Research Paper 9 1999-2000

Regional Development Through Immigration? The Reality behind the Rhetoric

Graeme Hugo
Consultant
Social Policy Group
30 November 1999

Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

Major Issues

• Australia is the fourth least densely settled country in the world. Moreover, it has a highly concentrated pattern of settlement with 83 per cent of the population living within 50 km of the coast and 62.7 per cent living in cities with 100 000 or more residents.
• The broad pattern of distribution has been constant for more than a century but within some areas significant changes are occurring in distribution:
• there is a northward drift of the population to southeast Queensland with that state increasing its share of the population from 14.9 to 18.2 per cent since 1971.
• there was a decline from 74.5 to 69.5 per cent in the share of the population in the southeastern states.
• there is a growing dichotomisation occurring between non-metropolitan areas in the coastal areas of the east and southwest which are growing in population and the bulk of the dry farming and rangeland areas which are experiencing population decline.
• Immigration contributes to changes in the distribution of the population since migrants do not settle in Australia in the same places as the Australia-born population:
• they are disproportionately represented in NSW, Victoria and WA and under-represented elsewhere.
• migrants are especially concentrated in major cities, in particular Sydney and, to a lesser extent, Melbourne.
• Recent arrivals have shown an increasing tendency to settle in major urban areas since 1986, especially among the non-English speaking origin groups.
• Not only have post-war migrants tended to settle in Australia's larger urban areas but they have concentrated especially in two cities-Sydney (1996 population 3.74 million) and Melbourne (1996 population 3.14 million). By 1961 Melbourne had surpassed Sydney as having the largest overseas-born community in the nation but in the last two decades Sydney has reasserted itself as the major focus of immigrant settlement in Australia, so that at the 1996 Census it had 29.4 per cent of the nation's overseas-born compared with 23.4 per cent in Melbourne.
• International migration to Sydney and Melbourne has been counterbalanced by a net outflow of the Australia-born population equivalent in size to half the overseas-born flow in Sydney and almost equal in size to that in Melbourne.
• In the early post-war years policies were initiated to settle migrants in non-metropolitan areas where there was a significant labour shortage and the programs were initiated to attract people to fill jobs. In 1947 a quarter of all overseas born persons lived in rural areas but this was reduced to 7.4 per cent in 1996.
• In recent years there have been attempts to attract migrants away from settling in the areas considered to be experiencing pressure from population growth-Sydney and environs, Southeast Queensland and Perth. These are still in their infancy but have met with only limited success with the main activity being in South Australia.
• The question is raised as to whether the efforts currently being expended in attracting newly arrived immigrants to areas of Australia perceived to have population growth which is too low may be more productively directed at the established Australian resident population in areas perceived to be experiencing pressures of population such as diseconomies of scale, environmental pollution, spiralling land and home costs, congestion, accelerating overhead costs, etc.
• The relative lack of success of schemes in Australia and elsewhere to encourage migrant settlement in non-metropolitan centres suggests that the future of Australia's population distribution is more likely to be shaped indirectly by policies which encourage (or discourage) economic development outside core regions of the country rather than by direct interventions to influence where new immigrants to Australia settle.

Introduction

Australia is one of the least densely populated countries (2.3 persons per km2) in the world but it also has one of the most spatially concentrated populations as Figure 1 indicates. In 1996 some 83 per cent of the population lived within 50 km of the coast.

Figure 1: Australia: Population Density 1996

Source: Calculated from ABS 1996 Census

This uneven distribution has long been an issue of debate in Australia (Rowland 1982, 23-24) and raises a number of important policy issues in both the closely and sparsely settled areas. In the former issues of negative environmental impacts, overcrowding, diseconomies in service provision, etc. abound, while in the latter questions of economic and social viability and lack of access to services loom large.

This paper begins by briefly addressing the question of the extent to which Australia's population distribution is changing. Changes in population distribution can occur through a number of demographic processes:

• natural increase levels (i.e. excess of births over deaths) varying between regions
• internal migration whereby Australian residents leave some areas and concentrate in others
• international migration whereby arrivals from overseas concentrate in particular areas and adopt a settlement pattern different from that of the established population.

All three elements have played a role in producing varying levels of population growth in different parts of Australia and subsequently shifts in population distribution. There are variations in age structure, fertility and mortality between areas which influence regional population growth although these effects are less substantial than the other two processes in shaping population distribution. Certainly internal migration is having a significant effect in shaping Australia's population distribution.(1) However, the focus in the present paper is on the third of these processes-the impact of where overseas immigrants settle upon national population distribution.

The debate about population and immigration in Australia has long included supporters of high immigration who have argued that Australia's empty spaces provide a rationale for higher immigration levels and that such immigration could provide a solution to problems of regional decline. However, immigrants have in fact shown less inclination than the Australia-born to disperse. The present Government, in conjunction with State government has, since 1996, put in place a range of measures to encourage migrant settlement in regional areas. The Labor Party has indicated that population distribution will be a central feature of its proposed population policy, and that it is considering further incentives to encourage the settlement of an expanded migrant intake away from Australia's major cities. Accordingly the present paper seeks to:

• explain where migrants live, and why they settle where they do
• discuss trends in recent years and amongst newer communities towards a greater urban concentration and towards settlement in Australia's larger cities, Sydney and Melbourne
• summarise regional migration schemes and incentives since World War II (WWII) and their degree of success
• look at current and proposed Commonwealth/State schemes and incentives, the scope of their objectives and the extent to which these are being achieved
• examine similarities and differences in migrant settlement patterns and issues in other countries that have planned immigration programs, such as Canada
• describe the sorts of levers for manipulating where migrants settle that are realistically available to Australian governments
• describe the likely settlement patterns of future migrants.

Changing Patterns of Australian Population Distribution

Urban/Rural

Australia's population is a strongly concentrated one as shown in Figure 2 with a strong clustering in the east coast, southeast and southwest regions. It is interesting in passing to note that the pre-European population distribution was much less concentrated as is that of the present day indigenous population (Figure 3). A feature of this uneven population distribution is the high degree of concentration in large urban areas. Australia has adopted 1000 persons as the minimum size of a settlement to qualify as an urban area and since the 1960s has adopted a population density based system to define urban areas (Hugo et al. 1997). The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) divides the nation into the following Sections of State:

1. Major Urban-urban centres with a population of 100 000 and over.
2. Other Urban-urban centres with a population of 1000 to 99 999.
3. Bounded Rural Locality-population clusters of 200-999.
4. Rural Balance-the remaining Collection Districts (CDs).
5. Migratory-offshore, shipping and migratory persons.

Figure 2: Australia: Distribution of the Total Population, 1997

Source: ABS 1999a

Figure 3: Australia: Distribution of the Indigenous Population, 1996

Source: ABS 1999a

While it is difficult to make comparisons between censuses because of changing boundaries of urban places and population centres moving between categories, Table 1 shows the patterns of population change in each Section of State category over the 1954-96 period. It will be noted that over the period up to 1971 there was an increase in the proportion of the national population living in major urban areas. There was a small decrease between 1971 and 1976 heralding the 'turnaround' trend or a sharp reversal of previous patterns of population concentration. Thereafter, comparisons are made more difficult due to boundary changes and bracket creep but using 1991 boundaries there has been at least a stabilisation in the proportion of population living in cities with 100 000 or more residents. On the other hand, the proportions living in rural areas substantially declined up to 1971. This was the continuation of a long standing trend. Figure 4 indicates that there was a consistent pattern of decrease in the proportion of Australians living in rural areas up to 1971 and a decline in numbers of rural residents in some intercensal periods up to that year. However, since then there has been a stabilisation of the rural population at around 14 per cent and an increase in the numbers of rural dwellers.

Figure 4: Australia: Rural Population 1911-1996

Source: Australian Censuses 1911-1996

Table 1: Australia: Population Growth by Section of State, 1976-96

Note: Based on the section of state as defined in the report of the 1981 census. Non-major urban includes migratory population.

Source: ABS 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991 and 1996 Censuses

The figures in Table 1 give a false impression of a steady state situation. In fact these national totals mask a great deal of variation between areas with respect to population growth. This is evident in Figure 5 which shows population change at Statistical Local Area (SLA) level in non-metropolitan Australia between 1991 and 1996. Clearly the turnaround in Australia is a strongly spatially concentrated phenomenon (Hugo 1996). Population growth in non-metropolitan areas is concentrated in particular ecological areas such as:

• peri-urban areas surrounding major urban areas in which commuting is significant
• attractive coastal localities, especially along the east, southeast and southwest coasts
• some major regional centres
• some mining and tourist destinations
• along some major roads (e.g. Hume Highway) and rivers.

Figure 5: Non-Metropolitan SLAs, Population Change 1991-1996

Source: ABS 1991 and 1996 Censuses

On the other hand, the bulk of dry farming areas and much of the pastoral zone continue to experience significant population losses.

State/Territory Comparisons

There have also been some changes in the distribution of population between Australia's states and territories. Table 2 shows that over the 1976-96 period the proportion of Australian's living in the southeastern states (NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania) has decreased from 74.5 per cent to 69.5 per cent. On the other hand, Queensland has increased its share of the national population from 14.9 to 18.2 per cent and Western Australia from 8.4 to 9.6 per cent. The territories have experienced a smaller increase in their share of the national population. Hence there has been a northward, and to a lesser extent, western shift in the centre of gravity of the Australian population distribution. Nevertheless, it remains a very spatially concentrated distribution.

Table 2: Australia: Population of States and Territories, 1976-1996

Source: ABS 1998

Geographical Distribution of Immigrants

Distribution Between the States and Territories

Figures 6 and 7 depict the national distribution of the Australia-born and overseas-born populations at the time of the 1996 census and some clear differences are immediately apparent. The immigrant population is clearly a more concentrated one. Table 3 shows that Western Australia has the greatest concentration of migrants in relation to its total population with 27.8 per cent of residents being born overseas compared with 22 per cent in the nation as a whole.

The other part of the nation in which there is a disproportionate representation was the southeastern quadrant of the mainland comprising NSW, Victoria and the ACT. For almost the entire post-war period, South Australia has had more than its share of immigrants but at the 1996 Census its proportion had fallen slightly below the national average. Tasmania is the State least affected by immigrant settlement and the Northern Territory also has a below average presence of migrants. Most striking, however, is Queensland which, despite being far and away the most rapidly growing State over the last two decades, has a significant 'under' representation of overseas-born people, indicating clearly that the bulk of that State's rapid growth has been fuelled by interstate, rather than international net migration gains. Certainly the share of the overseas-born population in Queensland has increased from 15 per cent in 1986 to 17.4 per cent in 1991 but fell to 16.8 per cent in 1996 but even much of this gain has been due to internal migration of overseas-born people who had lived for extended periods in other States (Bell 1992).

On the other hand, NSW and Victoria have been growing at well below the national average but they have continued to receive a disproportionate share of immigrants coming to Australia. This is due partly to Melbourne and Sydney being important ports of arrival of immigrants and also to many of the immigrants being chain migrants attracted by, and joining, settlers from their country of origin who moved into Victoria and New South Wales in earlier post-Second World War years. In South Australia, substantial industrial development in the 1950s and 1960s attracted a disproportionate share of immigrants but economic restructuring and the decline of Australian manufacturing over the last two decades has resulted in a much smaller share of immigrants settling there. It is clear then, that although the employment situation in the States and Territories is of significance in shaping the destination of immigrants, the relationship at the State level is by no means a deterministic one.

Figure 6: Australia: Distribution of Australia-Born Population by Statistical Division, 1996

Source: ABS 1996 Census

Figure 7: Australia: Distribution of Overseas-Born Population by Statistical Division, 1996

Source: ABS 1996 Census

Table 3: Australia: Concentration of Overseas-Born People, 1996

	Proportion of Population Born In
State of Current Residence	MESC(a)	Other Europe(b)	Other Countries	Total Overseas-born
New South Wales	7.4	5.9	9.9	23.2
Victoria	6.8	9.2	7.9	23.9
Queensland	9.5	3.3	4.0	16.8
South Australia	10.7	7.1	3.5	21.3
Western Australia	15.9	5.3	6.5	27.8
Tasmania	6.3	2.4	1.5	10.2
Northern Territory	7.4	3.2	4.9	15.5
Australian Capital Territory	8.7	6.4	7.3	22.4
Australia	8.7	6.2	7.2	22.0

(a) Mainly English-speaking countries (Ireland, South Africa, UK, USA, Canada and New Zealand).
(b) Excluding UK and Ireland.

Source: ABS 1996 Census

Ethnic Mix

States and Territories have not only differed in the extent to which they have attracted immigrants but there are also some interesting differences in their 'mix' of birthplace groups due to historical differences in the timing of them receiving heavy net migration gains, as well as differences in policies followed by particular States to attract immigrants of particular types. These are reflected in Figures 8 and 9 which show that there is a significant difference in the national distribution of immigrants from mainly English-speaking (MES) origin countries and those from mainly non-English-speaking (NES) origins.

Figure 8: Australia: Distribution of Non-English Speaking (NES) Origin-Born Population by Statistical Division, 1996.

Source: ABS 1996 Census

Figure 9: Australia: Distribution of Mainly English Speaking (MES) Origin-Born Population by Statistical Division, 1996

Source: ABS 1996 Census

Table 3 also indicates these differences which can be briefly summarised as follows (Hugo 1986, 1988, 1989-92):

• Persons born in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are the largest overseas-born group in each state but have a low representation in the major immigrant receiving states of New South Wales and Victoria as well as the two territories. On the other hand, they account for more than half of all overseas-born persons in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania.
• European-born persons make up over half of the overseas-born population in each state and make up a very substantial proportion of the overseas-born in the states which have recorded very slow growth in recent years (South Australia and Tasmania).
• Among the NES European groups there is substantial interstate variation. The Italian-born account for 6.1 per cent of all Australia's overseas-born population (down from 9.2 per cent in 1981) but their share in the states varies from 9.4 per cent (Victoria) to 2.1 per cent (Northern Territory). The Italian-born are most heavily represented in those states taking disproportionately large shares of immigrants in the 1950s and 1960s-Victoria and South Australia.
• Persons born in the former Yugoslavia represent 3.9 per cent of the total overseas-born and are most heavily concentrated in Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT. Greek-born persons account for 5.9 per cent of the overseas-born and almost half (48.8 per cent) of them live in Victoria. Victoria's overseas-born have a larger Southern European component than other States and this clearly differentiates that state's stock of overseas-born immigrants from others.
• The smaller numbers from Northern and Western continental European countries are more evenly distributed between states and territories.
• Much controversy surrounds the substantial growth of the Asian population. They expanded their proportion of the overseas-born from 12.4 per cent in 1981 to 16.5 per cent in 1986, 18.3 per cent in 1991 and 21.9 per cent in 1996. There is a disproportionate share of Asians in New South Wales which accounts for 44.2 per cent of the total Asia-born population compared with 33.2 per cent of the Australia-born while Victoria also has a disproportionate concentration (28.0 per cent compared with 24.0 per cent). Western Australia, too, has a greater share of the nation's Asian population (10.1 per cent) than of the Australia-born (8.9 per cent). These three states then account for 82.3 per cent of the nation's Asian-born population but only two-thirds of the Australia-born. The recency of much Asian immigration is reflected in the low representation in the states which have experienced slow economic growth in the last decade-South Australia (4.4 per cent compared with 8.1 per cent of the Australia-born) and Tasmania. The low representation in Queensland (10.0 per cent compared with 20.0 per cent of the Australia-born), however, cannot be explained in this way.
• The Vietnamese-born population (the largest Asian group) make up only 3.9 per cent of the overseas-born (compared with 1.4 per cent in 1981) and show a tendency to be disproportionately concentrated in New South Wales and Victoria.
• East Asian, Indo-Chinese and Filipino and Pacific immigrants are strongly concentrated in New South Wales, and to a lesser extent, Victoria. On the other hand, South Asians, Indonesians and Malaysians are more strongly relatively concentrated in Western Australia.
• Among other groups there is less interstate variation except for the case of New Zealanders who are strongly concentrated in the states which experienced most rapid economic growth in the 1970s-most notably Queensland and the Northern Territory (McCaskill 1982). The attractiveness of Sydney to New Zealanders has also resulted in New South Wales having an above average proportion of trans-Tasman immigrants. Americans are more concentrated in the Territories and New South Wales, and Africans in Western Australia.

Urban-Rural Distribution of Immigrants

One of the most distinctive features of post-war immigration to Australia has been the tendency for migrants to settle in the nation's largest urban areas. Table 4 shows that over the 1947-96 period the number of Australia-born persons living in cities with 100 000 or more inhabitants more than doubled so that in 1996, 57.7 per cent lived in such centres. On the other hand, the overseas-born population in the largest urban areas increased more than six times so that by 1996, 80 per cent of Australia's overseas-born lived in those cities. Hence the impact of immigration has been felt more in Australia's major cities than in the provincial cities or rural areas. Over the 1947-96 period the proportion of the population in cities with more than 100 000 residents made up by the overseas-born increased from 11.6 per cent to 29.1 per cent. Moreover, their impact upon the growth of those cities is under-estimated by these figures since the children born to overseas-born people after arrival in Australia are included with the Australia-born.

The proportion of the total national overseas-born population living in provincial cities declined slightly from 13.5 to 12.5 per cent over the 1947-96 period. However, the overseas-born in such cities increased almost fivefold so that the proportion of residents who were overseas-born increased from 7.2 to 12.3 per cent. In rural areas there was a substantial change. In 1947 a quarter of all overseas-born persons lived in rural areas but this was drastically reduced to 7.4 per cent by 1996. Nevertheless the proportion of rural residents who were overseas-born increased from 7.6 per cent to 12.1 per cent. Hence although the presence of overseas-born has increased in all three urban-rural sectors, the impact has been greatest in major urban areas. This contrasts with a great deal of pre-World War II settlement of NES-origin groups which was strongly focused upon rural areas (e.g. Borrie 1954). It is interesting to note, however, that there was no increase in the proportion of overseas-born living in major urban areas between the 1986 (79.6 per cent) and the 1991 (79.5 per cent) Censuses and it increased only slightly to 80 per cent in 1996.

Table 4: Australia: Distribution of Australia and Overseas-Born Population Between Major Urban, Other Urban and Rural Areas, 1947-96

Australia-Born					Per cent Change	Overseas-Born				Per cent Change
	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	1947-96	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	1947-96
Major Urban	3 390 591	49.7	7 627 194	57.7	+125.0	453 368	61.8	3 126 263	80.0	+589.6
Other Urban	1 263 724	18.5	3 485 125	26.4	+175.8	98 284	13.5	489 550	12.5	+395.4
Rural	2 173 068	31.8	2 108 236	15.9	-3.0	181 180	24.7	290 275	7.4	+60.2
Total*	6 827 383	100.0	13 220 555	100.0	+93.6	732 832	100.0	3 906 088	100.0	+432.6

* Excludes migratory.

Source: ABS 1947 and 1996 Censuses

The first intercensal period when there was not an increase in this proportion was 1986-91. This is worth examining in a little more detail with reference to Table 5. This indicates that the recent arrivals have shown an increasing tendency to settle in major urban areas since 1986, especially among the NES origin groups.

Table 5: Australia: Number and Percentage of Overseas-Born Persons Resident in Capital Cities by Origin and Length of Residence, 1986 and 1996

Birthplace	1986				1996
	0-4 Years		5+ Years		0-4 Years		5+ Years
	Number	Per cent of Total Resident in Capitals	Number	Per cent of Total Resident in Capitals	Number	Per cent of Total Resident in Capitals	Number	Per cent of Total Resident in Capitals
MES Origin	181,747	76.8	877,266	73.0	119,614	75.6	944,892	70.6
NES Origin	291,044	88.6	1,236,518	83.5	376,446	90.3	1,588,030	85.1
Total Overseas-born	472,791	83.7	2,113,784	78.8	496,060	86.3	2,532,922	79.1

Source: ABS 1986 and 1996 Censuses

On the other hand, among those who are longer established in Australia there has been stability in the tendency to settle in major cities. This is consistent with a pattern of 'counter-urbanisation' or decentralisation among the Australia-born that has been recognised for the last two decades (Hugo 1994) and suggests that over time there may be some convergence in the internal migration patterns of the overseas-born toward those of the Australia-born. Bell (1992) identified increased outmigration of longstanding overseas-born older people from major urban areas during the 1981-86 period. It is noticeable in Table 5 that among the MES-born, deconcentration away from the major cities is occurring. This supports the idea of longstanding migrants, especially those from similar backgrounds to the Australia-born, converging toward the national population in its internal migration trends.

Sydney/Melbourne

Not only have post-war migrants tended to settle in Australia's larger urban areas but they have concentrated especially in two cities-Sydney (1996 population 3.74 million) and Melbourne (1996 population 3.14 million). This is reflected in the fact that while their proportions have more than doubled, Sydney and Melbourne's share of the nation's foreign-born population has increased from 46.5 per cent in 1947 to 52.3 per cent in 1991 and 52.8 per cent in 1996. On the other hand, their share of the Australia-born has fallen from 38.7 to 34.8 and 34.1 per cent. International migration has been of critical importance in the post-war growth of Sydney and Melbourne. Table 6 shows that over the first two post-war decades, more than half of the cities' growth was attributable to net gains of overseas migrants and that net gains of people from elsewhere in Australia were minor.

Moreover, it will be noted that the net gain in Melbourne was larger than in Sydney and indeed that overall growth in the southern city was greater. If we focus on the 1976-86 period, however, a different pattern is in evidence. Overall growth is substantially lower than in the first two post-war decades and natural increase (births minus deaths) is equivalent to almost all (98.6 per cent) of Melbourne's growth and 72 per cent of that of Sydney. However, if we disaggregate net migration into its international and internal components it is apparent that international migration has maintained a significant role (indeed, in the case of Sydney, an enhanced one) in the growth of the cities. This has been counterbalanced by a net outflow of the Australia-born population equivalent in size to half the overseas-born flow in Sydney and almost equal in size to that in Melbourne.

Table 6: Sydney and Melbourne: Estimated Components of Change, 1947-66, 1976-86, 1986-91 and 1991-96

Source: Hugo 1989, p. 68; ABS 1990, p. 10; Author's Estimates for 1986-91 using ABS Census and Vital Statistics Data

The dominance of Melbourne in the early post-war decades both in terms of population growth and in receiving overseas-born settlers had been reversed by 1976-86. The late 1980s and early 1990s has seen a further interesting development with Melbourne's overall population growth outpacing that of Sydney. However, Sydney has retained its dominance of the overseas intake with a net gain of 123 000 over the 1986-91 period compared with 46 000 in Melbourne. In 1991-96 the comparative numbers were 173 000 and 102 000. Table 6 shows that the net internal migration loss in Sydney, however, has gathered pace while that in Melbourne has reduced somewhat. This 'switchover function' (Maher and McKay 1986) of Sydney and Melbourne whereby a net loss of migrants in exchange with other parts of Australia is more than counterbalanced by an inflow of overseas migrants is an important feature of these two cities in the post-war period and part of the phenomenon of the 'turnaround' in Australia (Hugo 1989). The key point here is that net international migration gains have directly accounted for more than half of Sydney and Melbourne's net population growth over the post-war period, and if their indirect contribution via the children they have had since settling in Australia is taken into account, that contribution is closer to two thirds of net growth.

Figure 10 shows the growth of Sydney's and Melbourne's population over the post-war period and parts of that growth which have been made up of the overseas-born. It can be seen that the overseas-born have grown faster than the total population. In Melbourne they doubled between 1947 and 1954 and almost doubled again between 1954 and 1961 while the total population increased from 1.2 million to 1.9 million. Between 1961 and 1996, the overseas-born population more than doubled while the total population increased to 3 million. In Sydney the growth of the overseas-born over the 1947 and 1961 period was somewhat slower than in Melbourne with an increase of 133 per cent while the total population increased by 47 per cent. However, in the 1961-96 period Sydney's overseas-born population increased by 164 per cent compared with 106 per cent in Melbourne. Sydney's total population increased by 71 per cent.

Figure 10: Sydney and Melbourne: Growth of Total and Non-English Speaking Overseas-Born Populations, 1911-1996

Source: ABS Censuses

In Figure 10 the growth of the overseas-born from non-English-speaking countries of origin is especially striking. In Melbourne there was an almost fivefold increase between 1947 and 1954, a more than doubling between 1954 and 1966, and a 96 per cent increase between 1966 and 1996. Again in Sydney the growth was a little less rapid initially with an increase of 269 per cent between 1947 and 1954, and 149 per cent between 1954 and 1966. However, between 1966 and 1996, the increase of 182 per cent was almost twice as rapid as that in Melbourne.

Table 7 shows the growth of the overseas-born population in the two cities between 1947 and 1996. While Sydney gained huge numbers of immigrants during the long boom period and saw its overseas-born population more than double between 1947 and 1961, the impact was less than had occurred in Melbourne. The table shows the significance of this immigration with Melbourne's overseas-born population trebling between 1947 and 1966, and its share of the nation's total overseas-born increasing by 10 percentage points to 26.7 per cent. It will be noted that by 1961, Melbourne had surpassed Sydney as having the largest overseas-born community in the nation but in the last two decades Sydney has reasserted itself as the major focus of immigrant settlement in Australia, so that at the 1996 Census it had 29.4 per cent of the nation's overseas-born compared with 23.4 per cent in Melbourne. These fluctuations have been in concert with shifts in the changing roles of the two cities.

Table 7: Sydney and Melbourne Statistical Divisions: Proportion of Population Overseas-Born, 1947-96

Source: ABS 1947, 1954, 1966, 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991 and 1996 Censuses

Table 8: Australia: Distribution of Population Between Major Urban, Other Urban and Rural Areas by Birthplace Groups, 1996