Ernest Healy

While some have argued that residential concentrations of Vietnam-born people in Melbourne and Sydney are likely to disperse over time, a comparison of the results of the 1991 and 1996 Censuses shows that, so far, this has not occurred.

INTRODUCTION

During the 1980s and 1990s, the family-reunion component of the Australian immigration program facilitated the growth of several groups of migrants characterised by relatively high levels of residential concentration and severe labour-market disadvantage. This happened predominantly in Melbourne and Sydney and, of the groups involved, those born in Turkey, Lebanon, Cambodia and Laos, and Vietnam readily come to mind. The intake from Turkey and Lebanon added to established migrant populations from these sources, but the rapid build up of the Indochinese was a new and highly visible outcome of the immigration program.

Social problems associated with the growing residential concentrations of Indochinese migrants in Melbourne and Sydney were, in part, masked by the ideological and political climate in this period. The Federal Labor Government, broad sections of business and the liberal intelligentsia were insistent that Australia’s economic future lay with Asia and that the protectionist economic and cultural legacy of mainstream Australia was a handicap to be overcome. In the minds of political, economic and intellectual elites, a pro-immigration position was often linked to an offensive against mainstream Australia. Labor governments saw immigration from Asia as both a way of correcting out-of-date values in the local culture and as a means of convincing Asian governments that Australia had become a genuine participant within the Asian region. The question of whether many of these poor Asian migrants would be able to integrate successfully into the local economy and culture was of secondary concern for the Federal Labor Government. The Governments of Bob Hawke (1983-91) and Paul Keating (1992-96) were primarily focused upon the ‘big picture’ of macro-economic adjustment.

ETHNIC BUSINESS — OPTIMISM UNBRIDLED

By the early 1990s, the Government was sponsoring the notion of ‘productive diversity’. This concept was based on the theory that international trade would benefit from an ethnically diverse population. The theory was based on hope, not evidence, but it helped mask the growing social problems associated with ethnic-enclave life. Under Keating, the government sought to produce research findings which would support it retrospectively. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. Nevertheless, some prominent left-liberal intellectuals,¹ promoted, and have continued to promote, the ‘productive diversity’ ideal, and in some cases to link it with ethnic concentrations as a source of economic ‘vibrancy’.

Although the Federal Labor Government did not formally adopt the ‘productive-diversity’ policy until 1992, the assumption of a positive link between cultural diversity and growth in international trade was evident in government and intellectual circles before 1992. For example, the 1991 work of Constance Lever-Tracy et al. clearly advanced the ‘productive diversity idea.² Although it drew on an unrepresentative sample of Chinese and Indian business families in Brisbane and Sydney, the work was used by Keating to justify the Government’s endorsement of the concept.

In 1990, James Jupp and others claimed that Vietnamese residential concentrations, such as the Cabramatta area of Fairfield in Sydney, were sources of economic vibrancy. They idealised the commercial development associated with enclave consolidation, describing Cabramatta in Sydney as ‘fascinating’ and ‘exciting’, of growing value as a tourist destination, and as a ‘... slice of Asia in the far west of Sydney ...’.³ This report helped provide a context for the ideology of ‘productive diversity’.

Jupp et al. further argued that areas such as Cabramatta were classic ‘zones of transition’, characterised by ‘... a transient population taking advantage of cheap rentals and casual employment’.⁴ The authors assumed that the Vietnamese would follow the pattern of upward mobility and dispersal established by Southern-European migrants in the earlier post-war period:
 

Vietnamese live in the same areas as earlier Southern European immigrants. It is reasonable to suppose that they will also move out of these areas in due course, as did their predecessors.⁵

Jupp et al., however, gave only scant consideration to the adverse economic environment faced by Vietnamese migrants compared with earlier migrant groups. But, in this period, there was growing evidence of an increased locational dimension to inequality in Australian cities.⁶

Nancy Viviani et al. in their 1993 publication, Indochinese in Australia: the Issues of Unemployment and Residential Concentration, endorsed the thrust of Jupp’s perspective. But, they differed from it in one respect. They argued that Indochinese settlement patterns may not primarily be a matter of class position, as argued by Jupp, but of cultural difference.

These ambiguities and contradictions, however, are smoothed over by reference to the complexity of the factors shaping the situation facing the Indochinese. Viviani et al. conclude that, although patterns of concentration are influenced by a range of factors, length of residence in Australia is a central factor, and that there are developing patterns of dispersal.,sup>7

More recently, Viviani has emphasised that the Vietnam-born exhibit a dual tendency for upward mobility and residential dispersal, on the one hand, and for continued residential concentration of the more disadvantaged elements on the other.⁸ She is not optimistic about the prospects of the most disadvantaged sections of the Vietnam-born population, particularly the ethnic Vietnamese (as compared with Vietnam-born ethnic Chinese). These people, she agrees, are prone to remain confined to enclave areas.⁹ Viviani places considerable hope in the second generation of Vietnam-born whom she expects will break from the limitations of enclave life through upward mobility. Nevertheless, she argues that the 65 per cent of Vietnam-born who are earlier arrivals show significant economic and spatial mobility.¹⁰

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW: THE EMERGENCE OF AN ETHNIC UNDERCLASS

An alternative view is that areas of high concentration like Fairfield in Sydney are giving rise to an ethnic underclass, a class which is severely limited in its long-term labour-market options and is highly-welfare-dependent.

In 1993, Birrell showed that groups of Vietnam-born were tightly clustered within Local Government Areas (LGAs) such as Fairfield and that high levels of disadvantage were associated with such concentrations. He focused on postcode areas, 2166 within Fairfield in Sydney and 3171 within Springvale in Melbourne, both of which showed highly-localised increases of Vietnam-born people in the 1986 to 1991 intercensal period. Birrell used census data to show that many Vietnam-born residents within areas of high concentration in Melbourne and Sydney were earlier arrivals.¹¹

Analysis published in 1996 showed that areas such as Fairfield in Sydney, and Sunshine and Footscray in Melbourne, are characterised by an over-representation of Vietnam-born people who are dependent on labour-market benefits. For example, although 38.9 per cent of the Vietnam-born population of New South Wales (NSW) resided in Fairfield in 1991 (40.5 per cent in 1996), over 47.1 per cent of the Vietnam-born labour-market-benefit recipients in NSW lived in Fairfield as of August 1995.¹²

Although there is evidence of a high rate of educational success amongst Vietnamese youth, there is also evidence of a significant minority who are not successful. These young people suffer high levels of unemployment and provide a basis for the intergenerational perpetuation of disadvantage in high-concentration areas. Cabramatta has become a focus within Sydney for drug-related youth crime. The stage has now been reached where drug-related criminal activity is a serious disincentive to business in the area. Extraordinary policing is required, and local businesses are levied to help cover the cost.

Further, it appears that the economic ‘vibrancy’ of areas like Cabramatta has been overstated in the past. Much business activity is directed to servicing the needs of co-ethnics. There is little evidence that enclave-based business has developed to a stage and degree of complexity where it can provide higher-level services to the wider community.

The reality has been that migrant groups such as the Vietnamese in Cabramatta have typically been low-skilled and have had poor English. Many have gained visas through the spouse provisions in the preferential family category of the immigration program. This means that they were not selected for their education, skills, or knowledge of English and that their economic prospects were poor. This situation has been compounded by the impact of economic restructuring, which meant the disappearance of much of the low-skilled manufacturing work which had provided employment opportunities for such migrants in the past. Entry to the manufacturing work which remained has been strongly contested.

The family-based criteria on which these immigrants were selected had other effects. It meant that as these communities consolidated they were marked out, not just by their marginality to the labour market, but by high levels of cultural distance from the broader population. These two factors appear to have been interactive and mutually-compounding. Informal labour-market activity, often unrecorded by taxation authorities, and characterised by highly-exploitative working conditions and rates of pay, appears to have been reinvigorated in and around these communities.

ASSESSMENT

Jupp and his co-authors have argued that areas of high Vietnam-born residential concentration are simply ‘zones of transition’ for migrant settlers, a proposition which Viviani accepts in a more qualified way. The 1996 Census provides an opportunity to assess whether this claim can be supported or whether such concentrations are more durable and sufficiently low-income to be characteristic of an ethnic underclass.

Immigration from Vietnam has tapered off in recent years.¹³ If the ‘zone of transition’ argument is correct, then one might expect some evidence of enclave dissipation by now. This article tests the ‘zones of transition’ thesis by examining areas of high Vietnam-born residential concentration. Are they decreasing, stabilising, or growing? The analysis uses a customised 1996 census data matrix which allows cross-tabulations of birthplace, by individual income by time of arrival.

Some of the data discussed below relate to Vietnam-born males 25-44 years of age. This serves two purposes. It helps control for differences of age and gender structure between different geographic areas for a given birthplace group. This is important because age and gender influence labour market outcomes, including income levels and unemployment rates. The selected age group also serves as an indicator of family material well-being. At this age, people are often raising families and servicing mortgages.

IS THERE EVIDENCE OF DISPERSAL?

The 1996 census shows that the areas of highest concentration have becomemore concentrated since 1991, not less.

In 1986, the Vietnam-born population of Fairfield accounted for 29.6 per cent of all Vietnam-born in Sydney. By the 1991 census, 40.8 per cent of Sydney’s Vietnam-born residents lived in Fairfield and, by 1996, the figure was 41.7 per cent.

INCREASED LOCALISED CONCENTRATIONS

A comparison of localised concentrations within Fairfield also shows that Vietnam-born residential concentrations have been preserved in the intercensal period. Postcode 2166 which corresponds to the Cabramatta area within Fairfield increased its Vietnam-born population from 10,775 persons at the 1991 Census to 13,633 persons in 1996. This meant that postcode 2166 accounted for 23 per cent of all the Vietnam-born living in Sydney in 1996, a level which was unchanged from the 1991 Census. As a proportion of the total population of postcode 2166, the Vietnam-born increased from 20.3 per cent in 1991 to 26 per cent in 1996. A similar tendency is suggested for some local areas in Melbourne. For example, in 1991, postcode 3171 within the Springvale enclave had a population which was 15.7 per cent Vietnam-born. By 1996, it was 21 per cent Vietnam-born.

LIMITED OUTWARD MOVEMENT COMBINED WITH ENCLAVE CONSOLIDATION

The 1996 Census data provides evidence of a limited degree of outward movement from some areas of Vietnamese concentration in Sydney. However, this movement has not occurred to any significant degree in the case of Fairfield.¹⁴

Table 1 compares the numbers of Vietnam-born residents in selected areas of high residential concentration in Sydney for 1991 and 1996. These Vietnam-born populations are disaggregated by time of arrival, so as to show whether increased length of stay is associated with residential mobility. The numbers of Vietnam-born living in Fairfield who arrived before 1986 declined only marginally in the 1991-1996 intercensal period, from 11,601 to 11,505 persons. When deaths are taken into account, this implies a small net movement into Fairfield. The numbers of those who arrived in the time period 1986 to 1990 increased marginally.

Further, Table 1 shows that Fairfield not only retained the earlier-arrived Vietnam-born, but it also received a disproportionate share of newly-arrived Vietnam-born. Nationally, the population of Vietnam-born increased by 23.9 per cent between 1991 and 1996. But the Vietnam-born population of Fairfield increased by 27.9 per cent, growing from 19,324 to 24,725 persons.
 

Table 1: Vietnam-born population by year of arrival, 1991 and 1996, Australia, Melbourne, Sydney and selected Sydney Statistical Local Areas
		Year of arrival in Australia			Totala
		Pre 1986	1986-90	1991-96
Australia	1991 1996	74,805 74,354	37,862 37,467	6,192 34,514	121,759 150,839
Percentage increase 1991-96					23.9
Sydney	1991 1996	29,851 29,841	14,222 14,251	2,315 13,518	47,358 59,297
Percentage increase 1991-96					25.2
Fairfield	1991 1996	11,601 11,505	6,301 6,494	999 6,025	19,324 24,725
Percentage increase 1991-96					27.9
Bankstown	1991 1996	3,939 4,336	1,867 2,021	323 1,953	6,231 8,583
Percentage increase 1991-96					37.7
Canterbury	1991 1996	2,807 2,436	1,516 1,253	268 1,409	4,657 5,239
Percentage increase 1991-96					12.5
Marrickville	1991 1996	2,062 1,551	1,381 943	284 1,607	3,826 4,243
Percentage increase 1991-96					10.6
Auburn	1991 1996	2,167 2,243	762 776	125 653	3,215 3,768
Percentage increase 1991-96					17.2
Melbourne	1991 1996	25,415 24,991	14,804 14,894	2,505 13,197	43,677 54,518
Percentage increase 1991-96					24.8
Source: Census 1991, 1996, unpublished a Total includes those whose year of arrival is unknown.

Another very significant development over the 1991-1996 period which challenges the dispersal thesis is that there has been rapid expansion in the second largest area of concentration, in the adjacent suburb of Bankstown. The number of Vietnam-born in Bankstown increased by 37.7 per cent in the 1991 to 1996 period, from 6,231 to 8,583 persons. The source of Bankstown’s expansion consisted of pre-1986 arrivals, 1986-1991 arrivals, as well as 1991-1996 new arrivals.

The growth of the Vietnam-born in Bankstown directly challenges Viviani’s claim in the accompanying paper that areas of Vietnamese concentration have ‘stabilised’. The case of Bankstown suggests that a significant part of the residential mobility of earlier arrivals is between areas of high concentration, rather than dispersal from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration.

In 1991, Fairfield and Bankstown accounted for 54 per cent of the Vietnam-born in Sydney, but 65 per cent of the increase in Sydney’s Vietnam-born population between 1991 and 1996 located in these two areas. The growth in areas of concentration has two sources: Vietnam-born people who have been in Australia for some time are moving into these areas, and new arrivals are joining them.

ARE ENCLAVES CONCENTRATING DISADVANTAGE?

The claim that areas of high Vietnamese concentration like Cabramatta allow us to be optimistic about the future economic prospects of Vietnamese migrants can, in part, be tested through an examination of the income levels of the Vietnam-born in high concentration areas. Jupp’s ‘zones of transition’ thesis would predict that earlier arrivals would not now be a major component of enclave populations. To test this, I examined the proportion of 25-44 year-old Vietnam-born males who are on low incomes in areas of high concentration by their time of arrival in Australia.

The data show that the areas of high Vietnam-born concentration in Sydney and Melbourne have both retained a relatively high proportion of labour-market-disadvantaged earlier arrivals, and that they have attracted high proportions of disadvantaged new arrivals. This is evident from Table 2 which examines Vietnam-born males aged 25-44 years in the low-income category. The proportion of these Vietnam-born males in Melbourne and Sydney who are in the low-income category is compared with that in selected Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) of high concentration. These low-income Vietnam-born males are over-represented in Brimbank - Sunshine, Maribyrnong, and Richmond compared with Melbourne as a whole. When these Vietnam-born are disaggregated by time of arrival, it is found that this over-representation tends to exist for both the earlier-arrived and new arrivals.
 

Table 2: Vietnam-born males aged 25-44 years with individual annual income of $15,600 or less, by total and by time of arrival, for Sydney and Melbourne and selected SLAsa, 1996
	Total earning $15,600 p.a. or less		Year of arrival
			Pre 1986		1986-90		1991-96
	% of Viet.-born males aged 25-44 yrs	No.	% of Viet.-born males aged 25-44 yrs	No.	% of Viet.-born males aged 25-44 yrs	No.	% of Viet.-born males aged 25-44 yrs	No.
Sydney	36.8	5,835	28.9	2,791	44.2	1,577	59.3	1,308
Fairfield  Marrickville  Bankstown  Canterbury  Auburn	41.7 46.5 31.6 32.3 26.4	2,740 540 741 477 278	34.7 30.4 24.7 24.2 20.4	1,325 157 359 209 151	48.2 48.4 33.3 38.5 33.0	820 125 180 134 64	58.7 68.7 57.2 56.2 57.1	522 241 183 127 56
Melbourne	37.3	5,347	29.2	2,432	42.4	1,555	62.0	1,250
Brimbank - Sunshine Maribyrnong Dandenong - Balance Yarra - Richmond	40.2 46.3 31.2 45.3	772 921 243 743	31.3 35.0 26.6 40.2	325 351 336 121	45.5 49.9 29.8 45.8	250 264 203 60	61.9 68.5 49.1 62.9	182 287 183 56
Source: Centre for Population and Urban Research, Census 1996 customized matrix a The new SLA Maribyrnong is predominantly the old SLA of Footscray plus part of Sunshine. Greater Dandenong - Balance is most of the old SLA of Springvale plus part of Cranbourne.

For example, in Melbourne as a whole 37.3 per cent of 25-44 year-old Vietnam-born males were in the low-income category. But, the proportion in the low-income category in Maribyrnong was 46.3 per cent. For those who arrived before 1986, the respective proportions were 29.2 per cent for Melbourne as a whole and 35 per cent for Maribyrnong. For those who arrived between 1986 and 1990, the respective proportions were 42.4 per cent for Melbourne and 49.9 per cent for Maribyrnong. In the case of the most recently arrived, the respective proportions were 62 per cent for Melbourne and 68.5 per cent for Maribyrnong. A similar pattern is evident for Richmond and Sunshine in Melbourne, and for Fairfield and Marrickville in Sydney.

Although Viviani is correct to point to a degree of upward mobility by a section of the Vietnam-born, this does not mean that enclave dispersal is the dominant trend. Overall, the 1996 census shows a picture characterised by Fairfield on the one hand, where low-income earners are over-represented, and, on the other hand, by widely dispersed small pockets of Vietnam-born who are less concentrated in the low income category. This is evident in Table 3. Examples of the latter in Sydney include Botany, Woollahra, Hurstville, Kogarah, Penrith, and Ryde. But, while 36.8 per cent of 25-44 year-old Vietnam-born males living in Sydney have an income of $15,600 or less per year, 41.7 per cent of 25-44 year-old Vietnam-born males living in Fairfield are in this low-income category. Marrickville, too, has an above average proportion of 25-44 year Vietnam-born males with low incomes: 46.5 per cent.
 

Table 3: Annual individual income of Vietnam-born males aged 25-44 by selected SLAs, Melbourne and Sydney 1996, percentages
	$0-$15,600 per year	$15,600-$31,200 per year	$31,200-$52,000 per year	$52,000 plus per year	Totala	Total
					%	No.
Sydney
Marrickville (A) Fairfield (C) Canterbury (C) Bankstown (C) Auburn (A)	46.5 41.7 32.3 31.6 26.4	35.1 40.8 46.7 43.5 46.7	10.4 12.0 15.1 17.8 18.6	2.0 1.9 2.5 4.4 4.8	100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0	1,162 6,575 1,475 2,345 1,052
Botany (A) Woollahra (A) Hurstville (C) Penrith (C) Kogarah (A) Ryde (C)	25.7 23.3 20.5 19.6 16.7 16.5	61.4 40.0 43.8 45.1 29.2 35.4	4.3 26.7 21.9 17.6 41.7 22.8	4.3 10.0 9.6 0.0 12.5 25.3	100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0	70 30 73 51 24 79
Rest of Sydney	34.1	38.1	18.3	5.9	100.0	2,911
Sydney Statistical Division	36.8	41.3	14.8	3.4	100.0	15,847
Melbourne
Brimbank (C) - Sunshine Maribyrnong (C) Gtr. Dandenong (C) Balance Yarra (C) - North Yarra (C) - Richmond Moonee Valley (C) - Essendon	40.2 46.3 31.2 57.0 45.3 49.7	42.5 37.8 52.3 33.0 40.0 36.9	12.7 10.6 12.3 4.5 10.2 9.9	1.6 1.7 1.4 0.4 1.3 1.1	100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0	1,922 1,990 2,382 710 537 553
Whitehorse (C) - Nunawading East Knox (C) - North Knox (C) - South Glen Eira (C) - South	17.7 21.3 21.8 17.6	52.4 50.0 47.4 41.2	23.2 23.2 20.5 23.5	2.4 5.5 10.3 17.6	100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0	164 164 78 17
Rest of Melbourne	32.8	42.1	17.1	4.7	100.0	5,800
Melbourne Statistical Division	37.3	42.7	13.8	2.8	100.0	14,317
Source: Centre for Population and Urban Research, Census 1996, customised matrix a Total includes not stated income and excludes overseas visitors.

Similar pockets of Vietnam-born in Melbourne who are less concentrated in the low-income category are exemplified by Glen Eira (South), Knox, and Whitehorse (Nunawading East). But, as with Sydney, the areas of highest concentration in the low-income category also tend to be the areas of highest residential concentration.

In spite of some indications of upward mobility and residential dispersal, there is scant evidence for economic optimism in areas of high Indochinese concentrations. A high proportion of males in the prime of their working lives are on low incomes in areas of high concentration. Also only a tiny proportion are in receipt of high incomes. This does not support the expectation of upward social mobility or the idea that residential concentrations are transitionary.

That areas of high Vietnamese concentration have remained areas of serious disadvantage is further evident when levels of unemployment-benefit dependency in such areas are considered. Unpublished labour-market files held by the Centre for Population and Urban Research for the same month as the 1996 Census can be examined for this purpose. The results show that, for Bankstown, over 22 per cent of all Vietnam-born males, aged 25-44 years, were receiving labour-market benefits. In Fairfield as of August 1996, there were 6,575 Vietnam-born males aged 25-44 and 31 per cent (2,042) were receiving labour-market benefits. Most of these recipients were long-term unemployed. The costs of the ethnic underclass are severe, both to those affected and to the Australian taxpayer.

CONCLUSION

Despite the declining migrant intake from Vietnam in recent years, there is as yet no clear evidence of dispersal from the areas with the highest concentrations of Vietnam-born residents in Melbourne and Sydney. This does not mean that upward socio-economic mobility and residential relocation has not occurred for some Vietnam-born. Although caution needs to be exercised in determining the extent of such outward movement, there are now dispersed pockets of better-off Vietnam-born in both Melbourne and Sydney. Nevertheless, on the basis of 1996 census information, it cannot be assumed that these instances are an indication of the future movement of Vietnam-born residents who are the most disadvantaged in the labour market and who live in areas of highest concentration.

Various factors can act to perpetuate the residential concentration of the most disadvantaged individuals and families. These include: continued macro-economic restructuring which impacts disproportionately upon low-skilled workers; poor English proficiency; the need for cheap-rental housing; provision of services in the migrant’s native language; enclave-based informal labour-market opportunities; and cultural alienation from mainstream society. Further, the economic relationship between successful, residentially-mobile Vietnamese and those confined to enclave life may also be a factor. If the success of upwardly mobile Vietnamese is linked to continued business involvement within areas of high concentration, then these people may now have an established vested interest in the maintenance of Vietnamese enclaves. Such links are an established part of the dynamic of Cuban enclaves in the United States.¹⁵ More research on this question is needed in the Australian context.

Our national economic environment is increasingly deregulated. Given this, there is no room for complacency in assuming that recently-arrived unskilled migrant groups will automatically follow the settlement patterns laid out by similarly low-skilled migrants in the past. Viviani’s speculation, that many of the second-generation Vietnam-born will break from the levels of disadvantage experienced by their first-generation parents may be correct. But, even if this is so, is it an acceptable outcome from our immigration program that a generation must pass before this can occur?

It is not racist, as Viviani suggests, to raise such fundamental questions concerning the proper relationship of immigration outcomes to the national interest. The assumption that to question the claimed merits of immigration is to regress to an alleged racist national heritage is itself an unfortunate ideological legacy of the unbridled internationalism which became fashionable amongst both the right and left of Australian politics in the 1980s and 1990s.

References

Back to People and Place Home Page