Are employers stuck in the past with outdated and unreasonable perceptions that are working against skilled migrants finding employment? Are the same employers disregarding migrants as candidates for positions when they have, proportionately, higher qualifications than the local population?
These questions emerge from an analysis of skilled migration to South Australia between 2010 and 2014 undertaken by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (SACES) and the Hugo Centre for Migration and Population Research, both based at the University of Adelaide.
The results of this analysis – which have just been published as Economic Issues #52 by SACES – shows that South Australia is missing out on the full contribution to the state’s economy that could be made by skilled migrants.
The research builds on earlier work by the Hugo Centre for the former Department of State Development of the 7440 people granted visas under the State’s General Skilled Migration (GSM) scheme between July 2010 and December 2014. Under the GSM, the State Government sought to lift SA’s skills base by encouraging migrants to apply for various visa categories and nominated occupations.
Economic Issues #52 focuses solely on the employment experiences of skilled migrants using weighted survey data enhanced with more detailed occupational and employment outcome data, and previously unused accounts of the challenges that migrants reported about obtaining employment in South Australia.
GSM migrants were disproportionately male (69%) and the majority (62%) were aged between 25 and 34 years. The top five places of origin were India (27.8%), United Kingdom (12.1%), China (8.1%), Pakistan (5.8%) and Sri Lanka (5.8%). Seventy-nine per cent of the GSM visa holders held a bachelor or higher degree compared with 23.4% of South Australians of comparable age.
It’s time for a rethink on how employers approach the hiring of migrants.
Despite their high levels of qualification and occupational status, not all GSM migrants to South Australia were able to obtain work in the state: those that did, found a job relatively quickly, but not necessarily in their assessed occupation. Close to half (44%) of those in employment or self-employment ended up working in an occupation or field other than the one nominated in their visa application. Furthermore, more than half of those in work (53%) were employed at a level that they felt was below their previous overseas experience and/or qualification, frequently working casual (19%) or on time-limited contracts (20%).
A closer look at the more prominent occupations reveals a particularly high level of mismatch among migrants with assessed business, human resources or marketing occupations, specialist managers and also design, engineering, science and transport professionals. In all instances, not finding employment in the nominated occupation was the main factor in the mismatch, while business, human resources and marketing professionals were also likely to feel over-qualified in their job.
So, what causes such mismatches in the labour market for skilled migrants, particularly when two of the main visa categories (subclass 190 Skilled Nominated Permanent and subclass 475 Skilled Regional Provisional) require nomination by the State Government or family sponsorship?
Given an opportunity to name and describe the challenges they had experienced in finding paid work in their own words, GSM visa holders produced a rich list of personal and institutional barriers to employment as many respondents took this opportunity to provide often detailed accounts of their personal experiences.
The most frequently mentioned barrier, reported by 43% of all GSM migrants, was the expectation on the part of employers that the job seekers should have local work experience. Related to this, GSM migrants also noted that employers were expecting local references (5%), which they typically were not able to provide. A third group of experience-related barriers include a lack of skills recognition or of local licences or tickets, which were identified by 12% of migrants.
Almost a third (30%) felt that there were too few jobs available in the state for the number of job seekers, while one in 10 felt that discrimination had played a role in the difficulties they had experienced in securing employment.
GSM migrants also felt that employers preferred or required job seekers to have Australian citizenship or, as a minimum, permanent residency. Overall, seven per cent of GSM migrants expressed this view, but this increased to 13% of those on provisional skilled visas.
Personal obstacles to securing employment were mentioned less frequently, but included insufficient language skills (8%) and lack of familiarity with the job application process in Australia (1%).
In summary, migrants attributed the challenges they faced in the state labour market to a slack economy and a reluctance of employers to hire people with no local work experience and with whose skills and qualifications they were not familiar.
At a time when South Australia, and Australia more generally, needs skilled migrants making the most effective and productive contribution to the economy that is possible, it seems somewhat anachronistic to continue to judge potential employees by their local experience and references. By definition, as recent arrivals, they are not in a position to provide such information.
It’s time for a rethink on how employers approach the hiring of migrants. Options could include making use of multicultural, council and business networks to connect migrants to the SA community and its economy, facilitate introductions and foster understanding of qualifications and the transferability of skills. Employers could then rely on their own judgment that is better informed than a cursory glance at a curriculum vitae would allow.
Migrants, businesses, and the economy would all be better off.
Dr Andreas Cebulla is a Senior Research Fellow at SACES and Dr George Tan is an Adjunct Fellow at the Hugo Centre for Migration and Population Research, University of Adelaide.
Want to comment?
Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.
We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.
InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.
Help our journalists uncover the facts
In times like these InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to donate to InDaily.