Keywords

1 Introduction

Oceania refers to the agglomeration of Australia, New Zealand and proximate Pacific island nations. With a population of around 40 million, Australia and New Zealand constitute around 70% of the total (Worldometers 2016). The region is estimated to currently host approximately eight million international immigrants (International Organisation of Migration 2015), placing Oceania with the highest proportion of immigrants worldwide (Mohanty 2006). This migration balance is consistently positive, with more people entering the region than leaving. Oceania’s immigrant population is almost exclusively located in Australia and New Zealand—countries which offer attractive destination economies and opportunities for a certain lifestyle. This immigrant population includes interregional immigrants from Fiji and the other Pacific Island countries, as well as skilled immigrants from other global regions. The channel of migration between Australia and New Zealand is particularly large as a result of the geographic proximity, cultural similarities, and a shared history as part of the British Commonwealth. At the 2011 census, 483,398 New Zealand-born people, or 15% of the New Zealand population, were living in Australia (Australian Government: Department of Immigration and Border Protection 2013) and 62,712 Australia-born people were living in New Zealand in the 2013 census (Statistics New Zealand 2014a). According to the International Organisation of Migration (2015), the immigrant population of Australia was 28.22% of the total resident population—a total of 6,763,000 people. This proportion is higher than in other immigrant-receiving countries such as New Zealand (23.0%), Canada (21.8%), the United States (14.5%) and the United Kingdom (13.2%; International Organisation of Migration 2015). With the highest proportion of immigration in this region, it is vital to study the consequences of such trends and migration dynamics on the social and economic growth of Australia and New Zealand.

There are several parallels to be drawn between Australia and New Zealand. Both are settler societies with initial British populations who relied upon primary products for economic growth. Both had shared values, with heavy restrictions on immigration, whether embedded in law (Australia) or simply a preference (New Zealand), until World War II threatened the security of the nation and immigration was required to build population growth and accommodate an expanding labour market. In both countries, strict policies were abandoned in favour of non-discriminatory selection of potential immigrants based on the traits that they may contribute to their host country or their humanitarian considerations instead of selecting people based on their national origin or language spoken (Ongley and Pearson 1995). Differences include New Zealand’s limited relative proportion of refugee intake as part of both the total population and the immigration flows, and New Zealand supporting temporary migrants whereas Australia’s population building objectives favour permanent settlers (Ongley and Pearson 1995) although there is also a sizeable population of temporary migrants in the country. There are also differences in the treatment of the indigenous population, with New Zealand arguably recently providing more recognition of their indigenous heritage despite their initial treatment of the Maori population at the time of settlement.

In this chapter, we place a particular focus on interregional migration in Australia and New Zealand as these are the two most popular immigration destinations in the Oceanic region, and have been argued to share a labour market due to the similarities between the nations (Hugo et al. 2013). The chapter commences with an overview of the immigration history of Australia and New Zealand, before outlining more recent developments in migration policies and how this has been picked up in migration research that has examined the various drivers and consequences of these movements. We conclude with a discussion of the future challenges of interregional migration research in Oceania.

2 Australia’s Immigration History

Since white settlement in Australia in 1788, Australia’s population and economic growth has largely been driven by immigration. From 2006, immigration arrivals in Australia have contributed more to population growth each year than the rate of natural increase (ABS 2014). Australia’s population of 24 million people comes from over 200 countries, and almost half of the population have one or both parents that were born outside of Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016). Immigration in the early history of the country was designed to build the colony and to provide labour, while maintaining the perceived ideal of a white Australia policy that restricted immigration to those from Western Europe—primarily from the United Kingdom. More recently, although immigration still continues to constitute the majority of population growth, policies have targeted skill shortages, meaning that immigration is used as a tool to redress the imbalance between labour supply and demand. As such, changing patterns of migration have important consequences for the labour market and for the education and training sector as a major source of the skilled labour supply.

Early migration was to build the growth of the nation: both in terms of an increase in the population numbers, as well as an increase in labour to build infrastructure and the economic growth of the country. During the period of convict settlement in Australia between 1788 and 1850, European migration and population growth in Australia were low, with about 400,000 people of European descent recorded in 1850; 150,000 of whom were convicts (Burnley 2001). In the 1850s, the gold rushes in Victoria brought another 730,000 immigrants from the United Kingdom and Ireland, Germany, America and China (Burnley 2001). Between 1851 and 1890, a further 1.4 million immigrants from the United Kingdom and Ireland settled in Australia (Burnley 2001). The motivating factor for many was the premise of creating a better life for themselves and their children, as well as potential economic opportunities (Hitchcock 1990). By 1901, 98% of the population of Australia were white (Migration Heritage Centre 2010).

On 1 January 1901, the six British colonies united as the Commonwealth of Australia. Until this point, early immigration was almost entirely a white population from Western Europe, meaning that there was limited diversity of residents in Australia. Maintaining this idea was of upmost importance to the new government, and a series of legislation passed shortly after federation sought to guarantee the continuity of a homogenous white population. The first legislation passed by the new parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, which deemed the preservation of a racially homogenous society as essential to the success of the country (Lack and Templeton 1988). This ‘White Australia policy’ restricted Asian and other non-European migration through the implementation of a dictation test in any selected European language as selected by the interviewer on the day of the test (DIMA 2001; Lack and Templeton 1988; Louis et al. 2010). This policy was designed to restrict immigration to those who shared the same cultural identity as the population, predominantly those from the United Kingdom.

While immigrants arriving in Australia in these early years were almost exclusively from the United Kingdom, only a fraction of the British leaving the United Kingdom were migrating to Australia. Many others chose the United States and Canada over Australia (Ferenczi and Willcox 1929), although there is limited migration research that discusses the factors associated with these decisions. It is believed that Australia became more preferable as a destination country with the rising demand for primary products as land in the United States and Canada became harder to obtain (Kelley 1965). Further, heavy subsidisation of travel expenses and the provision of land upon arrival for some categories of immigrants constituted a strong pull factor, as did high demand for workers (Kelley 1965). While over 70% of the population in Australia today live in the capital cities, less than 40% lived in the cities in 1910 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014). This illustrates the importance of primary produce as an industry in Australia’s early development and growth.

Between 1919 and 1940, almost 600,000 immigrants settled in Australia, of which 63% were from the United Kingdom and a further 10% from Ireland (Burnley 2001). The remaining migrants were predominantly from Greece and Italy, as well as a number of Jewish settlers who arrived in the 1930s, seeking refuge from Hitler’s Europe (DIMA 2001; Migration Heritage Centre 2010). World War II and the near-invasion by Japanese forces demonstrated that Australia required population growth to defend itself from potential incoming threats, particularly from Asia (Burnley 2001). Politicians emphasised Australia’s vulnerability by highlighting that its small population could not adequately defend its large land area, leading to the mantra of ‘populate or perish’ (Burnley 2001; DIMA 2001; Migration Heritage Centre 2010). The natural rate of population increase was 1%, so with aims of further increasing population by an additional 1% per year, or 70,000 people, immigration was expanded and a Department of Immigration established (Burnley 2001; DIMA 2001). Although immigration restrictions were partially relaxed, immigration was still heavily targeted towards those from Europe. The Government also accepted a minimum of 12,000 displaced persons per year during this time—many of whom were from Eastern Europe, including the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Turkey (Burnley 2001; DIMA 2001). These refugees received assistance with passage and settlement in exchange for 2 years of government work, usually in manual labour such as the building of the Snowy River Hydro-Electric Scheme, on the railways, in mines or in iron and steel industries (DIMA 2001; Migration Heritage Centre 2010).

In 1969, the migrant program peaked with 185,000 people immigrating in that year (Burnley 2001). At this point the population of Australia was 12 million people, and there was public concern about Australia’s capacity to integrate this large number of migrants (Lahmeyer 2003). As a result, the migrant program numbers were lowered (DIMA 2001). Although the intake was limited to 110,000 in 1972, the government disbanded the White Australia policy and immigrants were selected by personal attributes and occupational groups, meaning that priority for immigration permission was given to close relatives and workers in professions that had unmet demands (DIMA 2001; Migration Heritage Centre 2010). This means that even into the late twentieth century, Australia still favoured immigrants who brought a culture similar to their own.

Since 1975, Australia’s policies have placed less importance on mass immigration to enhance population growth and more emphasis on attracting skilled workers who would economically contribute to Australian society, with the migration program fluctuating between 15,000 and 120,000 immigrants per year (DIMA 2001; Markus et al. 2009). Despite the relaxation of immigration policies, many immigrants still arrived from the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Europe (Makkai and Taylor 2009), as well as many immigrants from Cambodia, Fiji, Malaysia and the Philippines in the 1980s (Mukherjee 1999). From 1988, Australia has also allocated places for immigration opportunities under the Humanitarian program for refugees and asylum seekers from countries experiencing unsettled situations (DIMA 2001). This has included refugees from Vietnam, East Timor, Cyprus, El Salvador, Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. In recent years, places for immigration for refugees and asylum seekers have been allocated to displaced persons from the Syrian conflict (‘Australia to Accept 12,000 Syrian Refugees’ 2015; Hasham 2015).

3 New Zealand’s Immigration History

New Zealand has had similar transition periods in its immigration history to that of Australia. Early populations of Maori were severely affected by the diseases brought to New Zealand by the British settlers, and the Gold Rush of the nineteenth century brought a number of Asian immigrants (Phillips 2015). Although New Zealand did not have the official policy to ensure a culturally homogenous society as in Australia, preference and additional assistance was offered to immigrants from Western Europe, particularly the United Kingdom. In more recent years, New Zealand has accepted a number of immigrants on humanitarian visas, and many skilled workers from India and China (Statistics New Zealand 2014a). In the 2013 census, 1,001,787 people were born overseas, with 31.6% of the total population of New Zealand born in Asia, with a majority of this category born in China (Statistics New Zealand 2014a). A further 26.5% of the population were born in the United Kingdom and Ireland (Statistics New Zealand 2014a). The proportion of overseas-born population was highest in Auckland and Wellington, which suggests that like Australia, immigrants in New Zealand favour the capital cities over rural areas.

From 1800 to 1950, the majority of people who immigrated to New Zealand were British, who were offered free travel or other benefits upon arrival, such as free land (Phillips 2015). In many instances, these immigrants came via Australia where they had previously been convicts or free settlers. They travelled to New Zealand for employment in the whaling and sealing industry or to work in the goldfields in Otago and on the West Coast. In the early twentieth Century many labourers left Australia in search of employment in New Zealand in response Australia’s economic depression that stagnated the growth of the economy along with high unemployment rates (Bedford et al. 2000). New Zealand’s population was slow to grow, with less than 200 white settlers in 1819, 50 years after its discovery by James Cook in 1769 (Phillips 2015). In 1839, the non-Maori population was approximately 2000 people, 90% of whom were British. In 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi—a written agreement between the Maori chiefs and the British monarchy that labelled New Zealand a colony of Britain and the Maoris as British subjects—brought drastic change to the numbers of immigrants in New Zealand, with 28,000 immigrants in 1852 (Phillips 2015; Walker 1995). The immigrant population continued to increase to over 250,000 in 1870, as conditions in Britain deteriorated and many sought a better life, coupled with the offer of free land and subsidised travel, providing that they were ‘sober, industrious, of good moral character, of sound mind and in good health’ (Borrie 1991, p. 52). Many of these immigrants were under 35 years of age. This assistance stopped in 1890, with immigrants paying their own expenses from this time. This brought a different group of immigrants, who were wealthier, older, and more likely to be male, coming from the industrial areas of northern England.

Similarly to Australia, a law was introduced in 1899 to ensure all immigrants not of British or Irish birthplace spoke fluent English. The laws were to limit the number of Chinese and Eastern European, Indian and Lebanese immigrants who were working in the goldfields and gumfields. In the early twentieth Century, a substantial number of migrants from Australia travelled to New Zealand to avoid the depression and droughts that were limiting their prosperity in Australia.

World War II brought the same calls to ‘Populate or Perish’ as were heard in Australia. Levels of out-migration and a declining birth rate created concerns about an inability to defend the nation. At this time, the government favoured population increase through childbirth, and a family benefit allowance was implemented to encourage this growth. Preference for immigration was given to those with industrial skills rather than farming skills, and immigrants were selected through an interview process at the New Zealand High Commission in London. In 1950, an assisted passage scheme was extended to the Netherlands as the Dutch were perceived to be the mostly easily assimilated. Pacific Islanders, from the Cook Islands, Samoa, and Tonga, further increased the population of New Zealand in the mid-1960s as work opportunities in these islands declined.

As a result of growing concern about racist attitudes in the immigration policy in New Zealand, it was deemed in 1974 that all prospective migrants, British or not, were required to obtain an entry permit which was based on skills and qualifications rather than national origin or race. While this opened immigration to people from many different origins, the years following this change were marked by poor economic performance in New Zealand and the migration flows reversed, with few people arriving and many people moving to Australia between 1977 and 1990 to increase their opportunities for employment (Ongley and Pearson 1995). While this recession was associated with the international oil crisis and therefore out of New Zealand’s control, New Zealand’s relatively small economy was unable to support large-scale immigration and also lost many native-born residents to Australia (Bedford 2003). The Immigration Act 1987 further emphasised non-discriminatory policies, with the need for an individual to possess certain skills rather than a certain national background. A points system was introduced to rank participants on their age, skills, education and social capital and therefore, their potential to positively contribute to the New Zealand economy and society (Ongley and Pearson 1995). Eight hundred places per year were also allocated for humanitarian visas society (Ongley and Pearson 1995; Phillips 2015). In 2001, the proportion of foreign born residents was the highest since 1936 at almost 700,000 people. In most cases, the new immigrants are educated people who are comparatively wealthy. While immigrants in recent years have faced some public and political response to the establishment of cultural groups’ churches, schools, restaurants and social rituals, New Zealand does not appear to have the rhetoric around immigration and the prejudicial attitudes to the extent that Australia does.

4 The Role of Temporary Migration

In both Australia and New Zealand, recent immigration policies (post-2000) have transitioned from a focus on national growth to those that target the attraction of skilled workers with the potential to economically contribute to society and build national human capital (Hugo 2004; Phillips 2015). These trends still encourage a large proportion of immigrants from European countries, but also open immigration up to those from Eastern Asia, Africa and India. Both Australia and New Zealand use a points-based system, where applicants are allocated a fixed number of points for their characteristics and ability to enrich the fabric of society and the future well-being of their new country (Bedford et al. 2000; Collins 2013). Those who reach a minimum point threshold are eligible for a visa. This means that both countries are increasingly focused on temporary migration as an important source of growth, rather than the class ‘settler’ migration of the previous centuries (Bedford et al. 2000).

Australia continues to be a major destination country for humanitarian and other permanent immigrants, as well as short-term visitors such as skilled and professional workers on the 457 visa (Collins 2013). In addition to the sizeable number of people who come to Australia each year via legal and regular pathways, Australia manages the small proportion of people who arrive at its borders in an irregular manner via air and sea routes. This population is the subject of media and public debate. The New Zealand government has also focused on immigration from countries in the Asia-Pacific rim, such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Korea as sources of migrants with business skills and investment capital (Lidgard et al. 1998). Recent policy initiatives are designed to rejuvenate flows of entrepreneurs and investment capital from Asia (Bedford et al. 2000). The spatial concentration of this human capital is primarily focused on metropolitan areas, with a large majority of immigrants electing to live in the capital cities in both Australia and New Zealand.

International migration has been and remains a crucial part of economic, social and cultural development in Australia (Hugo 2004). An ageing population due to increasing longevity and decreasing birth rates means that Australia must turn to immigration to sustain population growth and the availability of social and human capital (Karuppannan 2011). While Australia has previously focused on immigration as a permanent move for individuals, international immigration in Australia today is more complex, especially with temporary visa categories introduced in the last two decades to attract different types of immigrants. An increasing number of people enter Australia on temporary visas, although some of these immigrants obtain residency at the expiration of these temporary visas. The selection process for immigration to Australia is highly selective, and usually favours those who are young and highly skilled, with a high income and high level of education. Such a population brings ‘brain gain’, with immigrants increasing the level of human capital by contributing the skills which have been identified to be in a shortage by the Australian government. There is also a large student population who migrate to Australia for the duration of their education, particularly from Asian countries. These students bring further human capital, and many transition to working visas at the completion of their studies.

5 The Current State of Migration Research in Oceania

This is not to say that once immigrants arrive in Australia or New Zealand, they remain in one location indefinitely. Similarly, many Australian and New Zealand-born residents migrate within their country, seeking a change from a rural to urban environment, an interstate migration, or a trans-Tasman migration. Evidence shows that in Australia and New Zealand, the population changes their usual place of residence more often than those in other countries (Hugo 2002). This means that Australia and New Zealand have a dynamic population stock who are prone to multiple migrations. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the 2014–2015 period, Melbourne had the highest net internal migration gains of all Greater Capital Cities in Australia, followed by Brisbane (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016). The majority of arrivals into Melbourne came from other towns in Victoria, and from Sydney (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016). In contrast, Sydney had the highest net losses of all Great Capital Cities, followed by Adelaide and Darwin. Sydney lost many residents to regional New South Wales and Melbourne (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016). Looking at smaller spatial units of analysis, the highest net migration in Australia in 2014–2015 was Melbourne West, which includes some of the fastest growing suburbs in Victoria (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016). Queensland’s Sunshine and Gold Coasts also recorded significant gains, suggesting that many people are seeking a certain relaxed lifestyle (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016). In this section, we expand on the previous focus on international immigration to unpack the state of the migration research that has examined rural-to-urban, interstate, and trans-Tasman migration patterns. Figure 7.1 provides the context and settlement patterns of Australia and New Zealand to provide an overview of the geography of the nations.

Fig. 7.1
figure 1figure 1

(a) The settlement geography of Australia. (b) The settlement geography of New Zealand

Full size image

Data collated by Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection and New Zealand’s Customs Service records the intended length of stay and an initial intended address for each immigrant. Given that both Australia and New Zealand are island nations, we have a high degree of accuracy in measuring who is arriving into the country as Marr (2011, p. 89) states that “border control in Australia remains the most effective of any country in the world”. Both Australia and New Zealand have a census held every 5 years, which measures people’s location of usual residence, 1 year and 5 years before the census. While this is a rich data source in its ability to capture both international and interregional movements, this is a broad time frame and census data may not capture a series of different forms of migration such as temporary, circular and seasonal each of which play an important role in understanding migration patterns in Oceania. Seasonal and temporary migration programs are widely used around the world as a way of overcoming job shortages without the costs of assimilating workers and their families. Despite their wide usage, and a body of literature that highlights the benefits and limitations of these schemes and discusses their implementation, there is little empirical evidence towards their developmental impacts (Gibson et al. 2014). According to Constant et al. (2013, p. 2), “empirical evidence about circular migration is scarce and empirical analyses are limited due to missing or problematic data”. There is no published research of this nature in Australia or New Zealand. As census data in Australia and New Zealand measure annual movement, it is probable that such data does not encapsulate these short-term movements of several months and are thus missing an important type of migration pattern.

5.1 Rural-Urban Migration

Australia is one of the world’s most urbanised but least densely populated countries (Pretty et al. 2006). While over 70% of the population in Australia today live in the capital cities, less than 40% lived in the cities in 1910 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014). This illustrates the importance of primary produce as an industry in Australia’s early development and growth. Yet in recent years, the role of primary industries has become less important as other capital (such as the finance, manufacturing or construction industries) becomes increasingly vital to Australia’s growth and the number of residents who live in the major cities has increased dramatically.

Most studies that examine the movement of rural to urban migration draw on census data, which provides important information such as aggregated demographic and labour market details. However, these data do not include specific information for international immigrants such as their visa, job and employer details or their family composition. This means that while the literature has made some attempt to evaluate the efficacy of programs such as State-Specific Regional Migration and the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme, the studies are limited in their ability to speak to these initiatives (Taylor and Gerritsen 2014). In contrast, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection holds data on visa issue and compliance, but have limited data on an individual’s movements within Australia once they have arrived (Taylor and Gerritsen 2014). There is some attempt to measure migrant outcomes, although such studies aim to create a national picture and often do not have the reliability at the smaller geographical level.

The Remoteness Structure of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification considers the distribution of Australia’s population into five remoteness area categories: major cities, inner regional, outer regional, remote and very remote. These categories are used to classify data obtained from the census conducted every 5 years in Australia. Census questions record every individual’s address 1 year and 5 years prior to the night of the census and are used to measure migration. As at June 2011, 69% of the population resided in Australia’s major cities, compared to only 2.3% in remote or very remote Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012). While the proportion of the population who live in the major cities is increasing at the fastest growing rate (17%) over the last decade, remote areas are growing at the slowest rate of 3.8% (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012). Between 2001 and 2011, the population of many inland, rural areas declined including those in Western and South-Western Queensland, Western and North-Western New South Wales, Western Victoria, and many areas of South Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012). According to Burnley et al. (2007) 56% of people who had recently migrated believed that they were better off after the move. In particular, 64% of migrants said that they were more satisfied with their work opportunities (Burnley et al. 2007). In the migration literature, there are a number of push and pull factors that have been identified as encouraging migration from rural to urban areas.

In Australia, the level of socioeconomic disadvantage, that is, the availability of education, social, health, recreation, and employment services and opportunities, is related to the size of the rural community (Pretty et al. 2006). Rural areas have usually been overrepresented in the distribution of Australian socioeconomic disadvantage (Ciurej et al. 2006). Out-migration occurs because of the socioeconomic disadvantage present in smaller rural towns, but the disadvantage is also a result of the out-migration and the loss of social and human capital. Many individuals are motivated by economic considerations when considering a rural to urban migration, which invariably involves a change of employment and housing (Karuppannan 2011). The major cities often offer better employment outcomes (Tang et al. 2014). In recent years, Australia has seen several extreme weather conditions including severe bush fires, flooding and droughts. In regional Australia, farmers and graziers have been struggling for steady incomes off the land as they are vulnerable to such natural disasters (Karuppannan 2011). Rural areas have less opportunities for employment and occupation growth and progression, meaning that individuals’ dissatisfaction with their careers may constitute an important push factor.

The outflow of young, skilled, educated people is associated with a loss of significant social and human capital. Young people, in particular, are likely to move from a rural to an urban environment for more opportunities (Pretty et al. 2006). Smaller, rural communities have a lack of structural or functional factors (Eversole 2001). For example, some towns have a lack of educational facilities, with youths having to board in nearby towns for high school education, or move to the major towns to attend university. Given that youth are the future of the community, their relocation takes away energy, ideas, and part of the identity of the town. This has created a sustainability crisis with many small towns in Australia, with rural areas having an increasingly older age profile (Kettlewell 2010). The loss of young people represents a significant barrier to the development of a rural towns—yet there are a limited number of immigrants who would prefer to live in a rural town than a major city, and therefore fill a vacuum (Hugo et al. 2013).

Immigrants are needed in rural areas because they bring crucial skills and knowledge, growth of rural economies, and are a major component of local labour supply, particularly in the industries of health and education. Their presence expands communities and helps justify infrastructure and social services. Research into the settlement of immigrant patterns shows that those who are likely to settle in rural settings are predominantly male, and come from an English-speaking background such as Europe, North America, or Africa, and have qualifications in a health or education related field (Tang et al. 2014). Immigrants in non-metropolitan areas are more likely to hold a full-time job, with a higher income than the locals (Tang et al. 2014). However, retention levels of immigrants who initially settle in regional and remote locations appears to be low, as these areas are unable to compete with urban areas for housing, education, health, culture and social needs (Griffiths et al. 2010). Although immigrants may nominate a rural environment as their preference to increase their likelihood of being allocated a visa, there is no legislation that enforces that residents stay for an extended period of time (Birrell 2003). Thus there is a consistent outflow of skills workers and their families from regional and remote areas to urban areas (Taylor and Gerritsen 2014).

With a majority of the population living in the capital cities, skill shortages in regional Australia are acute (Gerritsen 2010). This shortage, coupled with a strong growth in the mining industry, has led to the growth of a Fly-In, Fly-Out (FIFO) industry where workers in a town are non-residents, but travel to work in different locations. Here, workers forgo opportunities for long-lasting employment in favour of very high wages, and rapid career advancement in some cases. However, the use of temporary, non-resident workers restricts the opportunities for local infrastructure and services, meaning that these destinations are less attractive for new residents and new businesses, which further effect existing employment shortages and local town growth (Carson 2011; Rolfe and Kinnear 2013; Taylor and Gerritsen 2014).

Many studies consider the impact of the temporary FIFO industry on local communities, particularly in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia (McKenzie 2010; Petkova et al. 2009; Tonts 2010). However, one of the common characteristics of these studies is a discussion or analysis of a single town or small region rather than broader analyses that incorporate multiple locations and sectors (Hajkowicz et al. 2011). Thus there are several place-based effects that cannot be considered, and little information details how these migration effects might vary across different towns, areas or even states. Petkova et al. (2009) argue that there are important patterns of the social and economic impacts of this type of migration that varies depending on the community’s size, structure, history, and the proportion of non-resident workforce.

To counteract the effect of people migrating to urban centres, there are several state-specific and rural regional migration schemes that seek to reduce the proportion of immigrants settling in capital cities, particularly Sydney (Hugo 2004). State and federal governments are being proactive in their attempts to redirect overseas graduates to rural areas. Bonus points are offered on visa for relocation to non-metro area, and overseas graduates who studied in a designated area get five bonus points when they apply for permanent residency (Hugo 2008). Thus this is a step towards getting the 65 points required to obtain residency. Several occupations also get bonuses—for example, teachers, lawyers, and health practitioners get cash bonuses, housing assistance, travel allowances, professional development opportunities, and non-cash bonuses such as computers (Tang et al. 2014). However, as Tang et al. (2014) states, “Despite the marked increase in overseas student numbers remaining in the country, little is still known about their inter-regional migration flows and settlement choices in the country.”

5.2 Interstate Migration

A number of studies have examined interregional flows at the level of the state or territory. In Australia this equates to movement across 8 states and territories and in New Zealand across its 16 regions (see Fig. 7.1). Studies of interstate migration primarily draw on census data to measure changes in population. However, these only capture movement at 1 year and 5 year intervals prior to the census. Further, given that the release of census data is some time after its initial collection this can often make the information several years old (McCracken 1987). While there are many studies that describe the net migration between the states, there are fewer that consider the drivers for such movements. These drivers outline a range of social, economic, cultural, political, institutional, psychological and physical consideration which influence migration decisions, yet there is no single model that explains these decisions (Stimson and Minnery 1998). Despite suggestions that we need to look beyond the standard push-pull factors to study interstate migration in Australia (Stimson and Minnery 1998), it is unlikely that one single model may be used to explain migration within Australia due to the sheer size of the country and unique differences that exist between its constituent states and regions.

During 2013–2014, it was estimated that 349,000 people in Australia moved interstate, an increase of 2.5% from the previous year (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015). New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory recorded migration losses, while Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia reported increases (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015). People may migrate for a number of reasons, including location-specific capital, the presence of family and friends, and known employment opportunities. Given that each state holds responsibility for a large proportion of its own economy, the provision of services, and that employment opportunities, particularly in the primary industries, vary by state, states can have significant differences in their pull factors that may encourage migration. For example, evidence shows that in Queensland, interstate migrants are usually younger than the average resident population. This younger age profile adds to the state’s labour force participation rate, as well as moderating the effects of population ageing (Queensland Government Statistician’s Office 2008). Studies also show that lifestyle factors are predominant in decisions to migrate to Queensland (Stimson and Minnery 1998). In contrast, other states may have other pull factors that encourage migration.

In remote areas, population growth, and therefore economic growth, are core ambitions of governments such as in the Northern Territory (Carson 2011; Martel et al. 2013). An increasing number of residents moving from the Northern Territory to areas with more amenities has been found to have left a deficit in the population of the Territory (Golebiowska and Carson 2009). Escalator theory describes the in-migration, usually by young and male migrants, to regions that reward new arrivals with high wages and job promotion prospects. Savage and Fielding (1989) draw on this theory to explain that workers can often progress their careers quickly due to less competition for jobs and promotions by relocating to areas with skills shortages in areas like construction, mining or defence force personnel. In areas such as the Northern Territory, workers are often content to work in low amenity areas for short-term periods to increase their long-term career and well-being. While these areas are attractive to the young, it is becoming increasingly difficult to retain this population in these areas on a long-term basis as this migration is not seen as a permanent move (Martel et al. 2013).

The majority of inter-state migration studies use an aggregate approach that focuses on the spatial effects, concentrating on the employment circumstances, wage levels, housing costs, weather and amenities of the area (Karuppannan 2011; Stimson and Minnery 1998). Studies primarily use census data to measure migration, meaning that more individual reasons such as status, lifestyle, family circumstances, and the role of human agency are discounted. The different states and territories have characteristics that may be more likely to encourage someone with a certain lifestyle choice or culture. These nuances are not picked up in aggregated data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, meaning that it is difficult to fully understand inter-state migration in the Australian context.

Similar patterns have also been noted with studies of migration in New Zealand. With an on-going interest in the dynamics of migration, several studies examine the socioeconomic status of communities that have high migration rates. For example, Clark and Morrison (2012) employ data from The Survey of Dynamics and Motivation for Migration in New Zealand to detail movement at 2-year intervals. The authors argue that the migration patterns differ according to income level, with both groups moving in response to economic opportunity, but find different places and situations to be attractive. The study employs a smaller time interval than many Australian studies at 2 years, and while using aggregated data, determines that individual differences are important in migration decisions. Limited studies examine in inter-region migration within New Zealand.

5.3 Trans-Tasman Migration

There is a wealth of literature that examines Trans-Tasman migration, that is, migration that exclusively takes place between Australia and New Zealand. Under the Trans-Tasman Agreement, citizens of New Zealand and Australia have no restrictions on migration between the two countries, and in Australia, citizens of New Zealand are permitted to live and work indefinitely (Bedford et al. 2000; Markus et al. 2009). See Fig. 7.2 for a historical perspective on migration flows between the two nations. In 2013, there was an estimated 640,770 New Zealand citizens living in Australia, with New Zealand citizens the second largest foreign-born group in Australia behind England at approximately 2.6% of the population (Department of Home Affairs 2014). Trans-Tasman migration is a larger component of New Zealand migration than of Australian migration. While New Zealanders are most likely to migrate to Australia, Australians are more likely to emigrate to the United Kingdom. However, according to the 2013 census, there is still a sizeable population of some 62,712 Australians who have emigrated to New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand 2014b).

Fig. 7.2
figure 2

The Trans-Tasman born population (1881–2006): Source: Poot (2010, p. 321)

Full size image

Studies of migration flows between Australia and New Zealand predominantly employ spatially aggregated data, such as statistics from immigration controls that detail the number of travellers completing arrival and departure cards in the two countries and capture their next intended country of permanent residence (Bedford et al. 2003; Brosnan and Poot 1987). Drawing on these data, studies document broad trends in migration patterns (see, for example, Poot 2010), and consider historic trends and some generate forecasts of future migration patterns (see, for example, Gorbey et al. 1999). A number of studies focus on the economic push-pull factors associated with trans-Tasman migration and demonstrate the importance of employment and economic conditions in the decision to immigrate, given that both Australia and New Zealand share a similar culture and lifestyle. However, there are also empirical studies that consider immigration on a more individual level, and evaluate the push-pull factors that underpin such migration decisions. In one such analysis, Green et al. (2008) study migrants in Australia through interviews and surveys recording reasons for the move, maintenance of ties with New Zealand, current national identification, responses to migration and the probability of return migration to New Zealand. Their findings demonstrate that pull factors included better climate, better future for their family, more job opportunities and a better standard of living. Meanwhile, push factors included problematic personal circumstances in New Zealand, social problems in New Zealand society and dissatisfaction with life in Australia.

Economic considerations are crucial in migration decisions, particularly in when examining the pull factors that attract immigrants. One of the most often-cited factors is earning capacity. In New Zealand there has been, at times, a lack of economic growth (Bedford et al. 2003; Poot et al. 1988), and high rates of inflation and unemployment (Brosnan and Poot 1987). In such times, Australia may have better long-term employment prospects. Migration flows are sensitive to employment, and are responsive to changes in the demand for labour across the two countries (Brosnan and Poot 1987; Gorbey et al. 1999). Further, when the value of the exchange rate between the New Zealand dollar and the Australian dollar is poor, the emigration rate is higher (Poot 2010). While there has been concern about the numbers of New Zealanders migrating to Australia and the associated loss of human capital, Hugo (2004) identifies that New Zealanders in Australia are representative of those in New Zealand, and that the highly skilled and educated are not over-represented in those who migrate. In Australia, New Zealand citizens have a higher labour force participation rate compared to native-born Australians (78.2% and 68% respectively) (Queensland Government Statistician's Office 2008). They are also amongst the most highly paid in Australia (Pope 1985). This suggests that migrants from New Zealand are likely to be working and may have moved seeking this employment. Green et al. (2008) highlights that economic factors were more important than lifestyle factors in decisions to migrate.

Alongside economic considerations which are the focus of many studies of trans-Tasman migration, there are also cultural, environmental, life cycle, quality of life and social reasons that feature in a migration decision (Green et al. 2008). These are often parallel those in other countries who select Australia, such a greater opportunities for their family, and a better climate (Green et al. 2008). Yet these factors are rarely discussed in the literature, with most studies exclusively focusing on economic factors. Given that Australia and New Zealand share a similar history, culture and society, it is not surprising that these factors receive limited attention.

One unique feature of Trans-Tasman migration is the relatively large proportion of return migration, and it is noted that these patterns of return migration contrast typical global patterns of one way migration (Markus et al. 2009). Brosnan and Poot (1987) highlight the prevalence of citizens of New Zealand moving to Australia for a working holiday in a different and attractive environment, but where it is still convenient and relatively cheap to travel home to visit family and friends. Cheap airfares and increased technology encourage people to migrate and experience life in a different environment, yet one that still has close physical, historical and cultural connections to their own country. In some cases, travel between Australia and New Zealand is cheaper than travel within the one country, and with no restrictions on the period of time someone lives or works in the opposite country, travel is open. To this end, several schemes are designed to provide placements for temporary workers for seasonal work in the horticultural sector in both Australia and New Zealand.

Under the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme in New Zealand and the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme in Australia, low-skilled workers are employed to work for registered and certified employers in the horticulture and viticulture sections (New Zealand Department of Labour 2010). In Australia and New Zealand, lower birth rates, the ageing demographic profile, increased personal wealth, the provision of social welfare, sustained economic growth, low unemployment and higher levels of education have combined to reduce the supply of workers who are available (or willing) to undertake physically demanding labour for relatively low pay (Maclellan and Mares 2006). Much of the work completed in Australia is unattractive to Australian citizens as it is largely based in rural and remote locations, is considered low social status and often poorly paid for manually-intensive work (The Australian Worker’s Union 2006). In Australia, facilitating labour mobility is a key issue for the region, and the Scheme developed in 2008 is important to relations with the Pacific with citizens from NZ, Tonga, and Vanuatu participating (Gibson and McKenzie 2011). The programs reduce unmet demand for seasonal work, particularly in the food producing industries and offer 4–6 month contracts (Department of Education 2010). In NZ, a number of Pacific Islanders participate in these schemes developed in 2007 which require employers to meet certain labour conditions and be registered on a database (Ball et al. 2011). This seasonal supply of experience labour is sustainable as arrangements allow workers to return to their country when the demand for workers is low, thus obtaining other work or spending time with their families (Ball et al. 2011). Measuring the participation statistics on the Schemes is difficult and Ball et al. (2011) state that although records of the number of workers are a new implementation, the seasonal workforce appears to be increasing. This population of temporary workers is becoming vital to horticulture in the two countries.

6 Future Work and Challenges

There exists a rich literature that has examined the characteristics and dynamics of migration in Australia and New Zealand. In this chapter we have sought to offer a broad overview of this body of work commencing with a look at the history of immigration before examining the current state of migration research in Oceania. The current trend in the literature of examining the non-economic determinants of migration is likely set to continue. The challenge is now to understand how the relative roles of the economic and non-economic factors interact to drive migration dynamics. To this end the increasing availability of individual-level data will be important to enable researchers to explore how these roles vary based on the individual and household characteristics along with their implications at the regional level.

Demographic analyses points to a decline in interregional migration in Australia and the broader region (Bell et al. 2018). Set against this emerging demographic phenomenon, a number of interesting questions remain unanswered, including: what is the likely role of place-based policies in terms of their effectiveness in regional development given the reduction in people moving? And; what are the economic consequences for this slow-down in internal migratory flows and how do these impacts varying across the urban hierarchy? The challenge to research wishing to explore these questions will concern the capture and assembly of suitable data.

Future immigration policy in Australia and New Zealand is likely to continue in the same vein whereby immigrants are selected based on their skills to address persistent skill shortages and attempt to ameliorate the effects of ageing populations. More work in the area of the educational, labour market and migratory pathways of newly arrived immigrants that are essential in terms of long-term nation building is needed. In particular immigrant pathways to regional and rural Australia and New Zealand require more attention. A survey of new immigrants who settled in regional and rural Australia showed that most got jobs in the areas for their skills; most were happy in their new regional and rural homes, most intended to stay there and most reported a warm welcome from their new neighbours (Jordan et al. 2009). These new immigrants relieve some of the labour shortages in regional and rural Australia and reduce the trend to population decline in many non-coastal regional and rural cities and towns, helping to regenerate non-metropolitan Australia. The challenge will be in assembling the necessary data to reconstruct these pathways on a scale that will permit analyses both at the country-level as well as across Oceania.

There is no doubt that the global hunt for talent continues to intensify. OECD nations persist in their search to attract and retain highly skilled human capital to integrate with domestic labour supplies to bolster their economic fabric ameliorating the negative consequences of their ageing societies. The challenge for regional scientists, population geographers and labour economists will be to identify new sources of data through which we can better understand the migratory pathways through which both domestic and new international arrivals pass. Understanding these complex pathways will be the first step to unveiling the factors that underpin interregional migrations and how these shape outcomes for both individuals and local labour markets.