 1954 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 Source: Phillips, Klapdor and Simon-Davies (2010)

Number Italy-born residents (in ’000) 5.7 6.7 8.1 26.7 33.6 119.9 228.3 289.5 275.9 253.3 218.7

Another important milestone as we get into the late 1970s and 1980s, was that the second generation, born in Australia, was making its mark, attending university and securing wellpaid jobs. In the legal, medical and teaching professions, immigrants of Italian descent were increasingly to be found. Older Italians who had arrived long before were now in secure retirement, many returning to visit Italy and some electing to stay in their homeland while their children, and grandchildren, remained in Australia. A different type of Italian migrant appeared in the 1970s, due to the relative economic prosperity in Italy and the accompanying dramatic decrease in Italian emigration. For these newcomers, emigration was not necessarily an act of despair fuelled by the pressing need to find financial security. Typically, more formally educated and politically aware than their predecessors, they came to Australia to broaden their personal experiences. The economic turbulence that affected Australia in the mid-1970s has its impact on Italian migration. Between 1971 and 1976 Australia actually lost more Italy-born settlers than were gained and the migration flow slowed considerably with a net loss of Italy-born through ‘return migration’. By the 1996 census the Italy-born population had declined from 280,154 in 1976 to 238,246, an overall reduction of 15% (Ruzzene & Battiston 2006, p. 24). A decade later, according to the 2006 Census, the number of Italian born in Australia fell again to 199,122 (2006 ABS Census data). The decline in Italian and European emigration to Australia was caused by a number of factors. After the 1970s, due to improved economic conditions, in Italy and in Europe, Italians were no longer forced to look for employment overseas, and thus immigration to Australia and other countries reflected this changed migration environment. 59

This decline of Italy born residents in Australia continued and in 2001 the figure had decreased to 218,722 from its peak in 1971 of 289,476. This was in effect the story of the Italian migration to Australia. The Italian-background population and migration in the new millennium Throughout the later years of the 20th century, Australia’s demographic scenario changed considerably through three important developments. The arrival of high numbers of Chinese, the growth of international students and the large number of New Zealanders entering Australia. Based on the 2001 census, Italian descendants were the third largest ethnic group in the country after Australians and those from the UK (800,256 people of Italian ancestry of first, second and third generation, making 4.26% of the population of which 218,718 are Italyborn people). Moreover, Italian is the second most commonly spoken language (353,605 Italian speakers, including those of Italian ancestry). Looking at the spread of Italian ancestry population across the country, according to the 2001 census, as in the early 1970s, Victoria has the largest number of Italian ancestry population with Italian ancestry equalling 290,000 people. Trailing Victoria in order of size is NSW with 220,000, Western Australia with 97,000, Queensland with 93,000, South Australia with 83,000, the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra [ACT]) with 9,000, Tasmania with 5,000 and the Northern Territory (NT) with 3,000. As for the Italy-born residents noted in Table 3.3, there were 218,718 in Australia at the 2001 Census, with the majority located in Victoria and NSW. Victoria had the highest Italian born residents with 90,789, while NSW recorded more than 60,000. Victoria and NSW alone had more than 65% of all Italian born residents in Australia. Table 3.3 – Italy-born population in Australia by State and Territory, 2001 State Victoria New South Wales South Australia Western Australia Queensland Australian Capital Territory Tasmania Northern Territory Source: COASIT (2009)

Number

% of total Italy-born population per State/Territory population

90,789 60,628 25,047 23,062 15,197 2,345 1,126 519

6.3 3.5 5.7 5.3 2.6 3.2 1.2 1.7

60

The census of 2006 informs us that the Italy-born population continued to decline in absolute and relative terms compared to other ethnic communities as evidenced from Table 3.4. Table 3.4 - Overseas-born population in Australia, top 15 countries of birth, 1996 and 2006 1996

1

Country

Persons (’000)

Percentage of overseas born

England

872,1

22.3

Italy

238,2

2

New Zealand

4

Vietnam

3 5 6 7 8 9

10

291,4

151,1

2006 Country

Persons (’000)

% of overseas born

England

856,9

19.4

6.1

China

206,6

4.7

159,8

3.6

7.5

New Zealand

3.9

Italy

Scotland

146,3

3.7

Vietnam

China

110,0

2.8

Scotland

92.9

2.4

Greece

Greece

Germany

Philippines

Netherlands

126,5

110,3

87,9

3.2

India

2.8

2.2

389,5

199,1

147,1

130,2

8.8

4.5

3.3

2.9

Philippines

120,5

2.7

Germany

106,5

2.4

Source: Department of Immigration and Citizenship ([DIAC], 2008)

110,0

2.5

Italy-born in Australia has dropped from 238,225 in 1996 (or 6.1% of the overseas born) to 199,124 (or 4.5% of the overseas born) in 2006. Furthermore, the ABS highlighted Italy as being the ethnic group with the greatest single decrease (ABS, 2007). This decline reflected the contrasting two developments of on the one hand a growing Italian ancestry in Australia but a declining Italy-born component. The era of post war Italian emigration to Australia had truly ended and it would take the Working Holiday arrangement signed in 2004 to see a small inversion of trend. Conclusions In 1951 with an agreement between Italy and Australia on migration, Italians began arriving in large numbers in Australia fundamentally adding to and altering the demography of this new adopted country. The impact of this Italian emigration has been of significant effect providing the labor and skills that helped this nation become the modern economy it is today. In hindsight, although the Italian migration story is one of success, it also came with hardship, language difficulties and cultural divide. In the last 30 years, there has been a fundamental change in the racial and cultural composition of Australia’s migrant intake. 61

By the peak of Italian migration to Australia in the early 1970s, Italians made up 5.14% of the total Australian population. This, however, would undergo a steady but consistent decline until today. The interest in Italian migration to Australia which has slightly grown since 2004 is both important and necessary to investigate in its various components. The new wave of Italian migration may not necessarily reach the numbers of the 1950s and 1960s but it certainly is higher than in the recent past. Not only are the numbers different but so is the type and demographic nature of this migration. This study seeks to document this growing movement and address it as a current phenomenon in order to provide constructive and considered approaches towards meeting the needs and objectives of this migration.

62

63

CHAPTER 4

ITALIAN MIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA OF TODAY 64

Chapter 4 - Italian migration today Introduction According to figures released by the ABS (2016), on 30 June 2015 Australia's overseas born population accounted for 28% of residents (or 6.7 million), the highest level of overseas born in over 120 years. While the number of Australian residents born in India or China have increased exponentially in the last two decades (334% and 457% respectively), the number of migrants born in Italy decreased by almost 17%. At the same time, the Italian born population in Australia had a median age of 64.7 years in 2005, which further ‘increased to 69.3 years in 2015, indicating a drop in recent migration and the aging of existing migrants’ (ABS, 2016, para. 6). The 2011 census, which recorded the lowest level of Italy born since 1954, recorded a slight increase of Australian residents born in Italy (6.9% or 12,799) on estimates of 198,200 at 30 June 2015 (Table 4.1 of the Appendices). As for the state distribution of overseas born Italians, census data since 1996 shows that over two-thirds of this population concentrated in Victoria and New South Wales. According to the last ABS 2011 Census, 41.5% of Italianborn residents were in Victoria and 27.8% in New South Wales (Table 4.2). Table 4.2: Italian overseas-born population by States and Territories States /

1996 Census and 2001 Census and 2006 Census and 2011 Census and % of

territories % Italian OSB6

% Italian OSB

% Italian OSB

% Italian OSB

Italian OSB on State population

NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS ACT NT Total Italian Total

66,090 98,231 17,138 27,219 25,124 1,233 2,580 631

27.7% 41.2% 7.2% 11.4% 10.5% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3%

238,246 100%

60,628 90,788 15,197 25,047 23,062 1,126 2,345 519

27.7% 41.5% 6.9% 11.5% 10.5% 0.5% 1.1% 0.3%

218,712 100%

55,196 82,843 14,000 22,492 20,920 1,022 2,205 446

27.7% 41.6% 7% 11.3% 10.5% 0.5% 1.2% 0.2%

199,124 100%

51,626 76,909 13,231 20,708 19,477 966 2,037 447

27.8% 41.5% 7.1% 11.2% 10.5% 0.5% 1.2% 0.2%

185,401 100%

2.9% 5.5% 1.5% 5.9% 2.8% 1.7% 2.4% 1.3% 3.5%

3,901,882 4,105,670 4,416,020 5,290,436 OSB Source: ABS (2000, 2004); COASIT (2009); DIAC (2011b, 2014); DIBP (2014b); DIMIA (2003). 6

Overseas Born (OSB).

65

Between 1933 and 2001, as subsequent population censuses show (Phillips, Klapdor & Simon-Davies 2010), Italian migrants provided the second largest influx to the cultural ‘makeup’ of Australian society, only behind the ‘Anglo-Celtic’ segment of the overseas‐ born population (UK, New Zealand and Ireland). Almost two decades later, China, India, Philippines and Vietnam topped the list of arrivals, closely following the UK and New Zealand, with Italy now placed in 7th position in terms of overseas resident population in Australia (Table 4.1 of the Appendices). Yet, when considering the most common ancestries, Italians were fifth with 4.3% of the Australian population (Table 4.4 of the Appendices). As for the languages spoken at home in 2011, despite a decrease of 5.4% on the 316,893 the previous census (Table 4.6 of the Appendices), Italian still represents the third most commonly spoken Language Other than English (LOTE). The 2011 census also shows that of the 3,912,936 LOTE speakers, 7.7% speak Italian (DIBP, 2014b). In the late 1990s, negotiations began on Working Holiday arrangements between Australia and a range of countries. These included Italy. Yet, a bilateral Working Holiday Maker arrangement with Italy finally became operative only in January 2004. In fact, according to the then Australian Ambassador to Italy, Rory Steele, the negotiations with Italy required tremendous negotiation and considerable back-down by the Australian side to unblock the stalemate between Italy and Australia (Mascitelli, Steele & Battiston 2010). Under reciprocal agreements with 19 countries, Australia would allow travellers aged between eighteen and thirty to live and work in Australia for up to one year, with the possibility of a second twelve-month visa if they undertook at least eighty-eight days of ‘specified work’ in agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining or construction, in a regional area (Mare 2016). From 2004 onwards, the number of Italians seeking to visit and reside in Australia began increasing. Initially in modest numbers but certainly not a return to the ‘golden years’ of the 1950s. The uptake was heavily weighted towards Italians coming to Australia rather than vice-versa. In conjunction with the 2008 financial crisis (but mainly between 2012 and 2015), a consistent increase of Italian national arrivals to Australia was recorded. This ‘migratory’ movement, predominantly with a temporary character (with the prevalence of short-term movement over the long-term; see Table 4.11 of the Appendices), has often been associated to the Italian migration of the 1950s and 1960s by some recent literature. For instance, the organization known as ‘Australia Solo Andata’ released a new set of data of Italians coming to Australia under the title ‘a boom of young Italians in Australia’ with a temporary resident visa (18,610 in 2013 and 20,920 in 2014; Dalla Bernadina, Grigoletti & Pianelli, 2013; Grigoletti & Pianelli, 2014). At the time, the report indicated that by 30 September 2013 over 66

18,610 Italians were in Australia with a temporary visa, which according to this report was an increase of 116% since September 2011 (Dalla Bernadina et al., 2013). Marchese (2014) referred to a migratory flow with numbers not seen in half a century. According to Bocchini (2013, para. 5), instead, ‘between 2006 and 2011 there has been an increase of 80 percent of Italians under a working visa, while the number of youth, between 18 and 30 years of age, has grown of 120 percent’. However, these are quite small pickings in the overall scheme of things. While some categories of Italians coming to Australia have shown some level of increase, overall the shrill about many Italians coming and/or migrating to Australia has been a little exaggerated. While the figures of Italians coming to Australia may not be ‘boom’ time, the experiences are however worthy of comment and even responding to. Mare (2016) offers an interview with a typical backpacker from Italy wishing to experience Australia and her journey. It started, as is the case with most of those coming from Italy, with a Working Holiday experience and later would go foul as a result of the limited flexibility of these arrangements: After two years in Australia as a working backpacker she was hoping to settle permanently. She had a job offer from an employer willing to sponsor her on a four-year 457 skilled worker visa and sought expert migration advice to assist with the application. Thousands of dollars later, though, she was forced to leave Australia at short notice and was banned from coming back for three years… Pivato was a twenty-nine-year-old costume designer, struggling to find steady work in her field, when she decided to take an extended break in Australia. Like more than 210,000 other young visitors in 2013-14, she arrived on a working holiday visa. (Mare, 2016, para. 2)

In 2016, we were made aware of a further study by Grigoletti and Pianelli on Italians and their journey to Australia. As a continuation and possibly an update on the report of 2013, (available only in Italy at the time of writing this report and only in Italian) Grigoletti and Pianelli provided an updated scenario of the various facets of Italian migration under the auspices of the Italian Catholic organisation Fondazione Migrantes. The core aspect of this study is the growing interest and numbers of Italians coming to Australia across most categories of visas. A closer scrutiny of these visa numbers in this study seem to indicate that a slightly inflated list and a more inflated interpretation. Since 2013, the arrival of Italians was aided by the non-government organization NOMIT, established in a semi-spontaneous manner, which provides assistance to incoming Italian migrants. With the support of and in

67

conjunction with the Italian Consulate in Melbourne, NOMIT assisted many Italians with valuable and reliable information including on matters related to work rights. Legal redress for matters related to temporary employment by temporary residents was but one of these activities organized by this NOMIT (SB 2016). They are also affiliated with some of the mainstream community organisations such as Il Globo and other media outlets. Italian citizens’ arrivals and departures 2004-2015 Net Overseas Migration (NOM) is an important tool which is used to measure how population changes. It accounts for the net gain or loss of population through migration into and outside of Australia (DIBP, 2014a). By adopting a ‘12/16 month rule’, NOM includes all long-term temporary and permanent migration. This means that almost all short-term movements such as tourists do not count as either NOM arrivals or departures. As Table 4.9 illustrates (see Appendices), between the financial years 2007-08 and 2012-13, the Italian NOM has been steadily increasing. It moved from 745 in 2007-08 to 5,421 in 2012-13, which represents an increase of 627.6%. It then went down to 1,460 in 2014-15, a decrease of 73.1% compared to the peak in 2012-13. Nevertheless, this is still a value which is higher than NOM in the period pre-economic crisis. European countries like Germany or France show a combined figure of arrivals and departures between 2004 and 2015 that almost triple and double the Italian one (Table 4.7 and 4.8 – see Appendices). Yet, Italy presents a more positive NOM, 20,188 compared to 19,091 of France and 5,614 of Germany. In the Net Migration top 20 source countries’ list, Italy occupies the 12th position. When taking into account the length of time Italian migrants stay in Australia (Table 4.11; see Appendices for the extended version), it is possible to see that this has mainly a short-term character. In fact, short-term resident and visitor arrivals/returns and departures constitute 98% and 95% respectively in the period under investigation 2004-15.

68

Table 4.11: Summary of total movement for Italian citizens in Australia 2004-2005 to 2014-15 Length of residence Long-term resident return Long-term visitor arrival Settler arrival Short-term resident return Short-term visitor arrival Total Arrivals Long-term resident departure Long-term visitor departure Resident permanent departure Short-term resident departure Short-term visitor departure Total Departures Grand Total

% Chang e from 201314

201415 as a% of Total

Total by length of stay 2004-15

-

0.1%

998

0.1%

20042005

20092010

20122013

20132014

20142015

108

84

90

91

91

1,474

2,731

5,810

6,561

6,588

0.4%

6.9%

38,239

4.6%

199

269

318

305

250

-18%

0.2%

2,746

0.3%

5,886

6,480

7,562

8,121

8,380

3.2%

8.7%

73,247

8.8%

52,190

62,981

74,817

80,514

80,795

0.3%

84.1%

714,986

86.2%

59,857

72,545

88,597

95,592

96,104

0.5%

100%

830,216

100%

48

98

49

64

57

10.9%

0.1%

711

0.1%

466

949

1,867

2,843

3,979

40%

4.2%

15,006

1.8%

50

38

45

44

46

4.5%

0.1%

443

0.1%

6,066

6,719

7,919

8,301

8,697

4.8%

9.1%

75,867

9.4%

52,369

63,496

73,296

80,738

81,865

1.4%

86.5%

718,001

88.6%

58,999

71,300

83,176

91,990

94,644

2.9%

100%

810,028

100%

118,856

143,845

171,773

187,582

190,748

1.7%

1,640,244

Source: DIBP (2016a)

Yet, as Figure 4.11 illustrates, it is at the ‘net long-term visitors’ that we have to look as the category providing the major contribution to the Italian NOM.

69

Figure 4.11: Net migration Italian Citizens by Long/short term Residents/Visitors Total 2004-2015

Length of Residence

Net Short-term visitor

Net Short-term resident

Net Resident/Settler

Net Long-term visitor

Net Long-term resident

-5000

Total 2004-15

0

Net Long-term resident 287

5000 Net Long-term visitor 23,233

10000 Net Resident/Settler 2,303

15000 Net Short-term resident -2,620

20000

25000

Net Short-term visitor -3,015

Numbers

Source: Adapted from DIBP (2016a) data

Table 4.13 (see Appendices), instead, illustrates that the Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) visa (subclass 601) remains the most popular visa for Italians wishing to visit Australia for tourism purposes, with 56.5% of all arrivals in the period between 2004 and 2015. Those arriving through the Working Holiday Visa (WHV) program represented 11.2% of all arrivals in the same period of time. Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) and Student Visas were far behind in terms of arrivals with 3.9% and 2.0% respectively. As for the geographic distribution, while some states/territories had a negative Italian NOM (Queensland in particular accounted for most of it with -37,605 over the last decade), other states like Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia had a positive one with a constant growth up to the financial year 2012-13 (a slight decrease could be noticed afterwards; Table 4.20 of the Appendices). It is worth noting that while the Net Migration of Italian citizens to Victoria and Western Australia have been positive for the whole period under analysis, New South Wales twice showed a negative value: the first time in 2008-09 and t again in 2014-15.

70

Figure 4.19: Net Migration Italian citizens by States and Territories Trend 2004-2015 5000 4000 3000

Numbers

2000 1000 0 -1000

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

-2000 -3000 -4000 -5000

Financial Year ACT

NSW

NT

QLD

SA

TAS

VIC

WA

OTHER

Source: DIBP (2016a)

The analysis of the arrival and departure of Italian nationals also allows a disaggregation by age group and gender. Tables 4.17 and 4.18 (see the Appendices) show that almost twothirds of all arrivals (65.1%) and departures (64.1%) are aged between 15 and 44, with the vast majority (51.4% in both cases) falling into the 25-44 category. Figure 4.17 provides a snapshot of Italian arrival and departures by age group between 2004 and 2015:

450,000

416,802

426,649

Figure 4.17: Italian Arrivals and Departures by age group 2004-2005 to 2014-15

400,000

50,000 0

0-14

15-24

25-44 Age Group

Total Arrivals 2004-15

45-64 Total Departures 2004-15

Source: DIBP (2016a)

71

69,102

100,000

67,400

150,000

26,242

200,000

195,060

194,659

113,493

250,000

102,822

300,000

28,015

Numbers

350,000

65+

Interestingly, the largest contribution to the Italian NOM comes predominantly from the 15-24 age group with a net inflow of 10,671 Italians, closely followed by the 25-44 group with 9,847 people (Figure 4.18 of the Appendices). While a relatively small change to the Italian NOM occurred in the 0-14 component (8.8%), the categories 45-64 and 65+ decreased (-2% and -8.4%). In the same period of time, Italian migratory movement in and out of Australia is male dominated, representing 60% of all arrivals and departures (Table 4.21 and 4.22 – see the Appendices). However, it is female migrants who contributed most to the increase to the Australian population in the last decade (12,513 or 62%) of the 20,188 Italian migrants. Italian-born men, instead, participate to the new Australian make-up with 7,675 individuals (or 38%). Italian permanent migration to Australia 2004-2015 The Migration Program is the main pathway to permanent residence in Australia. The only other way for migrants to obtain permanent residence is to be accepted into Australia on humanitarian grounds. There are two major streams within the Migration Program, the Skill Stream and the Family Stream (DIAC, 2011, pp. 22-23). The first one targets migrants who have skills, proven entrepreneurial capability or outstanding abilities that will contribute to the Australian economy. It comprises Employer Sponsored, Business Skills, General Skilled Migration and Distinguished Talent. As for the second stream, it enables the migration of immediate family members such as spouses, children, parents and certain other members of extended families. Finally, a small number of special eligibility visas are also issued to people who meet specific criteria or issued to resolve the status of certain groups of persons who have been allowed to remain in Australia as long-term temporary residents on humanitarian grounds. In the period between 2004 and 2015, this program has allowed 1,832,548 individuals to enter Australia. While in 2004-05 the Migration Program comprised 120,064 visas granted, this volume has been steadily increasing until 2014 when it reached 190,000. Only in the last financial year there was a decrease of 0.5% in the number of visas granted. India, China and UK alone provided together 45.3% (Table 4.24 of the Appendices) of all visa applications under this program. The fact that Australia continues to attract highly skilled migrants and entrepreneurial talents is confirmed by the share of the Skill Stream in the overall migration program. This accounts for 67.1% of all applications, mainly Skilled Independent (26.7%) and Employer Sponsored (20.8%). Family reunions, mainly partners, account for 25.5% (Table 4.23 below; for the extended version see the Appendices). 72

Table 4.23: Australia’s Migration Program outcomes by eligibility category 2004–15 (to 30 June) Stream

Category

2012-

2013-

2014-

Total

% of

2013

2014

2015

2004-

Total

2015

200415

Partner

46,325

47,752

47,825

465,697

25.5%

Child

3,850

3,850

4135

36,725

2.0%

Preferential/Other Family

1,285

585

450

17,389

0.9%

Contributory Parent/Parent

8,725

8,925

8,675

79,314

4.3%

60,185

61,112

61,085

599,125

32.7%

Distinguished Talent

200

200

200

2,030

0.1%

Employer Sponsored7

47,740

47,450

48,250

381,949

20.8%

Skilled Independent

44,251

44,984

43,990

490,183

26.7%

Skilled Australian

8,132

5,100

2800

113,475

6.3%

Sponsored/Skilled Regional State/Territory Nominated

21,637

24,656

26,050

170,326

9.3%

Visa Business Innovation /

7,010

6,160

6,484

71,120

3.9%

3

-

-

15

-

Skill Total

128,973

128,550

127,774

1,229,098

67.1%

Special

842

338

238

4,325

0.2%

190,000

190,000

189,097

1,832,548

100%

Family

Family Total Skill

Investment 1 November Onshore

Eligibility Total

Source: DIAC (2010a, 2010b, 2011c, 2012, 2013a); DIBP (2015b, 2015d)

Although Italy recorded a steady increase over the past ten years, moving from 469 applicants in 2004-05 to 1,371 of 2014-15 (see Figure 4.23), this is a very modest increase in the total percentage share with only 0.5% of the migration program.

The Employer Sponsored outcome is comprised of three components: Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS), Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) and Labour Agreement (LA).

7

73

Figure 4.23: Migration Program: Top ten source countries total 2004-15 300,000

284,246

290,463 257,012

250,000

Numbers

200,000 150,000 100,000

99,272

50,000

76,022 43,941 34,676 38,942

52,854 22,110

8,711

0

Source Countries

Source: The Authors (2016)

Germany and France, for instance, who are also not in the top ten source countries of migrants, have provided respectively about double (2.4) and one and a half (1.5) the number of applications under this program (DIBP, 2015a). The Italian contribution to the national migration program is 8,711 (or 0.5%) visas granted of the Australian total since 2004. Interestingly, contrary to the general trend, the largest group of Italian nationals (3,691 or 42.4%) applied for permanent residence through the Partner category (Table 4.25 of the Appendices). This is closely followed by Employer Sponsored applicants (3,221 or 37%) under the Skill Stream. This part of the program allows businesses to employ the skilled workers they need to fill genuine job vacancies. A smaller group of Italian entrants (795 or 9.1%) comes via the Skilled Independent category. This type of visa was the most common visa granted to former international students who could apply for permanent residence at course completion. A series of reforms to the Skill stream over the past six years, though, had an impact on the number of students eligible to apply for permanent residence immediately after graduation (DIBP, 2014a, p. 51). Other categories such as State/Territory Nominated Visa Classes (297 or 3.4%), Parent (209 or 2.4%) and Business Innovation and Investment (178 or 2.0%) have been also been of some relevance. Figure 4.25 provides a snapshot of the Italian share of the migration program.

74

Figure 4.25: Migration Program by visa category 2004-15 Italy 112 297 178 795 3,691

3,221

Partner Parent Skilled Independent Business Innovation/Investement

Child Distinguished Talent Skilled Regional

48 209 66 35

Other Family Employer Sponsored State/Territory Nominated

Source: The Authors (2016).

When looking at the distribution of the total number of permanent settlers in Australia subdivided by state/territory (Table 4.26 of the Appendices) it is possible to see that the majority is concentrated in New South Wales (32.2%) and Victoria (27.7%). These two states alone have attracted 59.9% of all the people arriving in Australia who hold permanent migration visas since 2004. Table 4.27 (see Appendices) provides a picture of the states preferred by Italians for settlement. Figure 4.28 below, instead, illustrates the statistical trend. 4.28: Italian settlers by State/Territory Trend 2004-15 450 400 350

Numbers

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

QLD

SA

2012

2013

2014

2015

Calendar Year Invalid value

ACT

NSW

NT

TAS

VIC

Source: Department of Social Services (personal communication, 9 February, 2016)

75

WA

The largest groups of Italian nationals have settled in New South Wales (33.9%) and Victoria (26.6%). It is worth noting that only in 2006 Victoria had more permanent residents than New South Wales. Other groups of Italian settlers are located in Western Australia (18.9%) and Queensland (12.6%). Finally, it is important to give some considerations to Australian citizenship conferrals as citizenship marks the final step in a successful migration program. Over the last decade, some 1,263,188 people became Australian citizens (Table 4.28 of the Appendices). British and Indian nationals are the largest groups representing 18.8% (or 237,219) and 12.0% (or 151,661) respectively of all conferrals. These are followed by China (7.4%) and South Africa (5.0%). With 8,673 individuals obtaining dual citizenship, the share of Italian nationals is only 0.7% in the period 2004-2015. Italy is basically on the same level as Germany (9,502 or 0.7%) and France (7,151 or 0.6%). The highest peak was reached in 2006-07 with 1,265 citizenship conferrals to Italian nationals (see Figure 4.31 below). Figure 4.31: Conferral Australian citizenship to Italian citizens Trend 2004-15 1400

1,265

1200

Numbers

1000 800

983 819

895

832 588

600

824

617

610 472

426

400 200 0

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Financial Year

Source: DIBP (2015a)

As for the geographical distribution of the Italian share, this was available only for the period between 2011 and 2016 (to April), as shown in Table 4.29.

76

Italian temporary movements to Australia 2004-215 In order to come to Australia for a short-term period of time the DIBP provides a number of options depending on the purpose and duration of their visit. People can use either a Visitor visa or an appropriate temporary resident visa. For the people who visit Australia for holidays, tourism, recreation, to see family and friends, or for short-term business visits the Visitor visas are the most common ones. Temporary resident visas comprise different categories, each designed for specific purposes such as study, work or working holidays. Although temporary residents are required to pay taxes on income earned in Australia, they do not normally have access to public welfare or public health programs (DIBP, 2014a). Temporary resident visas comprise four broad categories. These can be summarised as follows: 1. Working Holiday Maker: this visa allows young adults aged 18-30 to spend an extended holiday in Australia with short-term work and study rights. In 2014–15, Australia had 31 reciprocal Working Holiday Maker arrangements with partner countries: 19 partners for the subclass 417, and 12 in effect for the subclass 462 (the agreements signed with China, Greece, Israel, Papua New Guinea, the Slovak Republik, Slovenia and Vietnam are not in effect as at 30 June 2015; DIBP, 2015b). The WHM program’s purpose is to foster closer ties and cultural exchange between Australia and partner countries, with particular emphasis on young adults. Although in existence since 1975, Italy signed an agreement with Australian government only in January 2004. 2. International Students: Student visas are designed for people studying full-time in registered courses in Australia on a Student visa valid for the length of their course. 3. Skilled temporary residents: people, mostly recruited by Australian companies, who enter as temporary skilled migrants for up to four years under the Temporary Business (Long Stay) (subclass 457) visa. 4. Other temporary residence: a range of temporary residence visas allowing people to come to Australia for social, cultural, international relations and training purposes. Over the last 10 years, an impressive numbers of temporary visas were granted by the Australian government. From 3,977,602 in 2004-05 to 5,053,747 of 2014-15, more than 46 million visas were allocated (Table 4.30 – see Appendices for the extended version). Particularly since 2009-10, a steady increase of temporary entrants to Australia is noticeable. The vast majority of temporary entrants in the past decade (85.9%) came to Australia through a Visitor visa. The second largest group of visa grants is made up of Student visas (6%),

77

closely followed by Working Holiday visas (4.3%). Temporary Work (Skilled) visas form a smaller group with 2.2% of all visa granted. Table 4.30: Temporary entry visa granted 2004–05 to 2014–15 (to 30 June) Category

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

% change from 2013– 14

2014-15 as a % of Total

Total 2004-15

% of total 200415

Visitors8 Working Holiday Maker

3,728,879 258,248

3,969,215 239,592

4,311,4989 226,812

8% -5.3%

85.3% 4.5%

40,296,884 2,033,180

85.9% 4.3%

Students Temporary Work (Skilled)10 Temporary Work (Short Stay Activity)11

259,278 126,348

292,060 98,571

299,540 96,084

2.6% -1.6

5.9% 1.9%

2,821,189 1,023,077

6.0% 2.2%

6,224

40,894

54,688

33.7%

1.1%

101,806

0.2%

Temporary Graduate12

35,223

22,867

22,895

0.1%

0.4%

180,375

0.4%

Training and Research

5,251

6,910

7,677

11.1%

0.2%

65,245

0.1%

Other13 Total14 % of Total 2004-15

34,471 4,453,922 9.5%

35,230 4,705,339 10.0%

34,553 5,053,747 10.8%

-1.9% 7.4%

0.7% 100%

404,684 46,926,440 100%

0.9% 100%

Source: DIBP (2014a; 2015a)

Excludes Visitor visas granted where the client is onshore. This includes visitor visa grants where the client was outside or in Australia. In previous annual reports, tables on visitor visa grants generally only included clients outside Australia. During the previous year offshore and onshore visitor visas granted numbered 3,993,406. In 2014-15 there was thus an increase of 8% in the total number of visitor visas granted. 10 The Temporary Business (Long Stay) (subclass 457) visa from 24 November 2012 was renamed the Temporary Work (Skilled) (subclass 457) visa. 11 The Temporary Work (Short Stay Activity) (subclass 400) visa was introduced on 23 March 2013. 12 The Temporary Skilled Graduate (subclass 485) visa from 23 March 2013 was renamed the Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa. 13 Includes Business (Long Stay) (Independent Executive) visa, Medical Practitioner (subclass 422) visa (closed to new applications from July 2010), Skilled Recognised Graduate (subclass 476) visa, New Zealand Citizenship Family Relationship (Temporary) (subclass 461) visa, Graduate Skilled (subclass 497) visa (closed to new applications from July 2012), Student Guardian (subclass 580) visa, other Temporary Work visas introduced 23 March 2013, and former visas for social, cultural and international relations purposes. 14 Excludes Bridging visas. 8 9

78

As for the Italian temporary residents in Australia, Table 4.31 provides a snapshot of these visa holders between 2004 and 2015. It is worth noticing a steady increase of Italian entrants with the highest level reached in 2015 (22,051). A large number of these people (40.7%) used the Working Holiday visa program to enter Australia. Visitor visa holders follow with 24.3%. Temporary skilled visa holders represent the third largest group with 14%. Close behind we find people on a student visa (13.5%). Table 4.31: Italian temporary visa holders15 in Australia by visa holder component 2004-201516 Visa Holder Component

2004

2009

2012

2013

2014

2015

Visitor visa holders

3,008

2,433

2,994

2,385

2,426

Working holiday maker visa holders

414

2,343

5,703

9,663

Student visa holders17

400

873

1,612

Temporary skilled visa holders Bridging visa holders

495

1,152

328

Other temporary visa holders18

Total 200415

% of Total 200415

2,437

% change from 2014 to 2015 0.4%

30,584

24.3%

11,016

9,932

-9.8%

51,373

40.7%

2,033

3,208

4,416

37.6%

17,024

13.5%

1,733

2,415

2,940

3,552

20.8%

17,682

14.0%

188

554

725

944

1,090

15.5%

5,321

4.2%

293

295

317

313

365

570

56.2%

3,984

3.1%

Temporary graduate visa holders

0

12

46

47

40

54

35%

265

0.2%

Total

4,938

7,296

12,959

17,581

20,939

22,051

5.3%

126,233

100%

Source: DIBP (personal communication, 24 March and 20 May, 2016)

The term ‘Visa holders’ indicate the stock or actual number of migrants holding a particular type of visa at 30 June (personal communication, 20 May, 2016). 16 DIBP (personal communication, 24 March, 2016); DIBP (personal communication, 20 May, 2016). 17 The methodology to extract Student visa holders has also been updated. As a result, the numbers in this table are not directly comparable with reports published earlier. 18 Other Temporary visa holders now include Maritime Crew, Superyacht Crew, Medical Treatments and Criminal Justice visas. Similarly, Visitor visa now excludes Superyacht Crew and Medical Treatment visas. 15

79

Italy is one of the top ten countries for Working Holiday visa granted (Table 4.32 of the Appendices). From 1,894 WH visa granted in 2004-05 to 14,138 in the last financial year with its peak in 2013-14 (16,045 grants; the figures comprise initial and second Working Holiday visas). In 2014-15 there was thus a decrease of 11.9% (the third highest among the top ten source countries after Ireland and Hong Kong with -35.0% and -16.7% respectively) compared to the previous financial year. More broadly, it is the number of all participants in the WH program that has been decreasing since 2013 by about 13.8% from 249,231 to 214,830 applications granted. For ten years in a row, the UK has been the top source country (21.3% of all visa granted), followed by South Korea with 16.7% and Germany with 11.2%. Ireland with 9.1% and France with 9.0% are close behind. As for Italy, it was the sixth largest source over the last two financial years. Yet, it occupies the 9th place when considering the period under examination as a whole with 4.2% (or 83,462) of all WH visa granted (Figure 4.34 below). Figure 4.34: Top Ten Source countries WH Visa granted Total 2004-15 450,000

417,689

400,000 327,769

350,000

Numbers

300,000 250,000 200,000

219,959 156,803

179,676

176,790

150,000 83,462

100,000

107,778

50,000

55,018

83,748

0

Countries

Source: DIAC (2011d); DIBP (2015f); DIMA (2006); DIMIA (2005b)

As mentioned earlier, the second most popular way to gain temporary residence in Australia is through the Student visa system, particularly for people coming from Asian 80

countries. As Table 4.33 (see Appendices) illustrates, China, India and South Korea are the three major source countries forming together almost 40% of the 2,821,181 student visa granted in the past decade. EU countries such as Germany, UK, France and Italy together do not reach 5% of all visa granted. Among them, Italy is the only country to record a steady growth (albeit small) in the volume of student visa (Figure 4.36 below). Figure 4.36: Top 10 source countries for student visas granted from 2004–05 to 2014–15 St udent Visa s g ra nt ed t o select ed EU co unt ries 2 0 0 4 - 1 5 Trend 6000

Numbers

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

20042005 Italy 700 Germany 3,872 UK 2,510 France 1,606

20052006 815 4,438 2,871 1,871

20062007 981 4,772 3,145 2,068

20072008 1,012 4,941 3,377 2,344

20082009 1,534 5,337 3,366 2,726

2009- 20102010 2011 1,758 1,955 5,554 4,434 3,517 3,097 3,035 2,628

20112012 2,630 3,758 2,916 2,550

20122013 3,302 3,634 3,197 2,455

20132014 4,508 3,772 3,364 2,761

20142015 5,602 4,045 3,822 3,100

Financial Year Italy

Germany

UK

France

Source: DIBP (2016b); DIMIA (2005a)

Table 4.35 (see Appendices), shows that the ‘573 Higher Education Sector’ is the Student visa subclass with the highest number of visa grants (47.1%) since 2004. Well behind we find the ‘572 Vocational Education and Training’ with 23.7% of all Student visa grants. This visa subclass is followed by the ‘570 Independent ELICOS Sector’ with 11.8% share, which allows students to stay in Australia in order to study a full-time English Language Intensive Course for Overseas Students (ELICOS). Contrary to the general trend, Italian nationals showed a preference for the ‘572’ and ‘570’ subclasses with 34.3% and 29.4% respectively, while the share of the ‘573’ is only 8.2% (Table 4.36 of the Appendices). Figure 4.41 (below) provides a snapshot of Italian student visas granted subdivided by visa subclass.

81

Figure 4.41: Student visas granted to Italian citizens by visa subclass Total 2004-15 8,499

9,000 8,000

7,284

7,000

Numbers

6,000 5,000 3,593

4,000 3,000

2,030

2,000

845

1,000 0

2,541

570

571

572

573

Visa Subclass

574

575

Source: DIBP (personal communication, 20 May, 2016)

As for the geographical distribution by intended residence of the Australian stock of student visa holders, Table 4.34 (see Appendices) shows that almost two-thirds of them are concentrated in New South Wales (34.7%) and Victoria (28.6%). When it comes to Temporary work (skilled) visa (subclass 457) granted (Table 4.37 of the Appendices), Italy ranked eighth for 2014-15, with an increase of 31.2% in the number of visas granted compared to the previous financial year, closely behind France and ahead of Germany. This does not reflect its position in absolute terms. With 1.1% (or 11,681) of all ‘457’ granted in the period 2004-15, Italy does not make the top 10 source countries. In comparison to Germany and France, for instance, Figure 4.42 shows that these two EU countries have almost double the number of the visas granted to Italian citizens (22,533 and 21,064 respectively).

82

22,533

25,821

17,239

11,681

50,000

21,064

51,659

69,115

100,000

62,417

150,000

54,027

Numbers

200,000

180,308

250,000

215,125

Figure 4.42: Temporary Work (Skilled) 457 top source countries 2004-15

0

Countries

Source: DIBP (personal communication, 20 May, 2016).

India has been the major contributor to this visa program over the last three years in a row. South Asian countries have displaced the UK as the largest source. In more global terms, though, India is behind the UK when considering the overall contribution as a percentage of all visa granted (17.6% for India and 21.0% for the UK) over the last decade. The subdivision of applications granted by nominated position location, as reported in Table 4.38 (see Appendices), shows once again the predominant role played by New South Wales and Victoria. Together they have more than half (54.8%) of all ‘457’ grants. Finally, Table 4.39 (see Appendices) provides a snapshot of the last category of temporary visa, the Visitor visa. Since 2004-05, this visa stream has increased by 19.9% going from 3,594,763 to 4,311,498 in 2013–14. While Visitor visas granted to most of top 10 source countries all grew strongly in 2014–15, the People’s Republic of China (549,458 grants) was the main driver of growth—surpassing the UK (546,911 grants) which had been the main source country since 2004–05. In 2014–15, grants to Chinese nationals grew by 20.5% over the previous year and accounted for 15.3% of all growth in visitor numbers. This strong increase in Visitor visas granted to ‘Chinese nationals can be attributed to a range of factors including an increasing and more prosperous Chinese middle class, as well as closer economic 83

ties between Australia and China’ (DIBP, 2014a, p. 40). When analysing the 2004-15 timeframe (see Figure 4.46 below), though, the UK is still the largest contributor with 16.2% share of the Visitor program, followed by Japan and USA with 11.1% and 10.6% respectively.

6,530,978

4.46: Offshore Visitor visas grants Total 2004-15 7,000,000

1,551,855

1,256,351

587,496

1,000,000

1,154,925

2,000,000

2,037,990

4,472,871

4,266,458

3,000,000

1,641,103

4,000,000

2,003,525

Numbers

5,000,000

3,779,991

6,000,000

0

Countries

Source: ABS (2010); DIBP (2014a, 2015a)

Italy’s participation in this program remained close to 50,000 entries per year, with a peak in 2007-08 when it reached 60,692 visitor visa granted. Italy’s share since 2004 is 1.5%. Figure 4.49 (below) illustrates the distribution of Visitor visa granted to Italian citizens by visa subclass between 2004 and 2015.

84

Figure 4.49: Visitor visa grants by subclass Total 2004–15 Italy

450,000

439,881

400,000 350,000

Numbers

300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000

87,270

100,000 50,000 0

9,016 ETA Tourist visa

Tourist Stream

37,104 19 Sponsored Family Stream

eVisitor Tourist visa

ETA Business visa

1,311 Business Visitor

12,895 eVisitor Business visa

Visa Subclass

Source: DIBP (personal communication, 20 May, 2016)

The majority of Italian nationals (74.9%) has been using the Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) Tourist Visa (Table 4.40 of the Appendices). The second largest visitor visa category is the eVisitor Tourist visa with 14.9% of the Italian Visitor visa’s share in the period 200415, followed by the ETA Business visa with 6.3%.

85

CHAPTER 5

SURVEY OF THE ‘NEW ITALIAN MIGRANTS’ TO AUSTRALIA 86

Chapter 5 - Survey of the ‘new Italian migrants’ (2004-2016) This chapter will address the survey responses and will examine the block category answers which emerged from the survey. All references to Figures where the responses are provided in clearer format are identified as Figure 5.1 or Figure 5.2 and so on. Because of the large number of Figures, we have placed many of these Figures in the Appendices for ease of reference rather than in the text. Demographic aspects The breakdown of the sample was based on an equal ratio of male and female respondents (112 and 111 individuals respectively with one selecting ‘other’). The survey indicates (Figure 5.1) that the majority of respondents (195 or 87%) falls into the age group between 18 to 40, followed by the 13% in the 41 to 60 age category. Figure 5.1: Age bracket 80%

78%

70% 60%

Percent

50% 40% 30% 20%

13%

9%

10% 0%

18-24

25-40

41-60

Age Bracket

0%

0%

61-74

75 and over

As for the ethnic composition of the people surveyed, 199 (or 89%) individuals selfclassified as white/Caucasian, 12 (or 5%) Hispanic/Latino, 1 (or 0.4 %) Asian, 2 (or 1%) Middle Eastern, while the remaining ten replied ‘other’ (3 or 1%) or preferred not to answer (7 or 3%).

87

Unlike the Italian migration of the 1950s and 1960s, mostly comprised of southern Italians (COASIT 2006 ca.), the majority of new arrivals (45%) came from northern Italian regions, mainly Lombardia, Veneto and Friuli-Venezia Giulia. The second largest group, was from central Italy, chiefly Lazio and Toscana, with 26% of the survey responses, while 22% of Italians are from the South, especially Sicily, Campania and Puglia. The remaining 7% indicated Italy. A number of the new Italian ‘settlers’ (68 or 31%) were married, with 6% of them forming an inter-ethnic marriage. Of those respondents who declared to be in a relationship, the majority (55 or 25%) was engaged to someone of same national/ethnic background, while 25 (or 11%) Italians claimed to be in an ‘inter-ethnic relationship’. Interestingly, 41 (or 19%) of the respondents had children while living in Australia. Settlement in Australia As Figure 5.2 (see Appendices) illustrates, a large number of the survey respondents (118 or 53%) had never lived outside their home country or had only had a short-term experience living overseas. Interestingly, a number of the ‘new Italian migrants’ (74 or 33%) had already been to Australia before, compared to 150 (or 67%) individuals who were there for the first time. It is worth noting that the majority of the people surveyed (157 or 72%) did not have any other members of their family (parents, siblings, cousins, etc.) living in Australia before their arrival. On the other hand, the majority of those (61 or 28%) who had near relatives while living in the host society defined this circumstance as ‘quite important’ (21 or 34%) or ‘very important’ (20 or 33%). This might explain the fact that 48 (or 24%) respondents stated that they were staying ‘with friends or family members’ when they first moved to Australia. At the time the online survey was completed, forty-two percent of the sample (or 94 individuals) indicated that they had been living in Australia more than a year but less than 4 years (Figure 5.3). The second largest group (83 or 37%), indicated they had staid in the host society for over 4 years. Respondents that had been in Australia for less than a year accounted for 9%, followed by 8% in the ‘less than three months’ category.

88

Figure 5.3: Period of residence in Australia 45%

42%

40%

37%

35% Percent

30% 25% 20% 15%

8%

9% 4%

10% 5% 0%

Less than 3 months

Less than a year

More than a year (but less than 4 years)

More than 4 years

Other

Period of Residence

The most common visa used to migrate to Australia was the Working Holiday Visa (Figure 5.4).

Percent

Figure 5.4: Visa Status (major categories) 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

50%

15%17% 5%

21%

21%

18%

11% 5%

1%

3% 1%

3% 5% 0%

3%

0%

6%

0%

4%

Visa Status Initially

Now

Fifty percent (or 112) of all respondents had first gained residence through this system. Smaller groups were represented by holders of Student Visa (34 or 15%), temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) (24 or 11%), Visitor Visa (subclass 600) (12 or 5%) and Partner Visa (subclass 309 and subclass 100) (6 or 3%). Six respondents had dual citizenship (Italian and Australian) when moving to Australia. By the time they were completing the survey, 89

though, a number of respondents had changed their visa status. The two largest groups which emerged were those who had been awarded dual citizenship (Italian and Australian) and those on a 457 visa (46 individuals or 21% each categories). These visa groups are closely followed by 41 (or 18%) and 38 (or 17%) individuals in the Permanent Resident and Student Visa categories respectively. Figure 5.4 thus illustrates the shift which occurred during the settlement process, by comparing the visa status of the new Italian arrivals when they first gained residence in Australia and at the time of participating in the online questionnaire. The multiple choice question regarding the present visa status allowed capture of the fact that there were also a number of the temporary residents (13 or 6%) who had applied for permanent residency (PR) while being under another visa category. Finally, there is also a small group (10 or 4%) of Italians who were no longer living in Australia when they completed the survey. Interestingly, a number of the survey respondents (74 or 33%) had changed their visa status or renewed their visa ‘three or more times’, followed by 21% (or 47 individuals) in the category ‘twice’. That another group replied ‘once’ only (57 or 25%) could be linked to the fact that most of them might have been residing in Australia less than a year (17%). Qualifications and skills According to the data collected, over 60% of the respondents is highly educated, holding either a Bachelor Degree (46 individuals or 21%), a Master Degree (69 or 32%), or even a PhD (19 or 9%). As Figure 5.5 indicates, the largest group of new arrivals (71 or 33%) holds a High School Diploma. Figure 5.5: Educational level completed 9%

2% 3% 33%

32%

21% Middle school

Year 12

Bachelor Degree

90

Master Degree

PhD

Other

Interestingly, sixty percent of the sample population also indicated that they had at least a good level of English. Yet, there was also a group of respondents with no (8%) or limited English ability (32%). As for the field of study/qualification, survey responses were quite diverse covering a number of areas. The major categories are illustrated in Figure 5.6 below (multiple answers were allowed). Figure 5.6: Field of study/qualification 14% 12%

Percent

10% 8%

13%

13% 12% 10% 8%

8% 6%

6%

5%

5%

5% 4%

4%

4%

2% 0%

Field of Study/Qualification

Even before the 2008 financial crisis, Italy had been suffering from political instability, economic stagnation and lack of structural reforms. In fact, in the period between 2001 and 2007, Italy’s economy grew only an average of 1.2%. The global crisis contributed to the deterioration of the already fragile Italian economy, which showed a contraction of 5.5%— the strongest GDP drop in decades (FocusEconomics 2016). As Figure 5.7 clearly illustrates, the peak of arrivals of the people surveyed was recorded in the period between 2013 and 2016, which coincides with the highest point of the crisis.

91

Figure 5.7: Years of residence in Australia (multiple answers were allowed) 90% 77%

80% 70%

83% 73%

65%

Percent

60% 47%

50% 37%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

6% 2004

8%

2005

11%

2006

9%

2007

15%

2008

22%

2009

29%

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Year

The economic crisis, though, can partly explain the ‘migration’ of a number of Italians to Australia. It is true that a large number of respondents (93 or 47%) indicated that one of the main reasons for coming to Australia was ‘to find better job opportunities’, but of all recorded responses (285 values as reported by this multiple answers questions), only 20 Italians (or 9%) stated that they were ‘out of work and looking for work’ before moving abroad. ‘To make a new life experience’ was the category with the majority of the responses (103 or 52%), followed by ‘to study/do research’ (30 or 15%) and ‘I received a job offer’ (21 or 11%). Nevertheless, in another question using a Likert-type scale, the vast majority of respondents (63%) stated that the economic situation in Italy decisively affected their decision to come to Australia. Before and after arriving in Australia Settling in a new country can be a challenging experience, especially when the migration journey moves to issues of accommodation, occupation, work requirements and English language proficiency. A number of questions in the survey were formulated with the specific aim to analyse what has changed in the lives of these ‘new’ Italians in Australia during the transition phase into the receiving society. Before coming to Australia, the most common occupation among the sample under investigation was ‘white-collar employee’ (53 or 24%). The second largest group is made of those falling into the ‘professional’ category (38 or 17%). This was followed by 15% (or 33) 92

in the Student (without scholarship)’ category. Figure 5.8 (see Appendices) shows a summary of the main categories emerged from the survey. Figure 5.9 (see Appendices), while focusing on the accommodation arrangements experienced by the respondents, also provides an insight into their future intentions within the host society. By the time the survey was completed, 14% of the sample (or 28 individuals) owned a house or flat in Australia, up from an initial 1%. In addition, when asked if they were planning to buy a property (e.g. house, unit, land, etc.) in the host society, the largest group of respondents (39%) replied ‘yes’. The ‘no’ category followed with 35% of the responses, while a number of respondents (26%) were ‘not sure’. As Figure 5.9 shows, most of the new arrivals could afford to rent a house/apartment when they first gained residence in Australia. This group was followed by 29% in a ‘share house/apartment’ category. The third largest group, 24% of the respondents, was made up of those staying with friends or family members. Things changed after the initial settlement stage. The vast majority of the respondents (114 or 58%) are now renting a house/apartment. The figures of those staying with friends/family members or living in a share accommodation dropped 18% and 10% respectively. Figure 5.9: Initial and present accommodation arrangements 58%

60% 50% 40%

32%

29%

Percent

30% 20% 10%

14%

12% 1%

1%

0%

19%

24%

6%

1%

1%

2%

0%

Type of Accommodation Initially

Now

The next chart (Figure 5.10) illustrates the occupational shift, which occurred among the people surveyed from the initial settlement period to their present situation. The category that initially recorded the largest number of responses (28 or 14%) was ‘white-collar employee’. This was closely followed by the ‘blue-collar employee’ and ‘professional’ 93

categories with 26 (or 13%) responses each. Worth noting that 19 (or 10%) of the new arrivals fell into ‘out of work and looking for work’ category. This figure dropped to 4% at time of the survey. At the same time, the categories ‘professional’ and ‘white-collar employee grew exponentially with 45 (or 23%) and 42 (or 21%) respectively. There was also a consistent change in the number of ‘self-employed’ and ‘employer’ groups with an increase of 4% each. Figure 5.10: Initial and present occupations in Australia (multiple answers were allowed) 25%

21%

Percent

20% 15% 10%

9%

8%

11% 8%

13%

14% 10%

23%

13% 10% 7% 3%

5%

4% 0%

3%

5% 1%

4% 5% 0%

1%

0%

Occupation Initially

Now

Interestingly, when asked about the type of job/career/business they wanted to have in the future, the majority of the respondents (103 or 53%) stated that they are already doing what they like. Regarding the channels that have been used to find their current (last) job, the majority of the respondents (66 or 34%) replied through the Internet, followed by the group of those who sent spontaneous applications, 18% of the sample. It is worth noting that an important support came also from family and friends (34 responses or 17%) and from professional networking (32 or 16%). One of the most interesting outcomes which emerges from the analysis of the survey responses is the change in the monthly salary rates earned by the respondents (Figure 5.11). The major increase was recorded in the ‘between 2,001 and 5,000$’ category, which moved from 18% (or 36 responses) to 53% (or 104). This represented the largest group at the time of the survey. It is also worth noting that the group of respondents earning less than 500$ a month decreased to less than 5%, while the number of those getting more than 5,000$ almost tripled (from 11 to 31 respondents). Not surprisingly, when asked if they were (or had been) 94

experiencing financial hardship to get to the end of the month, 71% of all respondents either ‘strongly disagreed’ or ‘disagreed’. Yet, there were still 16% of them who had the opposite experience. Nevertheless, a large part of the respondents (34%) reported that the cost of living in Australia (e.g. visa, health insurance, rent, food, household bills, legal advice, school fees, etc.) was too expensive for them. Figure 5.11: Monthly income before and after moving to Australia 60% 53%

50%

Percent

40%

35%

30% 20%

19%

22%

19%

18% 6%

10% 0%

Before coming to Australia

4%

Monthly Income

Less than 500$

Between 501 and 1,000$

Between 2,001 and 5,000$

More than 5,000$

16%

8%

After moving to Australia

Between 1,001 and 2,000$

While a salary increase might not be a good economic indicator, especially if not compared or adjusted to the cost of living, 76% of all respondents sustained that their standard of living had improved since they moved to Australia. The rest of responses were equally divided between the ‘no’ and ‘not sure’ categories (12% each). As pointed out in another question over 70% of the sample reported that they felt very satisfied with their current living conditions (house, job, salary, etc.) in Australia. While 17% were neutral, only 10% had a low level of satisfaction. Among the things one needs to learn when living abroad is the local language, which is an important tool for successful settlement in a host society. This point was stressed by the vast majority of participants, who defined improving their language skills as either ‘very important’ (144 or 73%) or ‘quite important (25 or 13%). Interestingly, 6% stated that it was ‘not very important’, while another 5% called it ‘not at all important’. This might explain the fact that in another question, 41% of the sample also admitted that the language that they used the most in their daily conversation was Italian. As Figure 5.12 (see Appendices) shows, a

95

consistent number of respondents (41% or 80) had either no or a limited English ability when they first moved to Australia. During the settlement process, though, this figure changed completely. The vast majority of all respondents (70% or 137) stated that their English level was ‘very good’, while the percentage of those with no or limited ability had drastically dropped to only 4%. Most of respondents (57%) were also able to get an English certificate recognized in Australia (e.g. IELTS or TOEFL). Another 2% was able to obtain it after multiple attempts, while 7% was studying to take the test. It is also worth noting that 28% of the sample was still not able to get their English level certified. Survey responses (shown in Figure 5.13 of the Appendices provide some insight into the strategies adopted by the participants to improve their language skills. The majority of the responses (68 reported that they improved their English by interacting with native speakers or with friends (37%). At the same time, other responses (35%) indicated that participants were also using more traditional methods of learning a language, such as private language schools and universities. Problems and challenges Recognition of foreign qualifications has been a problem for a number of ‘new’ Italians in Australia. There were cases of Italian professionals who arrived with high-level credentials but were unable to gain recognition. As a consequence, they could not work in their field until they had their credentials assessed. Figure 5.14 shows that more than two thirds (68% or 135) of participants rated the recognition of their professional and educational experiences as ‘quite important’ or ‘very important’. Although a large group of respondents (38%) was able to get their qualifications recognized (see Figure 15 of the Appendices), there were still a number of them who could not (37%). Within the survey sample, some of the participants (3% or 6) had submitted an application for validation and were awaiting the outcome, while others (3%) had obtained their professional and educational qualifications in Australia. As for the 19% of the ‘not applicable’ category, this can be supposedly explained by the fact that a number of respondents might not have the interest or necessity to go through the recognition process. Figure 5.16 illustrates the existence of some form of dissatisfaction among those that had to deal with the Australian bureaucratic system in order to get their previous professional and educational qualifications recognized.

96

Figure 5.16: Opinion regarding the recognition process of previous professional and educational qualifications 35%

33%

30%

Percent

25% 20%

19%

18%

18%

15%

12%

10% 5% 0%

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Neutral Response

Somewhat unsatisfied

Very unsatisfied

Although a number of respondents (37% or 52) had a positive experience, there was a group (30% or 42) who was dissatisfied, while the largest group (33% or 46) was neutral. The outcome of the previous question might be somehow linked to a lack of familiarity with the new environment. As a matter of fact, when asked if they had enough information regarding Australian culture, economy, policies and way of life before their arrival, almost 40% of the respondents disagreed (Figure 5.17 of the Appendices). There is also a large group of respondents (21% or 38) who ‘neither agree, nor disagree’. This equidistant position in spatial terms from the points of agreement and disagreement, should not be used as a missing value expressing a ‘don’t know’ opinion or non-response, but could rather signify the respondents’ ‘ambivalence, principled abstention, or a strongly held middle-of-the-road attitude’ (Condor 2007, as cited in Baka, Figgou, & Triga, 2012, p. 248). Entering Australia as a foreign national entails meeting a number of requirements to travel, work, study and eventually remain in the country. Among the issues that the survey was able to uncover is the difficulty encountered by a small group of respondents (16%) in finding accommodation or job in Australia (Figure 5.18 of the Appendices). It is worth noting that the majority (67%), though, did not perceive this as a problem. The visa policy of Australia emerged as one of the most difficult settlement aspects for the survey respondents. As Figure 5.19 shows, 48% of the sample agreed that the visa system in Australia is very confusing and expensive. 97

Figure 5.19: The Visa system in Australia is very confusing and too expensive 35%

34%

30%

Percent

25% 20% 15%

18%

19% 14%

11%

10% 4%

5% 0%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Can't choose

Response

This point was also reinforced by a number of comments left by respondents in the last open-ended question of the survey. Some complained about the fact that visa requirements are too hard to meet. In some cases, probably because of the system complexity, migration agents were blamed for making mistakes when supporting the respondents’ applications. Others criticised the system as a whole for creating different rights’ categories for different types of visa. A specific focus in our survey was dedicated to the Working Holiday visa holders. In the last few years a growing emphasis was given to a large number of cases of ‘exploitation’ recorded among those who obtained entry in Australia via this visa system, new Italian arrivals included. As previously mentioned (see Chapter 2), a report focusing on this particular situation was released by the Australian Senate with the title A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders. The present study, while confirming previous research pointing out the existence of this phenomenon, also suggests different angles for its interpretation. Interestingly, as Figure 5.20 shows, most of those Italian ‘migrants’ who had been (or were still at the time of the survey) WH visa holders were satisfied with their experience. When asked if this was something that they would do again or recommend to their friends, 84% of the sample replied ‘yes’. While 12% was still unsure, only 4% said ‘no’.

98

Figure 5.20: WH: Is this an experience that you would do again or recommend to your friends? 90%

84%

80% 70%

Percent

60% 50% 40% 30% 12%

20% 10% 0%

Yes

Not sure yet

4%

No

Response

Open-ended questions gave people surveyed the opportunity to freely express their opinions regarding their personal experiences. Although a number of respondents mentioned the difficult conditions of living in Australia under the WH visa system, the majority of the comments were positive (shown in Figure 5.21 of the Appendices). For instance, according to 55% of the participants the WH program ‘is/was a way to better understand the job market in Australia and eventually to stay’. The second largest group of respondents (28%) defined it as ‘a temporary life/work experience’. Interestingly, only one respondent stated that this experience ‘was a waste of time’. What follows are some of the most significant comments. The positive side: ‘I improved my English, met wonderful people, had farm work experiences and became more independent’ (Respondent 1). ‘This visa gave us the opportunity to understand whether we wanted to leave here or not. The fact that we could work full-time was really helpful and a stress relief’ (Respondent 2).

99

‘It's a great starting point to enter in the Australian business industry and to have the opportunity to show your skills to an employer’ (Respondent 3). ‘A good life experience and an improvement of standard of living with more suitable wages compared to Italy’ (Respondent 4). ‘As I wanted to experience the Australian “cultural” life, I decided to undertake an experience as a WOOFER19 and I started working in a farm to get my second working holiday visa. My second year was like a sabbatical year for me. I worked in the hospitality as a waitress in the touristic sector as a bilingual tour guide and I used to give private lessons in Italian. I basically used this second year as a woofer to better understand what I wanted to do with my career’ (Respondent 5). And the negative side: ‘I do not find very motivating the obligation to work for a company only within a specific time limit. Besides, it is also very easy to end up working illegally or being unpaid under this visa scheme’ (Respondent 6). ‘I would not recommend this visa type if your profession is not connected to hospitality. I did this experience because I believed I could find job opportunities more in line with my skills, which don’t have anything to do with hospitality. Although I did a number of job interviews, and these were successful in some cases, the final outcome was negative because I did not have a permanent type of visa’ (Respondent 7). ‘I felt strongly discriminated against by my employers while I was holding a WH visa. Besides, I also heard countless stories directly from other backpackers who were exploited by their employers as well’ (Respondent 8). ‘I’ve chosen the WH visa because it was the easiest and quickest way to start my life in Australia with my husband, who has dual citizenship. In my experience, it was really Until recently, Willing Workers On Organic Farms (WWOOF) — known as 'WWOOFers' — were able to apply for a second-year working holiday visa as long as they spent 88 days in a rural or regional area. Working Holiday visa holders are still able to perform volunteer work but it will not count towards eligibility for a second visa (WWOOF Australia, n.d.). 19

100

hard to get a job that wasn't hospitality related. Real opportunities came only after I was granted a temporary spouse visa’ (Respondent 9). ‘Unfortunately, there are employers taking advantage of foreign workers. I know many people who were underpaid, forced to work overtime without getting any payment for that, and with no sick leave. These employers take advantage of the fact that foreign people don't know regular salary rates or work conditions more broadly here in Australia. In many cases Italians don't even realise they have been exploited’ (Respondent 10). Exploitation thus exists and the responses recorded confirm that this is a widespread phenomenon. As Figure 5.22 illustrates, in fact, in a question that asked respondents if they ever had a difficult work experience in Australia in which they felt being exploited, more than 40% of all respondents reported ‘yes’. Figure 5.22: Have you ever had a difficult work experience in Australia in which you felt you were being exploited? 60% 51%

50% 42% Percent

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

3%

Yes

No

Prefer not to answer

4%

Not sure

Response

As reported by some respondents, exploitation is often performed by people of the same nationality or by Australian employer with an Italian ethnic background. What emerges from the survey is that 48% of cases the principal employers/managers of the WH visa holders was either Italian (26%) or of Italian descent (22%). Another large group (34%) is made of ‘white Australian’ employers. A smaller percentage of the sample reported employers of Asian 101

descent and Middle Eastern descent (4% each). Interestingly, when WH visa holders were asked about their experience with their (former) employers/managers, the majority of the respondents (71%) were satisfied. Only 17% reported to be dissatisfied (see Figure 5.23), somehow contradicting the fact that in the previous question a big portion of the respondents had admitted they had been exploited. Figure 5.23: How would you define your experience with your (former) WH employers/managers? 40% 35%

Percent

30%

39% 32%

25% 20% 15%

12%

11%

10%

6%

5% 0%

Very satisfied

Moderately satisfied

Neutral Response

Moderately Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Finally, when asked if they would accept the same working conditions in Italy, 52% of the respondents said ‘Yes’, 23% ‘No’, while 18% were ‘Not sure’. Among those who opted for the ‘Other’ option a comment is worth mentioning. According to the respondent ‘Back in Italy, the conditions I was offered were even more humiliating than those offered by the WH program’. In some cases, exploitation would take the form of ‘off the books’ payments (see Figure 5.24 of the Appendices). Although the vast majority of respondents (71% or 140) reported having received only a regular form of salary payments, there is also a group who were paid their wages ‘cash in hand’. Seventeen percent (or 33) of the respondents stated that their income was ‘part on/part off the books’, while for another 2% (or 3) this was completely ‘off the books’. Interestingly, 7% (or 14) of the sample chose the ‘prefer not to answer’ option, suggesting that some respondents were not willing to provide information on the nature of their salary even within the context of an anonymous survey. This leaves some uncertainty regarding the way to interpret this data, which is then excluded from the analysis. Temporary or permanent?

102

regarding the way to interpret this data, which is then excluded from the analysis. Temporary or permanent? Despite the problems and challenges faced by the Italians in the sample under investigation, the majority of the respondents (114 or 58%) stated that they were planning to stay permanently in Australia (Figure 5.25 of the Appendices). The second largest group was ‘not sure yet’ (63 or 32%), while the smallest one replied ‘no’ (18 or 9%). It is worth noting that even among those who were either unsure or not planning to stay permanently, there were a number of respondents (12%) who would actually remain in Australia until they could get permanent residency/Australian citizenship. Yet, when they were asked if they would go back to Italy, 44% of them replied ‘yes’, while the rest of the responses were equally divided between ‘no’ and ‘not sure yet’ (28% each). Those who indicated their intention to stay permanently selected a number of reasons for doing so. ‘High standard of living’ (Health care, educational system, economy, public transport, etc.) and ‘more job opportunities’ were the two categories with the highest number of responses (81 or 71% each). The other two categories with a high rate of replies were ‘Australia is a meritocratic country’ and ‘sense of safety security’ which had 54% of respondents’ preferences. Other major reasons are illustrated in Figure 5.26. Figure 5.26: Reasons for staying in Australia (multiple answers were allowed) 80% 70%

71%

71%

60%

54%

Percent

50% 40% 30% 20%

54%

42% 33% 17%

23%

31%

28%

30%

10% 0%

Response

Reinforcing the predominant trend to opt for a permanent stay, rather than a temporary one, is connected to the opinion shared by 68% (or 123) of the sample that public policies (employment, housing, health, etc.) in Australia work better than in Italy (see Figure 5.27 of the Appendices). In addition, more than two-thirds of participants (71%) reported feeling very 103 welcome in the Australian society. Regardless of the choice of staying permanently in

one, is connected to the opinion shared by 68% (or 123) of the sample that public policies one, is connected to the opinion shared by 68% (or 123) of the sample that public policies (employment, housing, health, etc.) in Australia work better than in Italy (see Figure 5.27 of (employment, housing, health, etc.) in Australia work better than in Italy (see Figure 5.27 of the Appendices). In addition, more than two-thirds of participants (71%) reported feeling very the Appendices). In addition, more than two-thirds of participants (71%) reported feeling very welcome in the Australian society. Regardless of the choice of staying permanently in welcome in the Australian society. Regardless of the choice of staying permanently in Australia or not, a regular connection with Italy still remains. Figure 5.28 (see Appendices) Australia or not, a regular connection with Italy still remains. Figure 5.28 (see Appendices) indicates that most of the respondents (41%) had been back to Italy ‘three or more times’ indicates that most of the respondents (41%) had been back to Italy ‘three or more times’ during their stay. At the same time, while maintaining a link with their native land, it was also during their stay. At the same time, while maintaining a link with their native land, it was also important to strengthen their relations with contacts within the Italian community in Australia. important to strengthen their relations with contacts within the Italian community in Australia. The major group of respondents (42%), in fact, agreed with the statement which Figure 5.29 The major group of respondents (42%), in fact, agreed with the statement which Figure 5.29 refers to. refers to. Figure 5.29: It is (was) very important to establish and maintain good relations with the Italian Figure 5.29: It is (was) very important to establish and maintain good relations with the Italian community in Australia community in Australia 30% 30%

28% 28%

25% 25%

Percent Percent

20% 20% 15% 15% 10% 10%

29% 29%

16% 16%

13% 13%

11% 11%

3% 3%

5% 5% 0% 0%

Strongly Strongly disagree disagree

Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree nor Disagree Response Response

Agree Agree

Strongly Agree Strongly Agree

Can't choose Can't choose

This point is also confirmed by fact that the majority of respondents (53%) stated that This point is also confirmed by fact that the majority of respondents (53%) stated that their closest friends in Australia are mostly Italians (Figure 5.30 of the Appendices). their closest friends in Australia are mostly Italians (Figure 5.30 of the Appendices). To conclude this section, it is important to consider the participants’ opinion in relation To conclude this section, it is important to consider the participants’ opinion in relation to the role of Italian and Australian authorities. ‘Expatriates’, in fact, should be analysed as to the role of Italian and Australian authorities. ‘Expatriates’, in fact, should be analysed as holding an ‘in-between’ position, between the places of origin and destination. There are a holding an ‘in-between’ position, between the places of origin and destination. There are a number of studies that show how migrants maintain links/ties/activities with their homeland number of studies that show how migrants maintain links/ties/activities with their homeland (Nebiler, 2013). In other words, migrants belong to two places: first, where they come and (Nebiler, 2013). In other words, migrants belong to two places: first, where they come and second, where they now live. Yet, policy-making on integration has commonly disregarded the role of the sending state, looking at it primarily as a matter of concern for the receiving state (Interact, n.d.). Certainly, while sending society actors may opt to try and influence receiving society actors to put into place a more inclusive system for migrants, the final responsibility remains in the hands of actors in the receiving society. Since both sending and host societies 104 potentially benefit from the mobility of these expatriates, the next Figures will provide some insights regarding the participants’ perception

receiving society actors to put into place a more inclusive system for migrants, the final responsibility remains in the hands of actors in the receiving society. Since both sending and host societies potentially benefit from the mobility of these expatriates, the next Figures will provide some insights regarding the participants’ perception of Italian and Australian institutions. As Figure 5.31 (see Appendices) illustrates, 50% of the participants reported that they were not satisfied with the role played by the Italian Consulates/Embassy during their settlement process. While the comments of 9% of the sample went into the opposite direction, there was also a consistent number of respondents who either had an ‘in-between’ opinion (23%) or did not feel like choosing (17%). A different attitude emerged with regard to the Australian authorities (Figure 5.32 of the Appendices). More than two-thirds of participants (68%), in fact, agreed with the statement that Australian public officials had been very helpful when they needed information or help. More broadly, when asked if newly arrived Italians should receive more support from the Italian and Australian authorities, 47% of respondents agreed (Figure 5.33). Interestingly, there was also a large group of participants (40%) opting for ambivalent midpoint positions. Figure 5.33: The Italian and Australian authorities should do more for newly arrived Italian migrants 35%

33%

30%

29%

Percent

25% 18%

20% 15% 10%

4%

9%

7%

5% 0%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Can't choose

Response

Finally, Figure 5.34 (see Appendices) shows that when there was a need to raise an issue, survey respondents used different strategies in order to find the most effective solutions. Most of the time (15%), respondents contacted representatives of the Italian Embassy/Consulate or COMITES. Working together with other people who shared the same concern and actively using social media to speak up or discuss common problems accounted for 8%. Cases were also recorded of people going to court to fight for their rights or writing to the Italian local press (e.g. Il Globo newspaper).

105

CHAPTER 6

‘NEW ITALIAN MIGRANTS’ TO AUSTRALIA THE VIEW OF THE FOCUS GROUPS 106

Chapter 6 – ‘New Italian migrants’ to Australia – The view of the focus groups As part of this study and as a form of triangulation of the data collected from the survey with ‘new Italian migrants’ to Australia, a series of focus groups were put in place. The responses from these meeting were also created to provide a separate and independent validation of the main issues impacting recent Italian migration. Two focus groups were established in Victoria involving some 18 ‘new Italian migrants’. The members of the group were chosen on the basis of having come to Australia between the years 2004 and 2016. While this was a focus group in Victoria, the members saw the migration picture in an entirely Australian panorama. A range of issues were raised with the focus groups and the views of the participants are deidentified in order to allow full and frank answers to be published in this report. The responses have been aggregated into one answer in order facilitate a more comprehensive and global response to the questions. Only the key and relevant comments have been captured and where possible placed into clearer and narrated discourses. Some issues emerged spontaneously and we have allowed them to run their course. Why did you leave Italy? We start with why these new Australian migrants may have wished to leave their origin country Italy. The focus group expressed the realisation that the economic opportunities in Italy were limited and that economic crisis still persisted. One member stated ‘I did not have good employment, I was underpaid and undervalued and I wanted to try a new venture as Italy cannot offer significant economic prospects’ (Interviewee 19). Coming to Australia was for another member ‘the desire for a new experience. I already had support from family and friends’ (Interviewee 2). Another focus group member indicated ‘I did not chose Australia and only came as a result of my company. I decided to accept the proposal to go on behalf of the company. Initially I went for a short duration – I liked it and then stayed. I never thought of going to Australia in the first place’ (Interviewee 5). Another member wanted to come to Australia for economic reasons. He eventually found a sponsor and remained working with the sponsor which led to an application for permanent residency and ultimately a request for citizenship (Interviewee 3). In other cases, focus group members indicated the completed ‘accidental’ nature of ending up in Australia and leaving Italy. For some ‘it was an accident that I ended up in

107

Australia. It was more for an experience with my girlfriend’ (Interviewee 1). There were no real expectations in the case of some. Go to Australia and see how things go. According to another member, he came to Australia for his girlfriend. What made him remain in Australia was the economic crisis in Italy. The situation in Italy was pretty bleak and therefore remaining in Australia was a way to ensure a more secure and promising future (Interviewee 1). You can always do better or well in Australia - a scenario which is very different from Italy. Others in the focus groups also came to Australia mostly for an experience and as such the use of the Working Holiday arrangement was their first port of call. Not all in the focus groups had dire circumstances in Italy and some even left good employment and a situation far from difficult. Theirs was a desire for a different experience and possibly staying in a place they liked. According to another member ‘Our situation in Italy was not desperate, we were actually quite well off; however, we felt the need for a change’ (Interviewee 4). As a result of the limited duration of some of the visas, many had to go back and forth in order to fit into the visa requirement. The ultimate requirement was locating a sponsor. Were you welcomed in Australia? Most focus group members indicated that their experience on arrival in Australia was mixed. Situations varied and experiences of being welcomed also varied. Some never felt welcomed at all, while others had country and city experiences in Australia which provided for contrasting outcomes. As one member indicated, ‘while working outside of Perth doing farm work – I found there was an underlying racism from the people I worked with especially from Australians. I was 300 km from Perth. I understand these are farmers who might be more conservative in their views. In the city of Perth, instead, I felt most welcomed. I got the feeling people tried to help. But when I moved to Melbourne, I found myself more at home. There were more Europeans and more Italians and so I felt better here. I also met more Australians’ (Interviewee 6). Another contributor was more adamant: ‘I never really felt welcomed. I have always seen Australia as being “polite” rather welcoming’ (Interviewee 2). A different focus group member provided a more nuanced view: ‘I have never had serious issues in Australia. But there is a different culture from ours even though this country is a country of migrants. On the whole, I associate more with Italian friends than Australian (Interviewee 19). In a similar vein Interviewee 6 remarked that he doesn’t have Australian friends: ‘I have only international friends. I am not sure if it is a cultural phenomenon or they are more independent and individualist. Yet, I found Australians in the country more welcoming more 108

friendly’. Slightly departing from this view is Interviewee 1 who observed that he has a few Australian friends as well as international friends and of course he also has Italian friends. According to this participant ‘some of the friendship is determined by “becoming Australian”. Not in an official way but in a cultural way. Going to barbecues, going to the footy and similar iconic activities and in doing so you become integrated’ (Interviewee 1). From another participant the opinion that country Victoria is very welcoming and warm. In his view, this was very much connected to the Italian character of this state: ‘We are lucky to be Italians – if we were Indian or some other ethnic group it might be really difficult’ (Interviewee 1). A final member noted that her experience included access to multicultural environments and therefore the issue of being Italian was a mute one. Nevertheless, she recognizes that if anything Italians had a good reputation. This, she surmised, was possibly due to the good contribution made by the previous generation of Italians migrating to Australia (Interviewee 7). The Australia Visa kaleidoscope system The visa journey of most in the focus group was aptly defined by one participant as ‘anxious’ (Interviewee 8). Many, if not most, began with a Working Holiday and on its expiry tried various ways of seeking to prolong the visa in order to reach permanent residence. For some this included becoming a student and for others it was through a sponsorship by an employer. Interviewee 8 argued that the visa process was tortuous and full of confusion and ambiguities and of course the economic difficulties and lack of work and salary made things worse. In some cases, such as the student visa, the process was a little clearer, but when it was about sponsorship and permanent residence migration agents were often employed. Other ways for getting a visa, such as de facto couples, were indicated. Here the Migration agent provided excellent support (Interviewee 9). The student visa process appeared to most that embarked on it the clearest and smoothest of the visa processes. On the other hand another member remarked that the process for obtaining a visa for undertaking a doctorate ‘until now has been very straightforward’ (Interviewee 10). Much of the application process was online, but depending on the visa this could be very smooth or either quite complex. It was also remarked that the visa system could be very costly. In some cases criticism emerged because much contact with the Ministry was with different people each time and therefore different interpretations and different indications could arise. However, if there were problems, then the matter could become quite prolonged. Some focus group members indicated that as the file was unable to be located no one would commit to 109

anything or indicate what stage the process was at. There was a loss of the historic paper trail of the application and therefore matters went from bad to worse (Interviewee 2). In some cases, the sponsor needed to intervene to provide a circuit breaker because the Ministry was totally distrusting of the applicant (Interviewee 2). The working holiday visa was the simplest and quickest and according to one participant the most effective especially if one wished simply to get a better of idea of what one would embark upon by coming to Australia (Interviewee 11). The worst aspect of the Working Holiday visa was the obligatory nature of shifting jobs (sponsor) each six months. The other aspect is that according to the focus group some of the visas have undergone transition and at times the application gets caught up in old versus new regime. There seems within the Ministry a kind of lack of preparation and clarity of responses from the staff. It is unclear, according to the focus group, if this is deliberate or a consequence of so many changes. Moreover, Australians are unaware of what is going on in this area of visa processing. They have the idea that it is a smooth transition and on the whole are not very helpful: ‘They even believe that we as immigrants are living on welfare, subsidising student education and exploiting this state of affairs at their cost’ (Interviewee 7). Their immediate response, if any, is to go to a migration agent. This focus group felt that often they had little choice but to revert to a migration agent and to pay exorbitant costs for the process which also had no guarantee of success. Interestingly, half the focus group utilised a migration agent for the processing of their visas. The role of migration agents The experiences of the focus group with migration agents varied and in effect they could be both friend and foe. Interviewee13 indicated that his experience was entirely positive but the majority of the focus group had much negativity to express with migration agents. In the case of Interviewee 12 the agents were less informed than what they should have been and in fact were unsuccessful in achieving a positive result for the visa applicant. Interviewee 11 indicated that if a de facto scenario exists, then the process can be smoother and less uncertain although the fees for the migration agent for this procedure can be astronomical. In some cases, migration agents will not inform you that a certain process can be risk free and easy and that they can in effect be processed by the individual as should be the case. The agents sometimes take advantage of this ignorance (Interviewee 11). Much can depend on the kind of visa one is applying for according to most in the group (whole group). The visa experience can sometimes also be influenced by the level of English the applicant has. According to 110

Interviewee 14, some applicants go to a migration agent precisely because their knowledge of English is not extensive enough for this kind of administrative process. Exploitation of ‘new Italian migrants’ The use and abuse of temporary migrants especially in the hospitality sector was a commonly lived experience. According to Interviewee 8, who worked in the hospitality business, this was the norm. In some cases, the Department had even conducted some investigations and sorted out the specific cases but it is a practice which is rife. Interviewee 15 claimed she had heard stories to this effect about this exploitation. While there are checks from the government, which Interviewee 8 confirmed, these are limited to a few mostly large companies. Interviewee 13 indicated that he was being paid $13 per hour in hospitality as confirmation of its existence. Interviewee 11 observed that the cases of Italian and other nationalities exploited within the farm system and specifically in Mildura was commonly heard. She notes that with regard to the famous ‘88 days’ necessary to obtain a second Working Holiday, the problem was that ‘in many cases it is not the farmers themselves exploiting the backpackers but often the hostel keepers…’ (Interviewee 11). In effect, the abuse referred to here has been given media coverage affecting many communities all with similar visa obstacles. Interviewee 14 referred to hearing cases of other Italians who in doing this farm experience explained ‘horrible working conditions, in some case paid by the picking and without a normal salary. In the case of hospitality, we hear some are paid 10 to 12 dollars an hour’ (Interviewee 14). Interviewee 11 observed that a person known to her would work the permitted 20 hours and do a further 20 hours which would be considered ‘voluntary contribution’. It was noted that especially in the hospitality area there seemed to be a larger presence of Italians or Italo-Australians taking advantage of the newly arrived Italians. On this matter, the whole focus group indicated their agreement. As mentioned by Interviewee 8 ‘you expect a helping hand [from Italians] and instead you feel in the position that if you don’t like it, the employers can find someone else…’ (Interviewee 4). Interviewee 9 observed that ‘many Italians or Italo-Australians think that they are doing you a big favour. However, they put out an add the next day and they will get another 50 people to replace you’ (Interviewee 9). The impression that Interviewee 14 had was that other communities appeared to be ‘more supportive of their fellow citizens on their arrival’. This seemed to be less the case with Italians. This was a very strong feature of the conversation with this focus group. Each had an 111

experience or was aware of at least one experience and the point was that it was rife among international students of all nationalities and not just Italian. It was clear from documents on the website that exploitation, especially in the hospitality industry, was common. Payslips with false information was a normal procedure. Interviewee 16 noted that in Melbourne, again in hospitality, ‘I was being underpaid, working on weekends, holidays and still receiving less than the minimum wage’ (Interviewee 16). Some of this exploitation tended to also occur with Italian managers and owners. Interviewee 1 referred to this occurring more with Italians than with Australian bosses. More broadly, the participants’ perception was that this tended to occur with other migrants from other nationalities so the Greek migrants might face the same kind of treatment from Greek hospitality owners. What expectation is there of assistance from the Italian government? The focus groups expressed no expectations of assistance from the Italian Government. The view of Interviewee 14 in this regard was ‘I think you don’t even give a thought to approaching the Italian consulate for assistance, and I have never contemplated them as a useful resource either for information for staying here or for settlement matter. I have always seen them as a public office of bureaucrats that shuffle around papers…’ (Interviewee 14). Adding to these comments was Interviewee 11 who mentioned, instead, that there are many newly arrived that will surely approach the Consulate as soon as they arrive. Interestingly, as Interviewee 17 argued, there is ‘NOMIT… something fantastic and if you go to the Consulate and you ask for information they will direct you to NOMIT’ (Interviewee 17). These NOMIT members, as Interviewee 11 reminds us, are volunteers and have been providing this support service since 2013 inside the same building as the Italian Consulate in Melbourne. NOMIT even tries to help newly arrived with access to English classes and the like. However, the sense from the focus group was that it was the Australian government that should be providing the necessary assistance to the newly arrived, mainly because they make a considerable contribution to the host society. Not only do migrants contribute significantly to labour-market flexibility but, through the payment of taxes, they also contribute to the financing of public infrastructure. Interviewee 17 indicated she received aid with her English classes from the Federal government although this rarely kicks in until one is a permanent resident. In contrast, as indicated by Interviewee 14 ‘I understand why the Australian government would intervene once a person becomes a permanent resident but not before’ (Interviewee 14). Here the point that has been made is that government assistance should only be provided when the temporary migrant assumes the quality of a permanent migrant. 112

What are your expectations from Australia, what role Australian authorities? There are categories of professional activities which are still not recognized by the Australian authorities. Three of the more significant categories in this list include engineers, architects and nurses. Interviewee 15 reminds us that she and her husband arrived 10 years ago on a 457 visa and her husband found work not as an architect, as his qualifications were not recognized but as a project manager as he had work experience in that field. However, he was an architect. What all members of the focus group expected from Australian authorities was the need to make some progress on the question of recognition of Italian qualifications and facilitation of undertaking studies in Australia. Some other focus group members responded they had no expectations regarding support from the Australian authorities, and there should not be any (Interviewee 1). There seemed to concern with the arbitrariness and inflexibility of the Australian authorities at times (Interviewee 12). The likes and dislikes were aptly communicated by the focus group and the contradictory responses reflected greater administrative and bureaucratic ease while human relations are less close and real. The focus group approached this question with at times simple statements even slogans. Interviewee 14 said this is a very ‘individualistic society’ with very superficial relations between people and you can probably be successful and making it from nothing. Meanwhile Interviewee 12 indicated that Australians want to live like Europeans but do not have that flexibility. Despite being used to the bureaucracy in Italy, he was equally shocked at the level of bureaucracy in Australia. Interviewee 4, instead, was impressed by the can do approach where ‘…I really appreciate the ease in which ordinary everyday problems can be resolved by phone including dealing with the bank as well as immigration. With a phone call you can resolve everything…’ (Interviewee 4). Interviewee 10 was concerned about the superficiality of relations and especially the gracious approach to your face while in reality this was just superficial appearance: ‘In the supermarket, for instance, they are so polite and ask you how are you, yet they really don’t care one bit’ (Interviewee 10). Interviewee 11 highlighted the largeness of Australia with its enormous distances while for others what is missing is the association of people, the lack of meeting places, of the square where people congregate and talk (Interviewee 18). Conclusions The focus groups expressed quite clear views and perceptions about the migration story to Australia. It is important that while the focus groups took place in Victoria their responses had a comprehensively Australian answer and could not be pigeon-holed as a Victorian response. 113

Given the fluid nature of this journey, many experiences were ongoing and in some respects inconclusive. The picture which emerges however is that Italians migrating from Italy do so for a variety of reasons. Only a sizeable minority could be said to be doing so for strictly economic reasons. Moreover, many of the focus groups do not necessarily feel welcomed in Australia although the perception varies from city to country and between Australian cities. Melbourne is acknowledged as more ‘European’ and ‘Italian’. The difficulties in obtaining a visa can depend on the nature of the visa although student visas appeared to be the more trouble free. Dealings with the Department of Immigration seemed to fraught with difficulties due to a number of reasons including no continuity in staff dealing with an application and inconsistent information. There is a need for a more accessible and user-friendly public service and the provision of consistent and accurate information to visa holders and visa applicants. Overall, there was a vivid sense of being exploited in the workforce as a result of their vulnerable and uncertain visa status. This tended to occur mostly in the hospitality and farm sectors. Many newly arrived Italians are receiving useful information from NOMIT, a new organisation based inside the Italian Consulate in Melbourne. Despite recognizing the functional aspects of Australian society and the efficiencies of many services, there are few if any expectations for the provision of support by the Australian government, although there is the desire that professional qualifications, especially in the fields of architecture and engineering, be recognised. Many if not most of the focus group contributors see Australia as a place which could become their future home and the prospect of applying for Australian citizenship being a real one.

114

115

CHAPTER 7

THE VIEW OF MIGRATION AGENTS

ON RECENT ITALIAN MIGRATION 116

Chapter 7 – The view of the migration agents A focus group with seven migration agents was organised for this study to capture a ‘professional’ standpoint within the ‘new Italian migration’ to Australia. As they themselves noted, these migration agents would often become the ‘go to point’ especially in the realm of the more complex visa processes. Moreover the migration agents, just by way of their contact with clients, would be able to provide a collective experience. Moreover, the findings from this particular focus group would provide invaluable validation evidence of the findings emerging from the survey results, as well as from the focus groups involving the Italian migrants. ‘New Italian migrants’ - Who are they and why come to Australia? According to the migration agents, the numbers of migrants from Italy changed with the Working Holiday Maker arrangement. The migration agents all commented how their profession, in so far as Italians coming to Australia was concerned, changed significantly after approximately 2004. One migration agent indicated ‘it’s been an exponential growth. When I started in 2000 it was a trickle [now] it is quite a steady stream. It hasn’t abated yet’ (M1). Before 2004, there were not many at all coming from Italy (M2). Moreover, our practices are majority Italian cases. In the case of two practices the Italian cases were 80% or above. The category of visa and immigrant was also of importance in this increase. According to this focus group, there were three categories of Italian migrant. The temporary – Working Holiday Maker, adventure seeking, young, looking for an experience ‘...who are 20, 21, 22 [years of age], don’t have qualifications... and go through some hardships as well, with farming experiences as well...and they come out with one mentality. Then you have another group, who are 30 something, 40 something, who are qualified, who have degrees, who do have skills, but unfortunately lack English, ...and then you have returning migrants...’ (M4). These return migrants might have been originally in Italy but for reasons related to sustainability of the Italian economy, feel the best location for their children is a return to Australia (M4). How informed are prospective Italian migrants? One of the serious concerns for arriving migrants is that they live in Australia sometimes entertain unrealistic expectations and scenarios. How do prospective Italian immigrants gain information about migration to Australian in the first place? The view of the focus group was

117

that there were multiple sources of information but none that are the corroborated by migration authorities. Prospective migrants gather information via informal channels such as social media, businesses and agents seeking to make a dollar, agents of various kinds and the media in general. This includes family and relatives in some cases, or more generally word of mouth. Interestingly, the migration agents commented extensively on the role an NGO (nongovernmental organization), NOMIT, had taken on in an unofficial capacity in Melbourne. Located inside the Italian Consulate, this organisation provides an informal point of call for prospective Italian migrants, reinforcing their information through social media and keeping in touch with the prospective migrants. However, this organisation is voluntary, came into existence by accident, and is sustained by the goodwill of a group of active Italian youth. Expecting this organisation to keep up its work without support may be expecting too much. Moreover, the Italian Consulate stresses the organisation’s informal nature despite NOMIT’s increasing outreach, much of it spread through word of mouth. Exploitation of ‘new Italian migrants’? There is the concern regarding the possibility of exploitation of ‘new Italian migrants’ driven by the complex Australian visa system. The exploitation of international students and newly arrived migrants in Australia, especially the backpacking and rural worker scenario, has received significant media attention and is a concern for NGOs and those involved in legal aid has been raised as a matter for investigation and, if necessary, a response. The migration agents agreed that exploitation of temporary migrants irrespective of visa category was not uncommon. The response from the focus group was ‘Exploitation of foreign workers in Australia, in Melbourne, is not a new phenomenon’ (M4). And again, ‘That happens a lot’. How much— in my case I would say about [50-60%] of our clients’ (M2) Another said ‘Especially in trades, hospitality’ (M4). ‘In trades, wall tilers, and cooks, they don’t get paid properly’ (M2). Again, according to the migration agents ‘Under the 457s it’s a crime to not pay them properly; and they pay them properly on the books but expect the person to return money’ (M2). What caused this situation? According to one migration agent exploitation exists, it is in effect built into the Australian visa system, and self-protecting (M1). According to another migration agent ‘one wants to stay here and will put up with some exploitation for at least two, two and a half years to get permanent residency in the end. It’s a little bit like the spouse visa, you know, like battered wives who put up with it, hoping for permanency in the end. But with battered wives, at least you can report domestic violence; but in this case you don’t. If 118

you report the employer, you’ll get your visa cancelled, or you’ll have 3 months to find another job, and the employer might have a sanction. So there is no encouragement to report abuses. Because you expose yourself, you must get another job within 3 months; and they are so insecure’ (M2). Exploitation of temporary workers tended to occur along the following lines: ‘...employees are sponsored and they are paid for 38 hours a week but they only work 30 hours. So they refund the money to the boss, so that is not anecdotal, this is true’ (M1). In other cases, the employees are paid the right amount of money on the books, the contract states 38 hours, but they make them to work a lot longer (M2). Again, what ingrained institutional factors are creating aspects of exploitation. Surprisingly the visa legislation is unhelpful according to another migration agent. Why is this the case? ‘…the reason for this exploitation is caused by [Australian] governments … By setting an artificial figure that must be paid for the sponsorship. That is $53,900 plus superannuation based on the ABS declared average annual salary. Now, in hairdressing and cooking, you don’t get that salary normally. In hairdressing it might be the low $30,000. But the sponsor is told to pay $53,900… So the exploitation is condoned and promoted indirectly by government by having this unrealistic figure of what foreign workers should be paid’ (M1). In effect, what the migration agent is alluding to, is an artificially high amount that many sponsors feel unable to meet. As a result of this, sponsors find ways to circumvent the law which can be summarised as follows: They declare $53,900 salary to their sponsored employee but then ask them to either return part of the amount or to work longer hours to close the gap between the ‘artificial’/declared sum and the actual salary. While there was a unanimous view that exploitation occurred amongst temporary migrants for the reasons mentioned above, the view was that it tended to be concentrated in certain trades and work sectors. The areas indicated included trade, farming, and hospitality. These activities have become notorious through media coverage. However, when asked if this abuse might occur more often by employers from the same ethnic community, the migration agents felt this was quite not too common as ‘It’s not accepted in the Italian community’ (M3). Again, certain occupations are more prone (hospitality, farm labouring and trades) as ‘These are cash based industries’ (M1). When asked if Australian employers were any better, the response was that ‘…when they are Australian they are generally a bit more conservative’ (M4) and will avoid this form of risk. In the case of working for a relative, the agents noted that ‘...they are less likely to exploit. Because it would get around in their own family’ (M1). 119

The role of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Another item of concern felt by all the migration agents was the way the Australian government, through the DIBP is handling the visa environment. The comments on the relationship with the Department are of concern. One agent stated ‘The Department of Immigration has pretty much closed the door to anyone who wants to walk in to get some information. …It’s disgusting’ (M3). Moreover, the Department is engaged in cost cutting, its processes are evolving, and there is generally no way to ascertain who is in charge of a an application or involved in the processing of it, and identity of staff is not disclosed so no access to specific personnel. According to one agent this is a significant change from earlier ways of conducting business. ‘One of the significant changes that have happened in the last few years – the Immigration Department counter doesn’t exist… you can’t lodge applications there, you can’t go there and ask questions, if you have a question they refer you to … their website, which is very complex’ (M2). On the other hand, the view of another agent is to approach an application in the following way: ‘If I was a prospective immigrant, I’d never use the website. It’s just too complicated. And if you make a mistake, and you are on a bridging visa, you’ve applied, your substantive visa has expired, you get refused, and the door’s virtually closed. You can only apply if you are a refugee or you’ve got a partner. The consequence is pretty draconian. But a lot of students are doing it by themselves; or they are getting an education agent…’ (M1). Basically, if they do it by themselves they would be dealing with a ‘jungle’ of bureaucratic sources in which they could potentially get lost. If they choose a ‘education agent’ instead they pay more without any legal advice on the correct visa option and the best way to recognise or improve their skills/qualifications. There was also some level of criticism directed against the government’s use of visas for revenue collection: ‘The visa fees, for immigration partner visa is almost seven thousand dollars because they are a cash cow, immigrants and we just keep – paying, paying and don’t complain’ (M4). Because of the complexity of the process many migrants – some 70% according to the migration agents will revert to migration agents for assistance given the complexity of the process. The centralised mode in which visas are issued, with the loss of the Immigration office in the Australian Embassy in Rome has made the process very much dominated by process and less human intervention. As such, ‘The website encourages online applications. They do the working holiday ones, and student visas and tourist visas. People don’t use migration agents for that kind of visa’ (M5). Some final observations which include the realisation that as long as the Italian economy continues to be sluggish and youth unemployment remains high, then demand for temporary migration in Australia will remain 120

high. Italians are making up a significant number in the category of temporary migration. Moreover, they are concentrated in certain sectors such as hospitality. The agents also felt that there was a need for duty of care from organisations that should ‘start assisting them with housing, exploitation, English, job placement, and work experience placement. That’s what we do for residents; and we should be doing that for temporary residents because so many of them would like to stay here’ (M1). In terms of the Department functioning, according to a final consideration by another agent ‘Well, lately they [the Department] seem to be becoming harder and harder to deal with. I have been doing this job for five years and used to be a commercial lawyer; in Italy first and then here in Australia. But like five years ago it seemed to be easier to talk to them. It’s harder to get through to them, even when there are major issues; issues of urgency; people losing their visas for no reasons and no fault of their own but it seems to be so difficult…’ (M4). Again on the exploitation ‘I think the biggest reason for abuse is that we have set an unrealistically high figure by law that no work; no trade can be paid less than that figure. Cooks, engineers what have you. It is not a problem with engineers and nurses because they get paid thousands more. It’s an issue with hairdressers, cooks; it targets those people down below’ (M2). Furthermore, there was the consideration that Italians need to be properly informed before arriving in Australia. One suggested ‘We need to examine how we provide information to Italians that is accurate and current before they arrive; and how we supplement that once they arrive. How to do it before they arrive? This is a bit more difficult, but how to do it once they have arrived is a lot easier. The structure of COMITES, which is more of a political body rather than an institutional welfare body, was never intended to provide migration assistance. Yet, M3 suggested that ‘this could be done through associations like COMITES’ (M3). On the other hand, most migration agents felt that the well-established COASIT (Committee of Assistance for Italians) should be geared for assisting these new arrivals. As explained by one participant: ‘… An association like COASIT should be doing that [assisting new arrivals]’ (M5). A final concern was directed at the education industry and especially at the tertiary sector where international students visa status can be ambiguous. This also impacts on Italian students whose numbers in Australia are growing. Education consultants and agents are part of this process and possibly a more unregulated part. What is clear is that some of the difficulties are partly a result of education loopholes, perceived lower cost access, and education agents sometimes failing to provide a proper level of duty of care. This has resulted in what a migration agent below aptly describes: ‘they (education agents) are at the forefront 121

of providing a lot of initial information…there are heaps of them. They are based in Italy. But the problem, because there is so much red tape with working visas, 457 visas - a lot of Italians are forced to go on to student visas. That’s where the private institutes come into play… providing these courses, like vocational courses, diplomas, a number in business management, it’s a classic. As a result, as Italians, they tend to buy time to find a sponsor or they need to get their English up, or they don’t have verifiable evidence of their employment in Italy, so they get a qualification in their field. But that is a qualification… charging $15,000 for a course where they don’t learn anything. ...So you are paying $15,000 to be able to stay for two years, just to stay to get a diploma – what have you learned in those two years and who is going to employ you at the end of it?’ (M3). Conclusions Migration agents generally agreed on the main issues regarding the new migration. There was a general consensus that the number of Italian working holiday and temporary visas for Australia while showing some volatility would increase in the medium term. Agents were frustrated with the recent change in approach by the Department of Immigration in shutting down dialogue with clients, agents and others. Curtailing access was seen as a troubling development. As a group, these migration agents were concerned that prospective Italian migrants need to be better informed and prepared for Australian visa requirements and Australian working conditions. The visa regimes require some modification to avoid applicants getting caught by conflicting instructions and processes. Abuse and possible cases of exploitation of temporary visa holders is common, especially in the trades, hospitality and farming.

122

123

CHAPTER 8

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

124

Chapter 8 – Findings, recommendations and limitations of the research This study has been important in exploring the reality of the current levels of Italian migration to Australia. While many are aware of the first major migration of Italians to Australia of the 1950s and 1960s, we were tempted to ascertain if ‘new Italian migration’ to Australia would re-witness another ‘heyday’. This study has permitted the authors to undertake a thorough literature review of Italian migration, ascertain the views of the relevant cohort of prospective Italian migrants to Australia through a survey and seek to validate these findings through three focus groups specifically addressing a myriad of issues about this recent migratory phenomenon. While investigating this migration we have uncovered a variety of concerns, events and consequences of this migration flow, which were either desired or less desired. In uncovering the world behind ‘new Italian migrants’, we equally wish to provide constructive recommendations to relevant authorities who may be in a position to provide some redress or remedy to these concerns. The journey of this new cohort of Italian migration to Australia is not driven by a single driver as it might have been with the migration of the 1950s and 1960s. While some Italians have migrated for better economic opportunities, not all did so for this particular reason. It was mostly the Working Holiday Maker, which has recorded the largest numbers of prospective migration who more often than not was in the search of an international experience and who had a good grasp of English. Many of the temporary visa (457 and others) applicants are very different from their previous cohorts. They are significantly better prepared and educated and are a little older than your Working Holiday Maker. In both cases they do not necessarily have a family connection in Australia and as such are less tied to traditional locations and settlement of previous Italian generations. Another consideration that emerges from this study is that the levels of Italian migration are not as high as first thought. In certain visa categories the number of Italians entering Australia reach higher levels such as Working Holiday Maker with 83,462 visa granted since 2004 (almost 67% after 2011). While occupying the 9th place in overall terms, the Italian share represents only 4.2% of the total 1,962,877 Working Holiday (subclass 417) visas granted by the Australian government in the same period of time. However, if we go and examine the other visa categories Italians make up a very small percentage of the total (See Table 1.1 of the Executive summary).

125

On the other hand, if the point of comparison is today’s numbers compared to those of 2000, then an increase can be observed; though in relative terms it is very marginal and almost insignificant. The study has shown that the visa procedures are less than adequate and that the DIBP is withdrawing its support and advising systems. Moreover, the more complex visa procedures seem to attract the greatest level of unreliable information flow thereby creating even greater hurdles and conflict. As a result, many are obliged to consult a migration agent thus adding to the costs of already existing fees required for these applications. Student visas on the other hand appear to be relatively unambiguous in their functioning and focus groups and surveys appear to confirm this finding. Yet, this type of visa hides a lucrative business, that of schools offering ‘fake’ education or skills students might hardly be able to apply on the Australian job market. The study has uncovered a number of experiences of exploitation of temporary migrants across three main sectors – hospitality, trades and farming. These activities can be primarily cash based and are therefore prone to exploitative relations. The important role of accurate and reliable information for the newly arrived has been one constant theme. Here, NOMIT, despite its informal status and the unorthodox manner of its establishment, has been identified as a major contributor to information provision service for newly arrived Italians in Melbourne. Recommendations As part of the objectives of this report, the authors were to offer recommendations to refocus the direction of the activity, indicate areas for improving the processes and as a minimum bring out into the open the activities which define this new migration. A recommendation that has emerged from all quarters is the need to provide greater levels of assistance to applicants. To avoid the exploitation and the anxiety of many prospective temporary migrants, assistance with affordable housing, employment, job placements, assistance with finding work experience and especially with asserting and defending their rights including in labour disputes is required. Our survey and focus groups have indicated that assistance with learning English is an aspect where the Government might consider offering more support to newly arrived migrants. Another specific recommendation is to alter the rules of visas where sponsorship has to reach such high monetary levels as per the $53,900 sponsorship hurdle. As for exploitation cases, this is an issue affecting immigrants of all kinds and across all nations which is now reaching emergency levels. While this study has clearly evidenced the 126

presence of this phenomenon, the solutions to this activity are more complex. The recent 7Eleven profile case involving many international students (Ferguson & Toft, 2015) confirms the need for a more institutional and formal procedure, which is required to stamp this activity out. Having access to Fair Work Australia mechanisms and establishing Migrant Ombudsmen offices is a necessity and must with it bring ways and means to protect the whistle-blower; guarantee the equality of wages, and respect of the law. This is a matter requiring important changes in the current visa structure at the heart of the ease with which labour exploitation can occur in the first place. Another major hurdle for newly arrived Italians is lack of recognition of certain qualifications and work experience. According to one migration agent: ‘I have dealt with engineers and architects, and the problem with them, and a lot of them have good English, because it’s quite common for professionals to have English. The problem is if you are on a working holiday, no one is going to employ you for six months; it takes so long to train you... when they [Italian migrants] come here they actually believe there is work; but it is very hard to get a job as an architect or an engineer. Because there is a glut. What I’d like to be doing for these people is doing what we do for permanents; and that is you place them on work experience to give them experience’ (M3). There is a need to bring to government’s (and the respective professional associations) attention that these two professions in particular require recognition and that Italians, and not only Italians, need to be able to seek employment in these fields on an equal footing to locals. Our focus groups highlighted some indifference shown by some of the relevant Italian institutions in Australia. The recommendation is that organisations such as COASIT or an appropriate equivalent body should be charged with the responsibility to be a first point of call. It would highlight the direct presence of the Italian government and give some sense of re-assurance that assistance is available. In the absence of a real support system, the voluntary and heroic efforts of NOMIT cannot be seen as a long-term substitute to ongoing provision of proper information and support. Related to this is the need to address the manner in which migrants access reliable and accurate information. Focus groups as well as survey responses made it clear that information is a crucial issue for migrants. Moreover, it is incumbent on the Australian government to offer a clearer pathway and information in relation to its visa system. Its website is described by migration agents as being ‘atrocious’ and ‘no longer user friendly’. Therefore, the Immigration Department may wish to consider address this matter and see if clearer information can be made available on their website.

127

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

128

About the authors About the authors

Riccardo Armillei

Until December 2015, Dr Armillei worked for the UNESCO Chair team and the Alfred Deakin Riccardo Armillei Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation as an Associate Fellow. His Until December 2015, Dr Armillei worked for(ADI) the UNESCO Chair teamResearch and the Alfred Deakin

research interests include Romani/'Gypsy' studies, citizenship and national identity, forced Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation (ADI) as an Associate Research Fellow. His migrations, social include justice, Romani/'Gypsy' cross-cultural theories practices.and Drnational Armilleiidentity, undertook his research interests studies,and citizenship forced

Ph.D. at the Swinburne Institute for Social Research where he examined the social exclusion migrations, social justice, cross-cultural theories and practices. Dr Armillei undertook his of Romanies in Italy. His dissertation focused particularly condition thoseexclusion living in Ph.D. at the Swinburne Institute for Social Research whereon hethe examined theofsocial the so called 'campi nomadi' (nomad camps) and on the recent implementation of the of Romanies in Italy. His dissertation focused particularly on the condition of those living in 'Emergenza Nomadi' Between and recent 2012, Dr Armillei carried the so called 'campi(nomad nomadi'emergency). (nomad camps) and2011 on the implementation of out the

qualitative research in Rome, where he worked for several years in the role as educator/social 'Emergenza Nomadi' (nomad emergency). Between 2011 and 2012, Dr Armillei carried out worker in some of the Romani qualitative research in biggest Rome, where hecommunities. worked for several years in the role as educator/social

worker in some of the biggest Romani communities. Bruno Mascitelli is an Associate Professor in European Studies at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne Australia. Before joining academia, Bruno worked for the Bruno Mascitelli is an Associate Professor in European Studies at Swinburne University of Australian in Milan, Italy for Before over 17 joining years. He completedBruno his PhD at Melbourne TechnologyConsulate in Melbourne Australia. academia, worked for the University in 2005 on Italian politics. He has co-authored or co-edited over 15 books including Australian Consulate in Milan, Italy for over 17 years. He completed his PhD at Melbourne The Italian expatriate vote in Australia (2008) and Il Globo: 50 years of an Italian newspaper University in 2005 on Italian politics. He has co-authored or co-edited over 15 books including in (2009), and & Australia: with Gianfranco TheAustralia Italian expatriate voteItaly in Australia (2008)An andasymmetrical Il Globo: 50 relationship years of an Italian newspaper Cresciani (2014). His research interests include Italian-Australian Studies, migration studies, in Australia (2009), and Italy & Australia: An asymmetrical relationship with Gianfranco Italian politics andHis International business. Cresciani (2014). research interests include Italian-Australian Studies, migration studies, Italian politics and International business.

129

REFERENCES

130

References Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2000). 1996 Census Data by Location Name (Main Areas). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/96cdbygeogtype?openview&restricttocategory=Main%2 0Areas&Expand=1& Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Australia's Most Recent Immigrants 2001. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au-/system/files/pages/690c1e29-951a-4438-9d48b02e453e9026/files/hs05205302001immigrants.pdf; Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). 2914.0.55.002 - 2006 Census of Population and Housing: Media Releases and Fact Sheets, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/ec871bf375f2035dca257306000d5422!OpenDocume nt Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). 3416.0 - Perspectives on Migrants, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS-/[email protected]/Lookup/3416.0Main+Features52009 Australia Bureau of Statistics. (2015). 3412.0 - Migration, Australia, 2014-15. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3412.0/ Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016). 3412.0 - Migration, Australia, 2014-15. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/3412.0Media%20Release12014-15 Appleyard, R. (2001). Post-war British Immigration. In J. Jupp (ed.), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins (pp. 62-65). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Baka, A., Figgou, L., & Triga, V. (2012). ‘Neither agree, nor disagree': a critical analysis of the middle answer category in Voting Advice Applications. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 5(3-4), 244263. Bocchini, M. (2013, May 24). Australia: between dream and illusion. Retrieved from https://ollecram87.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/australia-between-dream-and-illusion/ Bosworth, R. (2001). Post-War Italian Immigration. In J. Jupp (ed.), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Cavana R.Y., Delahaye B. L. & Sekaran U. (2007). Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Brisbane: Wiley. Castles, S., Clearing House on Migration Issues (CHOMI), and Institute for Immigration and Ethnic Studies. (1987). A new agenda in multiculturalism? Richmond, Vic: Clearing House on Migration Issues. COASIT. (2006 ca.). Fact sheet Italian migration 1945-1970. Retrieved from http://www.coasit.com.au/IHS/facts/pdf/Italian_-migration_1945_1970.pdf COASIT. (2009). Fact sheet: Statistics on Italians in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/doc-/Stats_Italians_Australia.pdf Collis, B. (1989) Snowy. Sydney: Hodder and Stoughton. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dalla Bernadina G., Grigoletti G., & Pianelli S. (2013). Australia solo andata, 2013, Rapporto Italiani in Australia 2013 [Australia solo andata, 2013, Report on Italians in Australia]. Retrieved from www.australiasoloandata.com

131

Department of Immigration and Border Protection. (2014a). Australia’s Migration Trends 2013–14. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/migration-trends1314.pdf Department of Immigration and Border Protection. (2014b). The People of Australia Statistics from the 2011 Census. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/research/people-australia-2013statistics.pdf Department of Immigration and Border Protection. (2015a). Annual Reports. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/reports/annual Department of Immigration and Border Protection. (2015b). Historical migration statistics. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/research-statistics/statistics/live-inaustralia/historical-migration-statistics Department of Immigration and Border Protection. (2015c). A history of the Department of Immigration: managing migration to Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Immigration and Border Protection. (2015d). Migration programme statistics. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/research-statistics/statistics/study-in-australia Department of Immigration and Border Protection. (2015e). Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) Programme. Retrieved from http://data.gov.au/dataset/visa-temporary-work-skilled Department of Immigration and Border Protection. (2015f). Working Holiday Maker visa programme report 30 June 2015. Retrieved from http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/working-holiday-reportjune15.pdf Department of Immigration and Border Protection. (2016a). Overseas Arrivals and Departures. Retrieved from https://data.gov.au/dataset/overseas-arrivals-and-departures Department of Immigration and Border Protection. (2016b). Study in Australia – Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/research-statistics/statistics/study-in-australia Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2008). The People of Australia: Statistics from the 2006 Census. Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2014/poa-2008.pdf Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2010a). Population flows: Immigration aspects 2008–2009 edition. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20140213055035/https://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/po pflows2008-09/pop-flows.pdf; Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2010b). Report on Migration Program 2009-10: Program Year to 30 June 2010. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/report-on-migration-program2009-10.pdf Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2011a). Community information Summary – Italy born. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2011b). Population flows: Immigration aspects 2009–2010 edition. Retrieved from

132

http://web.archive.org/web/20140213054855/https://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/po pflows2009-10/pop-flows.pdf Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2011c). 2010-11 Migration Program Report: Program Year to 30 June 2011. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/report-on-migration-program2010-11.pdf; Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2011d). Working Holiday Maker visa program report 30 June 2011. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/working-holiday-reportjun11.pdf Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2012). 2011–12 Migration Program Report: Program year to 30 June 2012. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/report-on-migration-program2011-12.pdf Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2013a). 2012–13 Migration Program Report: Program year to 30 June 2013. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/report-on-migration-program2012-13.pdf Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2013b). Migration to Australia’s States and Territories 2011-2012. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/migrationaustralia-states-territories-2011-12.pdf Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2014). Community Information Summary Italy-born: Historical Background. Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/-documents/02_2014/italy.pdf Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. (2006). Annual Report 2005–06. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/annual-reports/diac-annual-report-200506-full-version.pdf Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. (2003). The People of Australia: Statistics from the 2001 Census. Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2014/poa-2003.pdf Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. (2005a). Table: Student Visa Grants by Citizenship 2002-03 to 2004-05. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004_07/ migration/qon/11oct_dimia_studentvisa_att_xls.ashx Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. (2005b). 2004–05 Annual Report. Retrieved from https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/annual-reports/diacannual-report-2004-05-full-version.pdf Ferguson, A., & Toft, K. (2015, September 30). 7-Eleven: The Price of Convenience. ABC. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/08/30/4301164.htm FocusEconomics. (2016, May 3). Italy Economic Outlook. Retrieved from http://www.focuseconomics.com/countries/italy

133

Gallo, G. and Tintori, G. (2006). Come si diventa cittadini italiani. Un approfondimento statistico [How to become Italian citizens: A statistical analysis]. In Zincone, G. (ed.) Familismo legale – Come (non) diventare italiani. Roma-Bari: Editori Laterza. Ginsborg, P. (1988). History of Contemporary Italy, 1943-1988. UK: Penguin Books. Gobbo J., (2010). Something to declare: a memoir. Melbourne: The Miegunyah Press. Grigoletti, M. & Pianelli, S. (2014). Rapporto Italiani in Australia 2014. Australia Solo Andata. Retrieved from http://www.australiasoloandata.it/_assets/rapporto-italiani-2014.pdf Grigoletti, M. & Pianelli, S. (2016). Giovani italiani in Australia: Un 'viaggio' da temporaneo a permanente. Todi: Tau Editrice. Interact. (n.d.). The Interact project. Retrieved from http://interact-project.eu/ Italian Historical Society, (1988). Fact sheet Statistics on Italians in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.museoitaliano.com.au/italian-historical-society Italian Historical Society, (1988). Fact sheet Statistics on Italians in Australia, http://www.museoitaliano.com.au/italian-historical-society, accessed 15 May 2016. Jordens, A. (2001). Post-war non-British Migration. In Jupp, J. (ed.) The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 271-330). Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications. Marchese, D. (2014, November 28). Economic devastation in Europe prompts new wave of Italian migration to Australia. ABC. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-28/economic-disaster-promptsspike-in-italian-migration-to-australi/5927386 Mares P. (2016, January 6). Australia has brought out things about myself that I thought wouldn’t exist. Inside Story. Retrieved from http://insidestory.org.au/australia-has-brought-out-things-about-myself-that-ithought-wouldnt-exist Mascitelli B. (2015). Italy and Australia: a relationship made and unmade by immigration. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 69(3), 339-355. Mascitelli B, Steele R. & Battiston S. (2010). The Italian expatriate vote: Was it worth it? Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Mayne A. (1997). Reluctant Italians? One hundred years of the Dante Alighieri Society of Melbourne. Melbourne: Dante Alighieri Society. McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary research in education, history and the social sciences. London and NY: Routledge Falmer. Nebiler, M. (2013). The role of sending countries in the labor market assimilation of immigrants in host countries. Retrieved from http://interact-project.eu/docs/publications/Research%20Report/INTERACTRR-2013-06.pdf Narayanasamy, N. (2009). Participatory Rural Appraisal: Principles, Methods and Application. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications India. Parliament of Australia. (2016). A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders. Retrieved from

134

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/temp orary_work_visa/Report Pascoe R. (1987). Buongiorno Australia: Our Italian heritage. Richmond, Vic: Greenhouse Publications. Phillips, J., Klapdor, M. & Simon-Davies, J. (2010). Migration to Australia since Federation: a guide to the statistics. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/migrationpopulation.pdf Price, C. (1963). Southern Europeans in Australia. Melbourne, London: Oxford University Press. Rando, G. (1973). L'italiano parlato in Australia [Italian spoken language in Australia]. Il Veltro, 17(2-3): 247252. SB. (2016, April 25). Giovani italiani in Australia [Italian youth in Australia]. Il Globo, p. 34. SB. (2016, May 6). L’antidoto allo sfruttamento [Antitode to exploitation]. Il Globo, p. 42. Van Slyke, C. (Ed.). (2008). Information Communication Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (Vol. 2). IGI Global. Ware, H. (1981). A profile of the Italian community in Australia. Carlton, Vic: COASIT and Citadel Press. Wilton, J. and Bosworth, R. J. B. (1984). Old Worlds and New Australia: The Post-war Migrant Experience. Ringwood. Vic: Penguin Australia. WWOOF Australia. (n.d.). WWOOF Visa Info. Retrieved from http://www.wwoof.com.au/wwoofers/visa-info

135

APPENDICES

ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES 2004-2015

136

872,062 291,388 111,009 77,551 92,949 151,054 238,246 55,756 76,255 110,331 … 17,752,807

England New Zealand China India Philippines Vietnam Italy South Africa Malaysia Germany … Total Population

% of population

4.9% 1.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 1.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% …

847,365 355,765 142,780 95,452 103,942 154,830 218,718 79,425 78,858 108,219 … 18,769,271

137

Vietnam

England

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

Italy

Census 2001

New Zealand

Census 1996

South Africa

China

Census

Census 2006

Malaysia

India

Census 2011

Germany

Philippines

104

911,592 483,396 318,969 295,363 171,233 185,039 185,401 145,683 116,196 108,003 … 21,507,719

4.2% 2.2% 1.5% 1.4% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% …

1,207,000 611,400 481,800 432,700 236,400 230,200 198,200 178,700 156,500 125,900 … 23,714,300

2015 (estimated resident population) 5.1% 2.6% 2% 1.8% 1% 1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% …

+32.4% +26.5% +51% +46.5% +38.1% +24.4% + 6.9% +22.7% +34.7% +16.6%

% Change from Census 2011

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

611,400

1,207,000

481,800

236,400 230,200 198,200

Countries

432,700 178,700 156,500

125,900

O v ersea s resident po pula t io n in Aust ra lia t o p 1 0 so urce co unt ries 2 0 1 5

4.3% 2% 1% 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% …

Figure 4.2

856,940 389,464 206,588 147,105 120,540 159,850 199,124 104,133 92,334 106,524 … 19,855,287

2015 (estimated)

O v ersea s resident po pula t io n in Aust ra lia t o p 1 0 so urce co unt ries 1 9 9 6 - 2 0 1 5

1400000

Figure 4.1

4.5% 1.9% 0.8% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% …

Overseas resident population in Australia top 10 source countries Census Census Census 2001 2006 2011 % of population

Source: ABS (2015); DIAC (2008); DIBP (2014b); DIMIA (2003)

Census 1996

Birthplace

Table 4.1: Australia main overseas birthplaces % of population

Numbers

% of population

Numbers

% of population

138

20

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Overseas Born (OSB).

Numbers

Figure 4.3

1996

WA

NSW

2001

TAS

VIC

Census ACT

QLD

2006

NT

SA

2011

105

It a lia n O v ersea s- bo rn po pula t io n by St a t es a nd Territ o ries a nd by census y ea r

NSW 66,090 27.7% 4.8% 60,628 27.7% 4.1% VIC 98,231 41.2% 9.5% 90,788 41.5% 8.3% QLD 17,138 7.2% 3.1% 15,197 6.9% 2.5% SA 27,219 11.4% 9% 25,047 11.5% 8.4% WA 25,124 10.5% 5.3% 23,062 10.5% 4.6% TAS 1,233 0.5% 2.6% 1,126 0.5% 2.4% ACT 2,580 1.2% 3.9% 2,345 1.1% 3.5% NT 631 0.3% 2.2% 519 0.3% 1.9% Total Italian OSB 238,246 6.1% 218,712 5.3% Total OSB 3,901,882 4,105,670 Source: ABS (2000, 2004); COASIT (2009); DIAC (2011b, 2014); DIBP (2014b); DIMIA (2003)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Figure 4.4

3.5% 7.1% 2% 7.3% 3.9% 2% 3.1% 1.7% 4.5%

51,626 27.8% 76,909 41.5% 13,231 7.1% 20,708 11.2% 19,477 10.5% 966 0.5% 2,037 1.2% 447 0.2% 185,401 5,290,436

2011 Census and % Italian OSB

NSW

51,626

VIC

76,909

QLD

13,231

WA

States/Territories

SA

20,708 19,477

TAS

966

ACT

2,037

NT

447

% of Italian OSB State population 2.9% 5.5% 1.5% 5.9% 2.8% 1.7% 2.4% 1.3% 3.5%

It a lia n O v ersea s- bo rn po pula t io n by St a t es a nd Territ o ries 2 0 1 1 Census

55,196 27.7% 82,843 41.6% 14,000 7% 22,492 11.3% 20,920 10.5% 1,022 0.5% 2,205 1.2% 446 0.2% 199,124 4,416,020

Table 4.2: Italian overseas-born population by States and Territories Italian Overseas-born population: Migration flows to the States and Territories States/territories 1996 Census and % of Italian OSB 2001 Census and % of Italian OSB 2006 Census and % of Italian OSB % Italian OSB20 State population % Italian OSB State population % Italian OSB State population

Numbers

139

782,930

1,117,342

552,539

37,303

89,592

79,710

Scottish

German

Chinese

Greek

Dutch



5,962

Total 14,321,443 responses Source: DIBP (2014d)



Indian

312,402

1,489,170

Irish

Italian

5,485,168

4,318,269

Both parents Australian born

Australian

English

Ancestry

2,200,798

61,486



111,479

56,533

147,050

66,926

213,731

91,695

68,649

103,004

392,636

Both parents overseas (OS) born

4,352

150,952

3,636,295

80,675



52,108

14,865

33,550

105,738

242,044

212,158

1,156,018

2,302

30,949

520



1,203

478

1,441

811

1,363

1,107 8,588

106

429,823

2,067



3,335

2,890

809

9,863

19,894

27,598

121,475

581,606



215,766

6,023,278

107,386 …

113,889

634,293

308,600

151,581

299,754

262,632

139,318

1,067,600



Ancestry by Birthplace of Parent(s) 2011 Census Australian Born Overseas Born One parent OS One parent OS Other born/one born/one parent parent not Australian stated born 1,015,051 7,574 105,977 1,299,416

786,766

Table 4.4: Top 10 ancestry by birthplace of parent(s) 2011 Census

Source: DIBP (2014d)

1,255,182

2,936 …

6,024

9,195

3,254

10,758

11,810

19,999

25,835

88,942

99,425

Birthplace not stated

122,724



915,551

334,780 …

377,630

390,501

865,722

898,216

1,792,091

2,087,149

7,098,277

7,238,348

Total

239,943

3.3%

1.2% …

1.4%

3.1% 1.4%

3.2%

6.4%

7.5%

25.4%

% of Total responses

25.9%

1,712,584





Total



597



3,794



1,955

12,740

2,881

159,572

Italy

3,870

Not stated

Table 4.3: Italian overseas-born population by year of arrival Italian Overseas-born population by year of arrival: Australia 2011 Census Before 1981 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011

4.3%

1.6% ...

1.8%

4.0% 1.8%

4.2%

8.3%

9.7%

33.0%

33.7%

% of Australian population

5,294,153



185,409

Total

140

Both parents Australian born 10,590,661 11,646 5,602 472 805 346 413 512 559 792 10,757,093

English Mandarin Italian Arabic Cantonese Greek Vietnamese Spanish Hindi Tagalog Total Source: DIBP (2014d)

Language

15,581,333 220,603 316,893 243,665 244,557 252,227 194,852 98,003 70,008 53,286 19,855,294

2006 Census 78.5% 1.1% 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 0.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3%

% of Population

Table 4.6: Top 10 languages spoken at home 2006 to 2011

Australia England New Zealand China India Italy Vietnam Philippines South Africa Scotland Total Source: DIBP (2014d)

Birthplace

107

16,509,292 336,409 299,833 287,175 263,674 252,217 233,390 117,498 111,351 81,457 21,507,719

Languages spoken at home 2011 Census 76.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4%

% of Population

Birthplace by birthplace of parents 2011 Census Both parents overseas One parent OS born/one One parent OS born/one (OS) born parent Australian born parent not stated 1,807,091 2,236,554 28,734 850,861 35,104 6,218 436,963 29,605 4,679 311,922 1,034 3,011 287,921 1,344 3,119 178,141 1,813 2,176 177,967 812 2,490 163,550 3,206 2,163 140,607 2,769 1,031 127,174 3,296 941 6,876,580 2,396,482 83,004

Table 4.5: Top 10 birthplace by birthplace of parents 2011 Census

927,959 115,806 -17,060 43,510 19,117 -10 38,538 19,495 41,343 28,171 1,652,425

Change 2006-2011

358,516 7,767 6,549 2,534 2,172 2,928 3,356 1,804 721 1,227 1,394,560

Other

6.0% 52.5% -5.4% 17.9% 7.8% 0.0% 19.8% 19.9% 59.1% 52.9% 8.3%

% Change 2006-2011

15,021,556 911,596 483,39 318,973 295,361 185,404 185,038 171,235 145,687 133,430 21,507,719

Total

141

335,908

947,484

458,549

230,651

119,939

717,016

214,078

262,450

174,325

118,587

114,603

124,762

76,991

115,121

45,903

77,521

59,857

71,007

68,879

...

5,633,936

China

UK

USA

Malaysia

India

Japan

Singapore

South Korea

Germany

Indonesia

France

Canada

Hong Kong

Taiwan

Philippines

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

South Africa

...

Total

Source: DIBP (2016a)

1,300,305

New Zealand

2004-2005

5,719,083

...

74,735

72,923

61,371

82,655

52,208

110,556

88,601

130,082

123,924

118,486

183,180

272,818

191,526

694,062

150,196

216,562

467,146

964,153

358,262

1,305,637

2005-2006

5,900,290

...

80,384

76,030

65,229

86,604

62,598

101,955

88,049

134,403

133,684

123,463

186,654

303,568

190,854

629,082

180,541

222,622

472,909

995,194

417,976

1,348,491

2006-2007

5,944,707

...

86,792

79,194

66,063

94,590

70,850

93,663

85,083

147,140

146,089

130,456

193,958

271,145

190,890

542,652

220,627

236,241

468,330

957,231

471,578

1,392,135

2007-2008

5,919,234

...

91,566

77,881

75,164

96,055

80,434

102,906

91,697

148,028

164,224

137,858

199,312

228,626

193,471

427,717

264,473

274,969

469,247

921,600

471,733

1,402,273

2008-2009

108

6,080,736

...

87,323

81,678

72,545

89,649

83,235

97,982

93,296

152,295

175,912

160,755

208,710

232,656

199,643

389,185

256,904

298,585

505,973

928,693

522,867

1,442,850

2009-2010

... 6,577,398

6,342,633

92,400

...

86,567

80,010

76,592

73,102 81,323

119,540

102,997

101,971

102,949

151,792

172,980

184,301

200,958

235,918

212,090

378,463

294,683

332,305

489,212

900,280

730,169

1,617,788

2011-2012

96,415

90,995

91,466

99,687

150,504

173,452

174,410

206,595

240,782

213,775

392,012

266,266

330,143

486,859

916,707

636,997

1,534,576

2010-2011

Arrivals by Country of Birth 2004-2015

Table 4.7: Overseas arrivals to Australia top 20 source countries 2004-2005 to 2014-15

6,916,735

...

83,707

79,070

88,597

123,927

113,675

116,773

116,705

152,638

173,292

187,533

208,684

232,228

246,684

375,778

324,630

360,921

507,397

920,186

851,553

1,652,757

2012-2013

7,387,955

...

74,791

80,871

95,592

123,405

122,011

127,939

138,369

160,115

186,901

198,498

223,754

235,468

285,452

368,542

364,585

432,623

546,872

955,215

958,083

1,708,869

2013-2014

7,747,641

...

72,567

80,595

96,104

118,311

130,223

132,948

149,560

163,505

199,004

201,204

229,731

247,044

287,919

366,100

407,056

452,899

577,522

945,176

1,145,067

1,745,106

2014-2015

2.6%

...

-3%

-0.3%

0.5%

-4.1%

6.7%

3.9%

8.1%

2.1%

6.5%

1.4%

2.7%

4.9%

0.9%

-0.7%

11.6%

4.7%

5.6%

-1.1%

19.6%

2.1%

% Change from 2013-14

70,170,348

...

899,711

860,582

830,216

1,108,672

955,129

1,193,280

1,130,987

1,615,264

1,764,065

1,735,551

2,215,861

2,762,703

2,426,382

5,280,609

2,849,900

3,388,521

5,450,016

10,351,919

6,900,193

16,450,787

Total 200415

142

60,987

...

5,603,686

459,133

227,963

104,501

717,452

213,747

253,610

173,015

120,881

113,012

123,677

75,154

114,408

40,671

76,579

58,999

70,508

64,218

...

5,550,831

USA

Malaysia

India

Japan

Singapore

South Korea

Germany

Indonesia

France

Canada

Hong Kong

Taiwan

Philippines

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

South Africa

...

Total

Source: DIBP (2016a)

81,212

934,502

UK

68,235

72,108

44,072

108,915

87,897

128,812

122,416

119,505

183,090

263,904

191,007

693,039

127,149

212,781

469,142

944,119

340,437

320,891

China

1,284,859

1,287,910

2005-2006

New Zealand

2004-2005

5,726,325

...

72,818

75,310

64,081

84,248

52,036

100,458

85,656

133,548

131,483

121,626

183,273

293,097

191,365

631,705

140,743

216,371

473,611

969,045

391,143

1,314,708

2006-2007

5,753,733

...

77,425

77,848

65,318

89,990

58,646

88,837

81,758

144,633

143,408

128,308

191,742

264,634

190,984

545,137

168,259

228,438

472,475

929,172

436,885

1,369,836

2007-2008

5,727,619

...

80,091

78,153

73,995

90,038

68,693

100,833

89,421

147,620

161,104

134,652

199,223

220,457

193,765

430,664

203,637

269,366

469,011

895,559

443,153

1,378,184

2008-2009

109

5,983,403

...

82,303

82,126

71,300

88,599

74,569

96,366

90,862

152,906

174,542

158,447

209,097

232,564

198,078

389,910

232,665

294,879

509,207

918,493

499,405

1,427,085

2009-2010

6,246,122

...

82,874

80,982

72,070

86,929

81,346

88,574

98,388

150,250

173,121

173,144

207,674

242,677

214,269

393,801

259,854

326,951

488,655

900,890

619,720

1,503,953

2010-2011

6,429,200

...

87,227

79,662

73,468

106,140

90,163

94,857

100,652

150,690

171,491

183,902

202,533

233,515

210,726

379,108

277,301

328,113

490,138

874,476

718,299

1,576,739

2011-2012

Departures by Country of Birth 2004-2015

Table 4.8: Overseas departures to Australia top 20 source countries 2004-2005 to 2014-15

6,780,661

...

79,765

79,037

83,176

116,770

100,916

106,927

113,045

154,077

169,875

187,458

208,089

228,683

248,004

376,747

301,168

357,942

515,539

882,864

838,364

1,632,215

2012-2013

7,323951

...

72,591

80,835

91,990

129,694

109,844

127,989

136,110

159,910

185,881

198,193

224,497

240,088

286,633

369,240

327,948

430,987

551,123

963,191

933,076

1,704,131

2013-2014

7,647,270

...

69,508

79,976

94,644

122,544

118,248

133,665

149,055

162,869

198,641

199,162

228,014

244,415

287,521

367,425

364,625

447,995

576,872

936,680

1,119,755

1,745,656

2014-2015

2.1%

...

-4.2%

-1.1%

2.9%

-5.5%

7.7%

4.4%

9.5%

1.9%

6.9%

0.5%

1.6%

1.8%

0.3%

-0.5%

11.2%

3.9%

4.7%

-2.8%

20%

2.4%

% Change from 2013-14

68,772,801

...

837,055

856,545

810,028

1,072,743

839,204

1,161,829

1,107,998

1,608,992

1,744,974

1,725,278

2,210,247

2,717,644

2,426,099

5,294,228

2,507,850

3,341,786

5,474,906

10,148,991

6,661,128

16,225,276

Total 200415

Overseas arrivals and departures top 20 source countries 2004-2005 to 2014-15 Figure 4.5 Overseas arrivals top 20 source countries Trend 2004-2015 New Zealand

China

UK

USA

Malaysia

India

Japan

Singapore

South Korea

Germany

Indonesia

France

Canada

Hong Kong

Tawain

Philippines

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

South Africa

9,000,000 8,000,000

Numbers

7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Year

Figure 4.6 Overseas departures top 20 source countries Trend 2004-2015 New Zealand

China

UK

USA

Malaysia

India

Japan

Singapore

South Korea

Germany

Indonesia

France

Canada

Hong Kong

Tawain

Philippines

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

South Africa

9,000,000

Numbers

8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Year

110

143

144

115,397

12,982

5,232

4,661

2,688

8,840

942

713

1,837

858

1,591

-2,294

1,085

1,310

499

331

-436

-584

83,105

UK

Philippines

South Africa

Malaysia

South Korea

Ireland

Taiwan

Hong Kong

Italy

France

Indonesia

Canada

Germany

Netherlands

Singapore

Japan

USA

Total

Source: DIBP (2016a)

-1,996

12,395

New Zealand

1,023

519

815

90

1,270

-1,019

1,508

384

704

1,641

1,443

8,914

3,781

6,500

8,136

20,034

20,778

17,825

15,017

China

23,047

15,438

2005-2006

India

2004-2005

173,965

-702

-2,623

-511

720

3,381

855

1,837

190,974

-4,145

-2,485

-94

1,346

2,216

2,507

2,148

2,681

745

1,148

2,201

3,325

4,826

4,600

6,511

7,803

9,367

12,204

28,059

22,299

34,693

52,368

2007-2008

2,393

1,497

2,356

10,471

6,251

7,566

10,562

26,149

33,783

26,833

39,798

2006-2007

191,615

236

-2,947

-294

-272

89

408

3,206

3,120

1,169

2,276

2,073

6,017

8,169

5,603

11,475

11,741

26,041

24,089

28,580

60,836

2008-2009

111

97,333

-3,234

-725

1,565

-448

-387

-611

2,308

1,370

1,245

2,434

1,616

1,050

92

3,706

5,020

8,666

10,200

15,765

23,462

24,239

2009-2010

96,511

-1,796

-1,789

-494

341

-1,079

254

1,266

331

1,032

1,299

2,892

9,486

-1,895

3,192

3,693

9,649

15,817

30,623

17,277

6,412

2010-2011

Net migration by Country of Birth 2004-2015

Table 4.9: Net migration top 20 source countries 2004-2005 to 2014-2015

148,198

-926

-645

1,364

348

-1,575

1,102

399

1,489

3,124

2,297

7,114

13,400

2,403

4,192

5,173

12,834

25,804

41,049

11,870

17,382

2011-2012

136,074

-8,142

-969

-1,320

33

595

-1,439

75

3,417

5,421

3,660

9,846

7,157

3,545

2,979

3,942

12,759

37,322

20,542

13,189

23,462

2012-2013

57,184

-4,251

-698

-1,181

36

-743

205

305

1,020

3,602

2,259

-50

-6,289

-4,620

1,636

2,200

12,167

-7,976

4,738

25,007

36,637

2013-2014

100,371

650

-1,325

398

619

1,717

636

2,042

363

1,460

505

-717

-4,233

2,629

4,904

3,059

11,975

8,496

-550

25,312

42,431

2014-2015

1,397,547

-24,890

-13,619

283

4,037

5,614

6,272

10,273

19,091

20,188

22,989

31,451

35,929

45,059

46,735

62,656

115,925

202,928

225,511

239,065

342,050

Total 2004-15

Table 4.10: Total net migration top 20 source countries 2004-2005 to 2014-15 Total Net Migration by Country of Birth 2004-2015

India China New Zealand UK Philippines South Africa Malaysia South Korea Ireland Taiwan Hong Kong

Source: DIBP (2016a)

Italy France Indonesia Canada Germany Netherlands Singapore Japan USA

342,050 239,065 225,511 202,928 115,925 55,836 46,735 45,059 35,929 31,451 22,989 20,188 19,091 10,273 6,272 5,614 4,037 283 -13,619 -24,890

Figure 4.7 Net migration top 20 source countries 2004-2005 to 2014-15 400000 350000 300000

Numbers

250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 -50000 Countries

112

145

199

Settler arrival

59,857

52,369

Short-term visitor departure

118,856

58,999

6,066

122,358

60,987

54,563

5,884

32

449

59

61,371

53,915

5,630

188

1,548

90

20052006

129,310

64,081

57,534

5,908

43

520

76

65,229

57,505

5,717

212

1,686

109

20062007

131,381

65,318

58,529

6,060

37

615

77

66,063

57,920

5,915

217

1,921

90

20072008

75,164

149,159

73,995

67,115

5,995

32

788

65

143,845

71,300

63,496

6,719

38

949

98

72,545

62,981

6,480

269

2,731

84

20092010

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Departures

Financial Year Arrivals

113

150,060

73,468

64,695

7,303

34

1,385

51

76,592

64,854

7,189

341

4,129

79

20112012

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Figure 4.9

145,172

72,070

63,801

7,015

42

1,145

67

73,102

62,876

6,653

221

3,265

87

20102011

190,748

94,644

81,865

8,697

46

3,979

57

96,104

80,795

8,380

250

91

6,588

20142015

1.7%

2.9%

1.4%

4.8%

4.5%

40%

-10.9%

0.5%

0.3%

3.2%

-18%

0.4%

% Change from 201314 -

100%

86.5%

9.1%

0.1%

4.2%

0.1%

100%

84.1%

8.7%

0.2%

6.9%

2014-15 as a % of Total 0.1%

384

1148

745

1169

1245

1032

3124

5421

100%

88.6%

9.4%

0.1%

1.8%

0.1%

100%

86.2%

8.8%

0.3%

4.6%

0.1%

3602

1460

1,640,244

810,028

718,001

75,867

443

15,006

711

830,216

714,986

73,247

2,746

38,239

998

Total by length of stay 2004-15

Financial Year

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

858

187,582

91,990

80,738

8,301

44

2,843

64

95,592

80,514

8,121

305

91

6,561

20132014

Net mig ra t io n It a lia n cit izens Trend 2 0 0 4 - 1 5

171,773

83,176

73,296

7,919

45

1,867

49

88,597

74,817

7,562

318

90

5,810

20122013

Italian Citizens in Australia 2004-2015

66,619

5,714

226

2,526

79

20082009

It a lia n Cit izens by Depa rt ures a nd Arriv a ls Trend 2 0 0 4 2015

120,000

Figure 4.8

Source: DIBP (2016a)

Grand Total

Total Departures

Short-term resident departure

Numbers

466

50

Resident permanent departure

Long-term visitor departure

48

Long-term resident departure

52,190

Total Arrivals

Short-term visitor arrival

5,886

Short-term resident return

1,474

108

Long-term visitor arrival

Long-term resident return

Length of residence

20042005

Table 4.11: Summary of total movement for Italian citizens in Australia 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Numbers

146

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Figure 4.10

384

858

-648

-254

-179 1,148

-29

-191

169

1,166

33

2006-2007

745

-609

-145

180

1,306

13

2007-2008

1,169

-496

-281

NetLong-term visitor

Net Short-term visitor

Net Long-term resident

Net Short-term resident

Financial Year

194

1,738

14

2008-2009

Net Resident/Settler

114

1,245

-515

-239

231

1,782

-14

1,032

-925

-362

179

2,120

20

2010-2011

Net Short-term resident

-3,015

-5000

Net Long-term resident

Net Long-term visitor

Net Resident/Settler

-2,620

5,421

1,521

-357

273

3,943

41

2012-2013

3,602

-224

-180

261

3,718

27

2013-2014

1,460

-1,070

-317

204

2,609

34

2014-2015

-59.5%

-477.7

-176.1%

-21.8%

-29.8%

% Change from 2013-14 25.9%

0

287

5000

2,303

Numbers

10000

15000

20000

Net mig ra t io n It a lia n Cit izens by Lo ng /sho rt t erm Resident s/ Vi sit o rs To t a l 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1 5

3,124

159

-114

307

2,744

28

2011-2012

Net Short-term visitor

Figure 4.11

2009-2010

Italian Citizens in Australia 2004-2015 (NET)

Net mig ra t io n It a lia n Cit izens by Lo ng /sho rt t erm Resident s/ Vi sit o rs Trend 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1 5

Source: DIBP (2016a)

Net

Net Short-term visitor

Net Short-term resident

156

1,099

31

2005-2006

-180

149

Numbers

1,008

Net Resident/Settler

Net Long-term visitor

60

2004-2005

Net Long-term resident

Length of residence

Table 4.12: Net migration Italian citizens by long/short term residents/visitors in Australia 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Length of residence

147

25000

23,233

20,188

-3,015

-2,620

2,303

23,233

287

Total 2004-15

148

84

146

83

139

0

651 eVisitor

59,857

0

61,371

8,186

48,338 65,229

8,254

50,496

0

628

212

141

272

107

1,555

3,564

20062007

66,063

8,374

50,431

0

722

250

209

207

161

1,751

3,958

20072008

0

651 eVisitor

Source: DIBP (2016a)

Total

Other

601 Electronic Travel Authority

60,987

8,154

58,999

8,458

47,684

46,216

0

1,098

212

1,414

262

600 Visitor

98

119

213

101

1,184

2,243

20052006

572 Vocational, Education and Training Sector 573 Higher Education Sector

174

84

868

570 Independent ELICOS Sector 571 School Section

457 Business Long Stay

1,404

20042005

417 Working Holiday Visa

Visa Category

64,081

8,086

49,920

0

250

1,017

158

212

149

1,261

3,028

20062007

65,318

8,415

49,294

0

249

1,281

221

259

116

1,848

3,635

20072008

Table 4.14: Italian departures by visa category 2004-2005 to 2014-15

8,299

Total

Other

47,557

601 Electronic Travel Authority

511

164

252

483

123

149

600 Visitor

1,064

2,755

20052006

1,089

1,806

20042005

457 Business Long Stay 570 Independent ELICOS Sector 571 School Section 572 Vocational, Education and Training Sector 573 Higher Education Sector

417 Working Holiday Visa

Visa Category

Table 4.13: Italian arrivals by visa category 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Italian Arrivals and Departures by Visa category 2004-2005 to 2014-15

73,995

8,819

52,844

4,163

291

1,144

352

174

170

1,963

4,075

20082009

71,300

9,613

40,572

10,689

326

1,322

439

244

363

2,359

5,373

20092010

72,545

9,379

41,429

10,949

775

366

359

269

198

2,442

6,379

20092010

115

72,070

9,899

38,866

11,658

345

1,677

636

287

282

2,405

6,015

20102011

73,102

9,699

38,667

11,898

1,004

300

522

313

329

2,807

7,563

20102011

73,468

10,477

36,319

12,966

355

1,843

655

343

484

3,079

6,947

20112012

76,592

10,518

36,296

12,864

1,555

349

609

294

452

3,570

10,085

20112012

83,176

11,325

35,294

16,799

336

2,660

402 697

469

4,303

10,891

20122013

88,597

10,748

35,921

16,695

2,168

344

742

471

574

4,910

20122013 16,024

Italian Departures by Visa category 2004-2015

75,164

8,643

53,054

4,364

669

231

282

233

201

2,348

5,139

20082009

Italian Arrivals by Visa category 2004-2015

91,990

12,766

34,675

19,689

258

1,639

377

1,307

710

5,252

15,317

20132014

95,592

12,300

35,531

19,587

1,237

340

1.241

413

967

5,391

18,585

20132014

5,498

94,644

14,219

32,275

21,178

579

1,244

501

2,234

1,099

15,817

20142015

96,104

13,521

31,796

23,236

816

467

1.891

274

1,083

5,710

17,310

20142015

4.7%

5.1%

11.4%

-6.9%

7.6%

-24.1%

124.4%

32.9%

70.9%

54.8%

% Change from 201314 3.3%

0.5%

9.9%

-10.5%

18.6%

-34%

37.3%

52.4%

-33.7%

12%

5.9%

% Change from 201314 -6.9%

0.8%

100%

15%

34.1%

22.4%

1.3%

0.6%

2.4%

0.5%

1.2%

5.8%

2014-15 as a % of Total 16.7%

100%

14.1%

33.1%

24.2%

0.5%

2%

0.3%

1.1%

5.9%

2014-15 as a % of Total 18%

10,568

810,028

110,231

463,959

97,142

3,463

16,339

6,916

3,186

4,027

30,020

74,745

Total 2004-15

830,216

107,921

469,516

99,593

3,144

6,123

3,162

4,344

32,637

93,168

Total 2004-15

1.4%

3.7%

13.7%

57.3%

12.0%

2.0%

0.4%

0.8%

0.4%

0.5%

% of Total 2004-15 9.2%

100%

13.0%

56.5%

12.0%

0.4%

0.7%

0.4%

0.5%

3.9%

% of Total 2004-15 11.2%

149

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Figure 4.12

2004-2005

Source: DIBP (2016a)

Visa Category 417 Working Holiday Visa 457 Business Long Stay 570 Indipendent ELICOS Sector 571 School Section 572 Vocational, Education and Training Sector 573 Higher Education Sector 600 Visitor 651 Evisitor 601 Electronic Travel Authority Other Total 168 1,148

576

-38 -389 0 -41 745

1,137

1 -559 0

-12

-52

45

2007-2008 323 -97

2008-2009 1,064 385

2009-2010 1,006 83

2010-2011 1,548 402

-176 1,169

210

-60 -475 201

-70

59

31

-234 1,245

857

40 -547 260

-80

25

-165

-200 1,032

-199

-45 -673 240

-114

26

47

651 Evisitor

116

572 Vocational, Education and Training Sector

2010-2011

600 Visitor

Financial Year

2009-2010

571 School Section

2008-2009

457 Business Long Stay

2007-2008

417 Working Holiday Visa

Other

41 3,124

-23

-6 -288 -102

-46

-49

-32

2011-2012 3,138 491

601 Electronic Travel Authority

573 Higher Education Sector

570 Indipendent ELICOS

2011-2012

-466 3,602

856

82 -402 -102

-66

36

257

-698 1,460

-479

-112 -428 2,058

-343

-227

-16

-2,310 20,188

-319 -5,771 2,451 5,557

-24 -753

18,423 2,617 317

Total

2014-2015

2014-2015 1,493 212

2013-2014

2013-2014 3,268 139

2012-2013

-577 5,421

627

8 -492 -104

45

69

105

2012-2013 5,133 607

Net It a lia n Depa rt ures a nd Arriv a ls by Visa ca t eg o r y Trend 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1 5

2006-2007

32 384

-159 858

2005-2006

654

1,341

-17

-14

-66 -587 0

-36

-49

78

-123 -931 0

60

22

65

-42

2005-2006 512 -120

2004-2005 402 221

2006-2007 536 294

Net Italian Departures and Arrivals by Visa category 2004-2015

Table 4.15: Net Italian departures and arrivals by visa category 2004-2015

NOM

2,243

20052006 2,755

3,028

20062007 3,564

4,075

20082009 5,139

Arrivals

6,015

623

639

20042005

Departures

5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

624

517

20052006

769

732

20062007

987

947

20082009

Arrivals

1550

1464

20102011 1837

1704

20112012

Departures

1372

1192

20092010

Financial Year

845

827

20072008 1904

2131

20122013 2652

2961

20132014 4,413

3,715

20142015

6,947 10,891 15,317 15,817

2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 20142011 2012 2013 2014 2015 7,563 10,085 16,024 18,585 17,310

Departures

5,373

20092010 6,379

Financial Year

3,635

20072008 3,958

Ar r ivals an d d ep ar tu r es Stu d en t Visas Tr en d 2004-15

Arrivals

Figure 4.15

Departures 1,404

Arrivals

20042005 1,806

Arriv a ls a nd depa rt ures 4 1 7 WH V Trend 2 0 0 4 - 1 5

20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Figure 4.13

NOM

NOM

117

868

20042005 1,089 1,184

20052006 1,064 1,261

20062007 1,555 1,963

20082009 2,348

Arrivals

2,405

20102011 2,807

Departures

2,359

20092010 2,442

Financial Year

1,848

20072008 1,751

3,079

20112012 3,570

4,303

20122013 4,910

20052006

20062007

20072008

20082009

20092010

20102011

20112012

20122013

20132014

20142015

5,498

20142015 5,710

48040 48849 51124 51153 58087 53153 51,569 50,715 54,784 56,355 55848

20042005

5,252

20132014 5,391

Arrivals

Financial Year Departures

Departures 47,630 48,782 50,937 50,575 58,151 52,583 52,201 51,128 54,753 56,003 54,697

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Ar r ivals an d d ep ar tu r es Visito r Visas Tr en d 2004-15

Arrivals

Figure 4.16

Departures

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Arriv a ls a nd depa rt ures 4 5 7 B usiness Lo ng St a y Tren d 2004-15

Arrivals

Figure 4.14

NOM NOM

150

30,805

25-44

Total

59,857

5,031

16,267

45-64

65+

5,887

15-24

7,246

65,229

20062007 2,250

20052006 2,013

5,515

16,381

33,780

20062007 2,307

61,371

5,255

15,111

32,304

6,584

20052006 2,117

7,222

66,063

5,721

16,250

34,377

20072008 2,493 12,626

75,164

5,753

16,944

37,364

20082009 2,477

30,761

25-44

58,999

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

64,081

15-24

113,493

Total Arrivals 2004-15

26,242

28,015

0-14

102,822

65,318

5,804

16,699

33,443

73,995

5,809

16,940

36,475

12,334

8,762

73,102

5,985

17,858

37,598

9,209

20102011 2,452

25-44 Age Group

71,300

5,775

17,442

37,276

8,421

20092010 2,386

65+

Total Departures 2004-15

45-64

76,592

6,058

17,855

39,424

10,728

20112012 2,527

88,597

6,761

19,304

45,179

14,488

20122013 2,865

95,592

7,896

20,641

48,683

15,345

20132014 3,027

72,070

6,553

17,501

37,364

8,111

20102011 2,541

83,176

6,967

19,624

42,312

11,804

20122013 2,469

118

Figure 4.18

73,468

6,632

18,045

37,595

9,089

20112012 2,107

9847

91,990

7,798

20,796

47,253

13,384

20132014 2,759

Italian Departures by Age group 2004-2015

72,545

6,165

17,369

37,560

20092010 2,689

It a lia n Arriv a ls a nd Depa rt ures by a g e g ro up 2 0 0 4 - 1 5

60,987

5,446

16,232

33,234

6,938

426,649

Figure 4.17

Source: DIBP (2016a)

5,462

15,473

31,670

6,919

416,802

Total

5,118

15,624

45-64

6,369

20082009 2,437

194,659

65+

5,655

15-24

20072008 2,434

195,060

0-14

20042005 1,841

Age Group

Table 4.17: Italian departures by age group 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Numbers

Italian Arrivals by Age group 2004-2015

67,400

0-14

20042005 1,867

Age Group

Table 4.16: Italian arrivals by age group 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Italian Arrivals and Departures by age group 2004-2005 to 2014-15

69,102

151

15,396

0.3%

2.9%

-0.8%

-0.5%

4.6%

3.1%

% Change from 2013-14 8.9%

0.5%

8.1%

0.2%

1.8%

% Change from 2013-14 5.5% 16%

100%

8.1%

21.9%

52.2%

14.6%

2014-15 as a % of Total 3.2%

100%

7.6%

21.5%

51.6%

2014-15 as a % of Total 3.3%

0-14

-401

15-24

25-44

-1702

45-64

1773

65+

113,493

10671

810,028

69,102

195,060

416,802

102,822

Total 200415 26,242

830,216

67,400

194,659

426,649

Total 200415 28,015

It a lia n NO M by a g e g ro up 2 0 0 4 - 1 5

94,644

7,738

20,684

49,419

13,798

20142015 3,005

96,104

7,260

20,679

49,575

20142015 3,194

100%

8.%

24.2%

51.4%

12.7%

% of Total 2004-15 3.2%

100%

8.1%

23.4%

51.4%

13.7%

% of Total 2004-15 3.4%

152

327

7,773

TAS

WA

59,857

0

15,613

61,371

0

7,557

15,418

246

2,668

6,864

1,127

65,229

0

8,295

16,427

445

3,070

7,094

1,329

738

27,831

20062007

66,063

7

9,293

16,459

280

3,153

8,037

1,114

598

27,122

20072008

75,164

28

9,112

17,935

257

3,000

8,611

1,545

869

33,807

20082009

72,545

0

9,587

18,634

342

3,483

8,288

1,249

660

30,302

20092010

415

TAS

58,999

1

6,317

14,022

2,897

Source: DIBP (2016a)

Total

Other

WA

VIC

SA

1,701

10,768

NT

QLD

516

60,987

0

6,384

14,077

342

3,055

11,380

1,690

23,543

460

22,418

20052006

20042005

NSW

ACT

States/Territories

64,081

0

6,895

15,164

370

2,991

11,488

2,042

627

24,504

20062007

65,318

15

7,719

14,887

373

2,734

12,397

2,025

448

24,720

20072008

73,995

14

7,688

14,794

369

3,117

11,494

1,907

582

34,030

20082009

20102011

20112012

20122013

20132014

20112012

76,592

2

10,949

20,661

298

2,841

8,862

1,127

740

31,112

20122013

88,597

0

12,633

24,536

353

3,375

10,885

1,097

769

34,949

20132014

95,592

9

14,054

25,954

375

4,387

11,222

1,010

895

37,686

71,300

0

8,836

16,601

337

3,009

12,445

1,751

570

27,751

20092010

72,070

1

8,775

17,170

510

3,333

12,024

1,717

631

27,909

119

73,468

1

9,349

17,628

405

3,145

11,633

1,633

588

29,086

83,176

0

11,028

20,509

430

3,413

12,908

1,558

706

32,624

91,990

0

13,181

22,924

533

4,052

13,216

1,431

777

35,876

Italian Departures by States and Territories 2004-2015 20102011

73,102

0

9,882

20,409

244

2,673

8,267

1,199

603

29,825

Italian Arrivals by States and Territories 2004-2015

Table 4.19: Italian departures by States and Territories 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Total

Other

VIC

2,865

1,061

6,313

SA

NT

QLD

561

26,930

569

25,336

20052006

20042005

NSW

ACT

States/Territories

Table 4.18: Italian arrivals by States and Territories 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Italian Arrivals and departures by States and Territories 2004-2005 to 2014-15

94,644

0

13,618

23,930

427

3,954

13,729

1,809

689

36,488

20142015

96,104

7

14,138

26,054

464

5,302

11,435

1,347

1,020

36,337

20142015

2.9%

-

3.3%

4.4%

-19.9%

-2.4%

3.9%

26.4%

1.7%

-11.3%

% Change from 2013-14

0.5%

-22%

0.6%

1.8%

23,7%

20.9%

1.9%

33.4%

14%

-3.6%

% Change from 2013-14

100%

14.5%

25.3%

0.4%

4.2%

14.5%

1.9%

38.5%

2014-15 as a % of Total 0.7%

100%

-

14.7%

27.1%

0.5%

5.5%

11.9%

1.4%

37.8%

2014-15 as a % of Total 1.1%

810,028

32

99,790

191,706

4,511

35,700

133,482

19,264

6,594

318,949

Total 200415

830,216

53

113,273

218,100

3,631

36,817

95,878

13,205

8,022

341,237

Total 200415

100%

0%

12.2%

23.7%

0.6%

4.4%

16.5%

2.4%

0.8%

39.4%

% of Total 2004-15

100%

0%

13.7%

26.3%

0.4%

4.4%

11.5%

1.6%

1.0%

41.1%

% of Total 2004-15

153

-88

TAS

858

0

1,457

1,592

-32

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Figure 4.19

Source: DIBP (2016a)

Grand Total

Other

WA

VIC

SA

-640

-4,456

NT

QLD

384

0

1,173

1,341

-96

-387

-4,516

-563

3,387

45

108

2, 917

2005-2006

2004-2005

NSW

ACT

State/Territory

745

-5

1,575

1,570

-94

419

-4,360

-912

2,402

150

2007-2008

1,169

14

1,425

3,141

-112

-117

-2,883

-362

-223

286

2008-2009

1,245

0

750

2,033

5

474

-4,159

-501

2,553

90

2009-2010

1,032

0

1,106

3,240

-266

-660

-3,756

-520

1,916

-28

2010-2011

3,124

0

1,601

3,033

-106

-304

-2,770

-506

2,025

151

2011-2012

5,421

0

1,605

4,027

-77

-38

-2,022

-461

2,324

63

2012-2013

3,602

7

875

3,030

-158

335

-1,994

-421

1,810

118

2013-2014

ACT

NSW

NT

QLD

120

SA

TAS

Financial Year VIC

WA

OTHER

Net M ig ra t io n It a lia n cit izens by St a t es a nd Territ o ries Trend 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1 5

1,148

0

1,400

1,263

74

79

-4,394

-712

3,327

111

2006-2007

Net Migration Italian citizens by States and Territories 2004-2015

Table 4.20: Net migration Italian citizens by States and Territories 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Numbers

1,460

7

520

2,124

35

1,348

-2,295

-461

-151

333

2014-2015

-59.5%

-

-40.6%

-29.9%

122.15%

402.4%

-15.1%

-9.5%

-108.34%

% Change from 201314 282.2%

20,188

23

13,487

26,394

-883

1,117

-37,605

-6,059

22,287

1,427

Total

25,190

61,371

59,857

36,181

35,297

24,560

20052006

20042005

65,229

26,729

38,500

20062007

66,063

26,584

39,479

20072008

Total

64,081

60,987

58,999

65,318

26,288

39,030

20072008

73,995

29,645

44,350

20082009

75,164

31,017

44,147

20082009

37,089

121

30,000

40,000

50,000

Male

Financial Year Female

0

34,966

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

30,427

38,480

0

26,584

29,833

46,165

10,000

26,729

29,789

43,269

60,000

70,000

10,000

25,190

31,017

42,756

91,990

35,612

56,378

20132014

95,592

58,503

37,089

20132014

94,644

37,388

57,256

20142015

96,104

57,624

38,480

20142015

100%

5%

2.9%

1.6%

2014-15 as a % of Total 60.5% 39.5%

100%

40%

2014-15 as a % of Total 60%

% Change from 2013-14

0.5%

3.7%

-1.5%

% Change from 2013-14

24,513

26,053

26,288

39,030 29,645

44,350

28,710

42,590

28,763

43,307

29,339

44,129 32,115

35,612

37,388

57,256

100%

39.8%

% of Total 2004-15 60.2%

100%

40.3%

% of Total 2004-15 59.7%

Financial Year Male

Female

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

23,725

36,474

38,028

51,061

56,378

810,028

322,151

487,877

Total 2004-15

830,216

495,552 334,664

Total 2004-15

It a lia n Depa rt ures by Gender Trend 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1 5

35,274

83,176

32,115

51,061

Figure 4.21

73,468

29,339

44,129

20122013

88,597

53,631

34,966

20,000

24,560

30,000

36,181

44,147

57,624

72,070

28,763

43,307

20112012

76,592

46,165

30,427

20122013

20,000

35,297

38,500

39,479

58,503

71,300

28,710

42,590

20102011

73,102

29,833

43,269

20112012

Italian Departures by Gender 2004-2015

20092010

72,545

29,789

20102011

Italian Arrivals by Gender 2004-2015

20092010 42,756

53,631

It a lia n Arriv a ls by Gender Trend 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1 5

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Figure 4.20

38,028

26,053

36,474

20062007

24,513

Source: DIBP (2016a)

Numbers

20052006

23,725

35,274

Male

Female

20042005

Gender

Table 4.22: Italian departures by gender 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Total

Female

Male

Gender

Table 4.21: Italian arrivals by gender 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Italian Arrivals and departures by Gender 2004-2005 to 2014-15

Numbers

154

APPENDICES

THE MIGRATION PROGRAM 2004-2015

155

156

21

14,526

2

120,064

450

77,878

4,821

1 November Onshore

Business Innovation and Investment

4,135

State/Territory Nominated Visa Classes

41,182

Skilled Australian

Skilled Independent

13,024

188

41,736

4,501

Employer Sponsored21

Distinguished Talent

Contributory Parent/Parent

142,933

306

97,336

7

5,060

8,024

19,062

49,858

99

15,226

45,291

4,501

1,869

2,547

36,374

2005-06

148,200

199

97,922

-

5,836

6,928

14,167

54,179

227

16,585

50,079

4,500

2,136

3,008

40,435

2006-07

158,630

220

108,540

2

6,565

7,530

14,579

55,891

211

23,762

49,870

4,499

2,378

3,062

39,931

2007-08

171,318

175

114,777

-

7,397

14,055

10,504

44,594

201

38,026

56,366

8,500

2,530

3,238

42,098

2008-09

168,623

501

107,868

1

6,789

18,889

3,688

37,315

199

40,987

60,254

9,487

2,468

3,544

44,755

2009-10

168,685

417

113,725

-

7,796

16,175

9,117

36,167

125

44,345

54,543

8,499

750

3,300

41,994

2010-11

184,998

639

125,755

-

7,202

22,247

11,800

37,772

180

46,554

58,604

8,502

1,252

3,700

45,150

2011-12

190,000

842

128,973

3

7,010

21,637

8,132

44,251

200

47,740

60,185

8,725

1,285

46,325

3,850

2012-13

123

The Employer Sponsored outcome is comprised of three components: Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS), Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) and Labour Agreement (LA).

Source: DIAC (2010a, 2010b, 2011c, 2012, 2013a); DIBP (2015b, 2015d)

Total

y

Eligibilit

Special

Total

Skill

Skill

Total

Family

1,686

Preferential/Other Family

2,491

33,058

Partner

Family

Child

2004-05

Category

Stream

Table 4.23: Australia’s Migration Program outcomes by eligibility category 2004–05 to 2014–15 (to 30 June)

190,000

338

128,550

-

6,160

24,656

5,100

44,984

200

47,450

61,112

8,925

585

3,850

47,752

2013-14

189,097

238

127,774

-

6,484

26,050

2800

43,990

200

48,250

61,085

8,675

450

4135

47,825

2014-15

1,832,548

4,325

1,229,098

15

71,120

170,326

113,475

490,183

2,030

381,949

599,125

79,314

17,389

2.0%

100%

0.2%

(67.1%)

-

3.9%

9.3%

6.3%

26.7%

0.1%

20.8%

(32.7%)

4.3%

0.9%

25.5%

2004-15

2015 36,725

Total

2004465,697

% of

Total

11,822 13,880 25,942 4,571 1,556 1,585 2,372 4,746 532 4,491 … 645 1,417 469 120,064

India China UK Philippines Pakistan Ireland Vietnam South Africa Nepal Malaysia … France Germany Italy Total

16,661 17,708 32,152 5,643 1,581 1,773 2,815 4,790 624 4,486 … 747 1,528 496 142,933

2005-06

19,505 20,729 31,401 6,280 1,688 1,850 3,478 5,284 713 4,654 … 766 1,670 497 148,200

2006-07 23,319 21,063 29,428 6,956 1,735 1,988 2,921 7,472 900 5,001 … 858 1,736 585 158,630

2007-08 25,042 21,831 30,590 9,001 2,051 2,500 3,285 11,729 968 5,029 … 1,003 2,029 719 171,318

2008-09

Numbers

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

23,162 24,764 25,737 10,160 1,603 3,041 3,950 11,081 1,248 5,220 … 1,179 2,046 707 168,623

2009-10 21,768 29,547 23,931 10,825 2,059 3,700 4,709 8,612 2,060 5,130 … 1,223 1,799 812 168,685

2010-11

India Pakistan Nepal

China Ireland Malaysia

UK Vietnam Italy

Financial Year Philippines South Africa

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014–15

M ig ra t io n Pro g ra m To p t en so urce co unt ries Trend 2 0 0 4 - 1 5

Figure 4.22

Source: DIBP (2015b); DIBP (personal communication, 27 June, 2016)

2004-05

Countries of migrant 40,051 27,334 21,711 10,639 3,552 5,209 5,339 5,476 4,103 5,151 … 1,518 1,842 1,026 190,000

2012-13

124

39,026 26,776 23,220 10,379 6,275 6,171 5,199 4,908 4,364 4,207 … 1,654 1,629 1,111 190,000

2013-14 34,874 27,872 21,078 11,886 8,281 6,187 5,100 4,284 4,130 3,977 … 1,608 1,497 1,371 189,097

2014–15

… -2.8% -8.1% 23.4%

% Change from 201314 -10.6% 4.1% -9.2 14.5% 32% 0.3% -1.9% -12.7% -5.4% -5.5% 284,246 257,012 290,463 99,272 34,676 38,942 43,941 76,022 22,110 52,854 … 12,603 19,097 8,711 1,832,548

18.4% 14.7% 11.1% 6.3% 4.4% 3.3% 2.7% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% … 0.8% 0.8% 0.7%

Total 2004-15

2014-15 as a % of Total

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

290,463 284,246 257,012

34,676 38,942 43,941

Source Countries

99,272

76,022 22,110

52,854

M ig ra t io n Pro g ra m: To p t en so urce co unt ries t o t a l 2004-15 300,000

Figure 4.23

29,016 25,508 25,273 12,932 4,295 4,938 4,773 7,640 2,468 5,508 … 1,402 1,904 918 184,998

2011-12

Table 4.24: Migration Program: Top ten source countries of migrants from 2004–05 to 2014–15

Numbers

157

8,711

... 0.7% 1.0% 0.5% 100%

15.5% 14.0% 15.8% 5.4% 1.9% 2.1% 2.4% 4.1% 1.2% 2.9%

% of Total 2004-15

24

23

22

14

n/a

496

469

n/a