What is the role of Net Overseas Migration in population growth and Interstate Migration patterns in the Northern Territory?
Golebiowska, Kate ; Carson, Dean
The key trend preventing the Northern Territory (NT) from achieving
consistent annual population growth has been the unpredictability and
very high levels of Net Interstate Migration (NIM). Natural Increase
(NI) and Net Overseas Migration (NOM) both appear to have provided
consistent contributions over the past twenty years. This article
examines the contribution of NOM to the NT population growth in the
period 1996 to 2006 to establish whether it has in fact mitigated or
sustained the high interstate migration rates. Two trends suggest that
NOM in the NT has contributed to high levels of population mobility.
First, it has been dominated by net long-term movement of temporary
rather than settlers. Second, the overseas-born have higher rates of
interstate migration from the NT than do the Australian-born.
Unfortunately the data on the interstate mobility of overseas-born
residents do not permit us to distinguish between people holding
long-term and permanent visas. But we believe that some migrants from
both groups have participated in this transient population system.
INTRODUCTION
The Northern Territory (NT) is the least populous of all Australian
jurisdictions (221,700 in 2008), (1) and it typically experiences large
fluctuations in population growth rates. Maintaining population growth
is one of the NT Government's objectives and at the same time a
means of boosting economic and social development. (2) An expanded
population is seen as important to creating business opportunities and
supporting social capital growth, which in turn can make the NT a more
attractive place to live. Much of the concern around sustaining
population growth in the NT focuses on the unpredictability and very
high levels of Net Interstate Migration (NIM), with Natural Increase
(NI) and Net Overseas Migration (NOM) providing consistent contributions
over at least the past twenty years. However, very little is known about
how NOM and NIM interact--in other words, how does the method of entry
into the NT population influence future migration patterns? This article
first examines the contribution of NOM to NT population growth. It then
analyses the volume contributed by each of the categories of movement in
NOM. This enables us to discuss details concealed in NOM statistics
routinely published for states and territories. Finally, this article
discusses whether NOM has mitigated or contributed to the observed high
interstate migration rates in the NT. Intra-Territory movements are not
discussed.
DATA AND CONCEPTS
This article draws on Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data to
analyse components of the population growth and the categories of
movement in NOM in the NT in 1996-97 to 2005-06. To establish whether
the proportions of these categories in the NT differ from the national
picture, the analysis is replicated for Australia as a whole. The NOM
data are based on the 12/12 month rule which was applied up to June
quarter 2006, rather than the 12/16 month rule now used, (3) so that
analysis of change over time could be performed. NOM is a net gain or
loss of the Australian population arising from the difference between
international travellers leaving permanently or on a long-term basis and
those arriving permanently or on a long-term basis. In order for a
person to contribute to NOM they must stay in or be absent from
Australia for a continuous period of 12 out of 12 months. (4)
Permanent movement refers to travellers who move to or from
Australia on a permanent basis. Permanent arrivals (settlers) include:
travellers who hold migrant visas (regardless of intended period of
stay); New Zealand citizens who declare an intention to settle and those
who are otherwise eligible to settle, for example overseas-born children
of Australian citizens. Permanent departures refer to Australian
residents (including former settlers) who on departure declare that they
are leaving permanently. Long-term arrivals include overseas migrants
(visitors and temporary entrants) who intend to stay in Australia for 12
months or more and Australian residents returning from overseas after an
absence of 12 months or more. Long-term departures refer to Australian
residents who intend to stay abroad for 12 months or more and overseas
visitors departing who had stayed 12 months or more in Australia. (5)
In addition to permanent and long-term movement, there is also a
category called 'category jumping'. Category jumping is an
adjustment reflecting changes between intended and actual duration of
stay of travellers to and from Australia: 'such that their
classification as short-term or long-term/permanent movers is different
at their arrival/departure from that after 12 months'. (6)
Short-term movements are less than 12 months in duration. Short-term
arrivals comprise overseas visitors who intend to stay in Australia for
less than 12 months and Australian residents returning from overseas
after an absence of less than 12 months. Short-term departures comprise
Australian residents who intend to stay overseas for less than 12 months
and overseas visitors departing after a stay in Australia shorter than
12 months. (7) Category jumping became highly volatile in the mid-1990s
which led to it being set at zero from 1997-98 to 2000-01 as the ABS was
developing a better estimation technique. An improved method for
calculating NOM has been used since September quarter 2006 onwards;
these new estimates and the ones based on the previous method are not
comparable. (8) The period where category jumping was set at zero is
covered by the data analysed in this article.
An advantage of this improved method for calculating NOM is that it
considers travellers' actual rather than declared duration of stay
in and out of Australia. The essence of the new method is the 12/16
month rule. Under this rule travellers are added or subtracted from NOM
if they have stayed in or been absent from Australia for 12 months or
more over a 16 month period. The 12 months do not have to be continuous.
This recognises the increased propensity of long-term visitors to
interrupt their stay in Australia with short-term absences. (9) Under
the 12/12 month rule, visitors declaring a long-term stay (for example
overseas students) were included in NOM, but if they were away for short
holidays, they were included in short-term departures. Then, upon
returning to Australia and declaring again a long-term stay, they were
counted as new long-term arrivals, leading to double counting. This
problem required adjustments to reflect differences between declared and
actual travel behaviour as well as to transform numbers of movements
into numbers of travellers. (10) However, our data are drawn from the
period that pre-dates this reform and, as a consequence, the net figures
of long-term visitors presented in this article have likely been
somewhat inflated and therefore should be seen as indicative rather than
absolutely precise.
NOM IN POPULATION GROWTH IN THE NT
Table 1 shows that annual population growth in the NT between
1996-97 and 2005-06 has fluctuated considerably from a high around 5,000
(1996-97) to a low of around 600 people in 2002-03, when population loss
to NIM was particularly high. The absolute differences in levels of NIM
during this period were quite extreme and ranged from 46 (1998-99 and
1999-00) to 2,226 (1996-97 and 1997-98). The absolute differences in
annual population growth between these periods were 45 and 2,115,
respectively. This demonstrates that variations in absolute population
growth figures in the NT follow the fluctuating levels of NIM. This
table also reveals that net population gains from interstate migration
were recorded only in 1996-97 and 2004-05.
Table 1: Components of population growth in the NT, 1996 to 2006
Year Natural Net Net Total NOM as per cent
increase Overseas Interstate population of total
NI Migration Migration growth (a) population
NOM NIM growth
1996-97 2733 541 1754 5028 10.8
1997-98 2825 560 -472 2913 19.2
1998-99 2749 1006 -953 2802 35.9
1999-2000 2722 942 -907 2757 34.2
2000-01 2851 878 -1592 2137 41.1
2001-02 2839 655 -1998 1496 43.8
2002-03 2946 325 -2768 635 51.2
2003-04 2755 648 -1487 2017 32.1
2004-05 2558 1004 510 4310 23.3
2005-06 2764 1891 -553 4254 44.5
1996 to 27,742 8450 -8366 28,349 29.8
2006
Source: Australian Demographic Statistics, December Quarter, 2008, ABS,
Catalogue no. 3101.0, 2009, pp. 10-11 (and Table 2 for NT in excel
downloaded from <www.abs.gov.au>)
Note: (a) Differences between total population growth and the sum of
the components from 2002-03 to 2005-06 are due to intercensal
discrepancy. Population growth figures For earlier periods are exact
sums of all three components.
NOM has represented annually between 10 and 51 per cent of the
absolute population growth in the NT with an average for the period
studied of nearly 30 per cent. NOM has therefore played a key role in
(apparently) offsetting losses sustained through net interstate
migration. On some occasions, offsets from NOM were small, but they have
always been reported as positive. The role of offsetting the net losses
suffered through interstate migration can also be seen in comparing the
aggregate figure for NOM and NIM over the total period: the net gain
from these two was only 84 people but in the absence of NOM, total
population growth in 1996 to 2006 would have been below 20,000. In
considering the NIM and NOM outcomes it needs to be noted that the NIM
data used in Table 1 do not distinguish between the overseas-born and
Australian-born interstate movers. Regardless of the international port
of entry and departure that the overseas-born use (Darwin or other),
they are counted in the NT NOM if they declare the NT as their intended
long-term place of residence or the place where they had spent most of
their time. If after a couple of months spent in the NT they then move
interstate, they are captured in NIM. When they leave Australia and list
a jurisdiction other than the NT as the place where they have spent most
of their time, this results in an adjustment to the NT NOM. This process
works the other way around too, when an intended stay in another
jurisdiction turns out to be a long-term stay in the NT In consequence,
the aforementioned NOM outcomes are broadly indicative rather than
absolutely precise.
Finally, Table 1 shows that NI has been generally consistently
contributing just below 3,000 people per year to the NT population
growth. It has overall contributed 97.9 per cent to population growth in
the period under review here. Such an outcome contrasts the NI
contribution at the national level, where in 1996 to 2006 it has
contributed 50.6 per cent and NOM 46.2 per cent. (11) Yet, the NT
typically experiences a high outmigration of children, especially
non-Indigenous children aged five to nine. This reduces the long-term
contribution of the very high NI to the population growth. Specifically,
by the age of ten, the NT has typically lost (net) 1,500 children to
interstate migration. Some of those children were NT-born while others
were not, it is impossible to determine the numbers. What is important
is that the outflow in this age group both in terms of volume and
proportional share is the second largest of all age groups. Every five
years the NT suffers a net loss of between eight and nine per cent of
that age group. (12) Given the high levels of the interstate
outmigration, which include young children, population growth is also
pursued by means of overseas migration and efforts to attract interstate
residents.
CATEGORIES OF MOVEMENT IN NOM IN THE NT
Table 2 shows the categories of movement in NOM. It reveals that,
with the exception of 2001-02, long-term visitors have contributed the
highest numbers to NOM each year. Between the beginning and the end of
the period studied here, their number has tripled. Visitors are a
self-identified category and the data used here do not permit
determining the exact composition of this category. (13) It is likely,
however, that most of them were long-term temporary business visa
holders (on 457 visas) and overseas students. Net numbers of long-term
residents were low. In five years out of the ten net long-term movement
of residents was actually negative and in 2002-03 and 2005-06 the NT
lost more than a hundred of these residents. Net permanent movements
were higher in each year than the net long-term resident movements, with
the exception of 2001-02, but they have remained considerably below the
net numbers of long-term visitors. Over the whole decade net permanent
movement represented just one-fifth of NOM (22.4 per cent), whereas net
long-term movement (dominated by visitors) made up 67 per cent of NOM.
This suggests that two-thirds of NOM's contribution to population
growth in the NT has been in the form of long-term movement of
overseas-born people. As noted though, the double counting of some
long-term visitors may have somewhat inflated the reported outcomes and
thus affected the proportional shares.
Table 2: Components of NOM in the NT, 1996 to 2006
Category of movement 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000
Net permanent movement 222 118 216 199
(arrivals-departures)
Net long-term resident movement 36 -44 19 -21
(returners-departers)
Net long-term visitors 335 486 771 764
(arrivals-departures)
Category jumping total -52 0 0 0
NOM total (a) 541 560 1006 942
Category of movement 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Net permanent movement 144 189 171 376
(arrivals-departures)
Net long-term resident movement -125 8 23 -122
(returners-departers)
Net long-term visitors 415 714 620 1022
(arrivals-departures)
Category jumping total -109 -263 190 615
NOM total (a) 325 648 1004 1891
Category of movement 2000-01 2001-02
Net permanent movement 158 104
(arrivals-departures)
Net long-term resident movement 7 -99
(returners-departers)
Net long-term visitors 713 139
(arrivals-departures)
Category jumping total 0 511
NOM total (a) 878 655
Category of movement 1996 to 2006 per cent change
1996 to 2006
Net permanent movement 1897 22.4
(arrivals-departures)
Net long-term resident movement
(returners-departers)
Net long-term visitors (b) 5661 67.0
(arrivals-departures)
Category jumping total 892 10.6
NOM total (a) 8450 100.0
Source: Components of Net Overseas Migration (NOM), Northern Territory
and Australia 1996-2006, ABS data provided on request.
Notes: (a) Final NOM was calculated by adding any required category
jumping to the net of permanent and long-term arrivals and departures
data
(b) This figure is composed of -318 net long-term resident movements
and 5979 net long-term visitor movements.
CATEGORIES OF MOVEMENT IN NOM IN AUSTRALIA
Table 3 below shows all categories of movement in NOM in Australia
and allows comparison of the national patterns in NOM with those in the
NT.
Table 3: Components of NOM in Australia, 1996 to 2006
Category of movement 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000
Net permanent movement 55,895 45,342 48,962 51,194
(arrivals-departures)
Net long-term resident movement 6393 4936 -14,951 -5267
(returners-departers)
Net long-term visitors 32,108 28,884 62,472 61,348
(arrivals-departures)
Category jumping total -7317 0 0 0
NOM total (a) 87,079 79,162 96,483 107,275
Category of movement 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Net permanent movement 43,451 52,512 60,818 63,740
(arrivals-departures)
Net long-term resident movement 9573 14,064 9666 5785
(returners-departers)
Net long-term visitors 101,201 98,045 107,488 129,748
(arrivals-departures)
Category jumping total -37,727 -64,655 -54,210 -52,520
NOM total (a) 116,498 99,966 123,762 146,753
Category of movement 2000-01 2001-02
Net permanent movement 60,845 40,659
(arrivals-departures)
Net long-term resident movement -10,052 -3473
(returners-departers)
Net long-term visitors 84,880 96,498
(arrivals-departures)
Category jumping total 0 -23,128
NOM total (a) 135,673 110,556
Category of movement 1996 to 2006 per cent change
1996 to 2006
Net permanent movement 523,418 47.4
(arrivals-departures)
Net long-term resident movement
(returners-departers)
Net long-term visitors (b) 819,346 74.3
(arrivals-departures)
Category jumping total -239,557 -21.7
NOM total (a) 1,103,207 100.0
Source: Components of Net Overseas Migration (NOM), Northern Territory
and Australia 1996-2006, ABS data provided on request.
Notes: (a) Final NOM was calculated by adding any required category
jumping to the net of permanent and long-term arrivals and departures
data.
(b) This figure is composed of 16,674 net long-term resident movements
and 802,672 net long-term visitor movements.
Table 3 reveals that in Australia as a whole, unlike in the NT,
until 1997-98 there were more net permanent movements than there were
net long-term visitor movements. The situation reversed in 1998-99 and,
since 2000-01, the numerical gap between these two components has begun
to widen considerably. In 1996 to 2006 net long-term visitor movement to
Australia has numerically contributed most to NOM in Australia as a
whole. Its annual contribution has ranged from 32,000 in 1996-97 to
nearly 130,000 in 2005-06. With three exceptions (1997-98, 1999-2000 and
2003-04), the numbers of net long-term visitors have been rising
continuously and, between the beginning of the period studied until its
end, they have quadrupled. This is a faster growth than in the NT, again
recognising the potential for double counting. Net long-term resident
movements to Australia fluctuated and losses were recorded between
1998-99 and 2001-02. Their annual volumes have remained low in
comparison to the net long-term visitor movements. Over the whole period
studied, the total volume of net long-term resident movement was more
than 48 times lower than the total volume of net long-term visitor
movement. This shows how much NOM has been reliant on the latter. Table
3 also shows that over the whole decade net permanent movement
represented 47.4 per cent of NOM and net long-term movement (dominated
by visitors) 74.3 per cent. Category jumping brought net population
losses to Australia at-21.7 per cent.
While the exact percentage shares contributed by categories of
movement in NOM differed between the NT and Australia as a whole, the
broad trends were somewhat similar. In 1996 to 2006, in the NT and
Australia alike, NOM has chiefly relied on net long-term movement, which
has represented 67 per cent and 74.3 per cent, respectively. In both
cases these movements have been dominated by visitors. The percentage
contribution made by net permanent movement was more than twice as low
in the NT than in Australia: 22.4 per cent and 47.4 per cent,
respectively. This illustrates that it has been difficult for the NT to
attract a share of net permanent movers similar to the share represented
in the national NOM. Unlike in Australia as a whole, category jumpers in
the NT delivered an overall net population gain.
HAS NOM MITIGATED INTERSTATE POPULATION MOBILITY IN THE NT?
Has NOM contributed to a less mobile population in the NT and could
it have such an effect in the future? Although numerically NOM has made
up for net losses sustained through interstate migration in the NT in
1996 to 2006, it itself has been largely composed of long-term movers
(chiefly visitors). This suggests that its mitigating effect on
population mobility in the NT has been limited and instead that NOM has
sustained the temporary nature of settlement in the NT. Although
proportionately net long-term movement in the NT NOM was somewhat less
important than nationally it has likely had a greater relative impact
than on Australia as a whole. This has resulted from a combination of
the high number of visitors (by definition non-permanent), the NT being
the least populous jurisdiction, and its long-established pattern of
exporting more people interstate than it takes in. Even though in
Australia as a whole the number of visitors in NOM was high too, the
proportion of net permanent movement approached 50 per cent of total
NOM. If a similar proportion of permanent movement were achieved in the
NT NOM, and if most of these individuals stayed in the NT, then NOM
could possibly have had some stabilising effect on the high population
mobility.
Yet, the overseas-born are most mobile in the first decade
following their arrival in Australia. The 2006 census revealed that on
the national scale six per cent of the overseas-bom who arrived in
1996-2000 moved interstate but only 4.8 per cent of the Australian-born
did. (14) The overseas-born in the NT were also more mobile than the
Australian-born. The 2006 census has shown that those arrived in
Australia in 1996 to 2000 had a 26 per cent migration rate out of the
NT. Those who arrived most recently (2001 to 06) were slightly less
mobile: their outmigration rate from the NT was 22.3 per cent. Yet, both
of these rates were higher than the 19.6 per cent interstate migration
rate for the Australian-born (all figures are five-year rates). The
turnover rate of these overseas-born in the NT was also higher than the
turnover rate of the Australian-born. For those arrived in 1996 to 2000
it was 45.5 per cent and for the recent arrivals 41.8 per cent. By
comparison, the turnover for the Australian-born recorded by the 2006
census in the NT was 35.8 per cent. (15) These data do not distinguish
between the long-term and permanent movers, which could improve our
understanding of mobility patterns of those captured by NOM in the NT.
However, some of the overseas-born movers seem to have subsequently
relocated interstate thus participating in the transient population
system. Overall, the overseas-born contribute to, rather than mitigate
against, the temporary nature of the settlement in the NT.
Judging by the trends discussed thus far, it is difficult to
predict whether NOM in the NT could reduce the mobility of the NT
population in the future. First, changing the proportions of
contributing categories of movement developed during a decade may be
difficult because these proportions are partly due to deliberate past
policy choices, which have been tightened only recently. The dominant
role of net long-term movement, particularly of visitors, in NOM, has
resulted from a combination of factors including federal government
decisions, made in consultation with the states and territories. During
the decade under review here, opportunities to enter Australia on
temporary visas were expanded. Overseas temporary workers, business
people and overseas students were responsible for the growing numbers of
long-term visitors. The increase in the number of temporary visas has
resulted from a combination of the demand for foreign labour in times of
economic prosperity, growing interest in studying in Australia and from
policy choices where temporary visa grants to business and skilled
migrants have been preferred over granting them permanent status
immediately. Most of these temporary visas have had pathways to
permanent visas, which could be granted onshore. When the research
reported here was being undertaken, it was impossible to immediately
ascertain from the available data how many of the long-term visitors
recorded by NOM in the NT indeed became permanent residents in the NT,
under what visa categories, after what period of time and whether they
have permanently established themselves there (in addition to being
granted a permanent visa there) and whether they still live there.
Second, the regional migration schemes rolled out in 1996 with
fixed-term residency requirements may have been somewhat conducive to
relocation, too. The NT has a narrower choice of urban areas to live in
than more populous jurisdictions in Australia, which means that if a
relocation occurs, it is often to interstate. Finally, cuts to the
permanent skilled migration program in 2008-09 (from 133,500 to 115,000)
and 2009-10 (from 115,000 to 108,100) were introduced by the federal
government. This was done in response to the economic downturn. The
reduction will be achieved by offering fewer places in the general
skilled category (where some visas offer permanent residency
immediately), (16) but places in employer-sponsored categories will not
be affected. (17) This reduction means that in the near future the
ability of the NT to attract a higher number of permanent migrants will
be affected.
CONCLUSIONS
In 1996 to 2006 NOM's critical role in population growth in
the NT consisted in offsetting net interstate population losses.
However, in the context of the small and highly transient population of
the NT, the fact that NOM itself has been largely composed of
impermanent movements has not helped to mitigate the high population
mobility in the NT. The interstate migration rates of overseas-born
people captured by the census were higher than those of the
Australian-born. By being more mobile they have not behaved differently
from the overseas-born in Australia in general, yet again in the context
of typically negative net interstate migration in the NT, their
behaviour has perpetuated rather than reduced population mobility.
Our analysis has been restricted by issues related to data quality
such as the likely inflated net long-term visitor figures in NOM and the
lack of details regarding the composition of this category. The annual
NIM data did not permit us to separate the overseas-born from the
Australian-born interstate movers. The census data did not permit us to
distinguish between overseas-born long-term and permanent migrants (as
per NOM categories) among interstate movers. This appears to be a wider
issue where migration data are available for entry into the system but,
once the overseas-born (particularly permanent residents), move
interstate, this is not recorded because such migrants do not need to
notify DIAC of changes in address. The pivotal role of interstate
migration in population growth in the NT and the engagement therein of
the overseas-born means that such data would enable us to describe more
precisely the composition of interstate migration in the NT, and thereby
inform planning and policy.
If NOM were to reduce the population mobility in the NT much higher
numbers would need to be achieved every year and long-term visitors, in
particular, would need to stay in the NT. Alternatively a dramatic
reduction in NIM would be necessary. The trends discussed here do not
seem to suggest that this could occur in the near future. Does this mean
that the NT is simply unlucky in that it has a small and highly mobile
population in the first place, and that the overseas-born tend to be
highly mobile, too? On the one hand, yes, it could be argued that the
unique geography, narrower economic base and physical distance from the
rest of Australia, as well as extreme climate, have contributed to the
powerful trends in population mobility in the NT today.
In such transient populations durable social ties may be difficult
to maintain and access to services may mean dealing with different
people every time. But is high population mobility necessarily a bad
phenomenon? It brings vitality, new skills and experience to a place. It
could also be seen as a safety valve--a self-regulating mechanism to
access infrastructure such as rental stock, health services and alike.
If the NT had higher levels of interstate migration from elsewhere in
Australia and at the same time fewer relocations to interstate, this
access would no doubt become more competitive (at least up to a point
where it would have resulted in higher outmigration of unhappy
residents).
From this perspective, until access to infrastructure and services
has been improved (which is being addressed by a number of NT Government
policies), high population mobility can be seen as one means of ensuring
functionality of services. Although technically outside the scope of
this article, it may be further noted that this mobility translates into
staff turnover. As recently discussed in the media, (18) that turnover
particularly negatively impacts upon access to services and outcomes for
clients in remote Indigenous communities.
References
(1) Australian Demographic Statistics December Quarter 2008,
catalogue no. 3101.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2009a, p. 1,
released 4 June 2009
(2) Building our Population: A Framework for Economic and Social
Growth Through our People, Northern Territory Government, 2005, Darwin.
(3) ABS, 2009a, op. cit., p. 40
(4) ibid., pp. 46, 48, 49
(5) ibid., pp. 48, 49
(6) Migration Australia 2006-07, catalogue no. 3412.0, ABS 2008, p.
96, released 26 March 2008
(7) ABS, 2009a, op. cit., p. 50
(8) Population Flows: Immigration Aspects 2006-07, Department of
Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) 2008, p.3. More information about the
new and old methods of calculating NOM can be found in: Demography
Working Paper 2003/5--Net Overseas Migration: Adjusting/or Actual
Duration of Stay or Absence, 2003, ABS, Catalogue no. 3137.0,2003;
Information Paper: Improved Methods for Estimating Net Overseas
Migration, Australia, 2006, ABS, Catalogue no. 3107.0.55.003, 2006 and
Information Paper: Statistical Implications of Improved Methods for
Estimating Net Overseas Migration. Australia, 2007, ABS, Catalogue no.
3107.0.55.005, 2007
(9) Migration Australia 2007-08, ABS, Catalogue no. 3412.0, 2009c,
p. 60, released 28 July 2009
(10) ibid., p. 60
(11) Percentages do not add up to 100 per cent due to intercensal
discrepancies from 2002-03 to 2005-06. ABS 2009a, op. cit., pp. 10-11
and Table 2 for Australia in excel downloaded from
<www.abs.gov.au>.
(12) ABS census data, 2006, 2001 and 1996, various sources
(13) Compare reasons for journey of temporary NOM arrivals based on
the 12/16-month rule in ABS 2009c, op. cit., p. 24.
(14) For ages five and over, ibid., p. 52.
(15) For ages five and over. Excludes not stated and supplementary
codes. Census CData online, ABS, Catalogue no. 2064.0, 2009b,
custom-built tables <www.abs.gov.au/CDataOnline> accessed 30 July
2009.
(16) These visas are Skilled Independent and Skilled-Sponsored. A
third permanent residency visa, Skilled-Regional, can be applied for by
those who have held one of the eligible temporary visas first. Form
959i. Migrating to Australia, Skilled Migration, DIAC, 2007, p. 1
<www.immi.gov.au/allforms/booklets/959i.pdf> dated September 2007,
accessed 20 July 2009
(17) Budget 2009-10: Migration program--the size of the skilled and
family programs, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 2009, Tuesday
12 May 2009 <www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2009/ce02-budget-09.htm> accessed 15 May 2009
(18) See 'The Soapbox', NT News, 29 July 2009, p. 11, and
T. Barrass, '"Political calamity" under way in NT',
The Australian, 12 August 2009, p. 6.
