Tures d'Europe ... et d'Ailleurs Les Annales de l Autre Islam, n° 3 INALCO - ERISM, Paris 1995
TURKS IN AUSTRALIA
"WE CAME TO WINTER HERE ...
LEAVING THE SUMMER BEHIND"
Ahmet i�DUYGU
1. IntroductionI always say
"we came to winter here ... leaving the summer behind".You know, we came here in July 1970. It was a hot summer in Turkey when we
left for Australia. After a journey of only
22hours, we arrived in Melbourne,
and it was quite cool. This was the first contrast that I realized between
Turkey and Australia: contrast of seasons ... But it was not the only contrast,
not the only difference ... There are big differences between our homeland and
this foreign land ... Some of these differences are good, the others are bad ...
Some of them are even bitter ... So feeling this contrast, and living with it, our
lives now arc full of contrast ... like the contrast of summer and winter ... [R. N
°0802042 1 ].
A journey from the northern hemisphere to the southern one would help us to realize the contrasting nature of seasons between these two. However, if it were a migratory movement from a developing country in the north, such as Turkey, to the most developed country of the south, Australia, the contrast to be realized between the two would be more than a seasonal difference as expressed by Melahat2 above, a 43-year-old immigrant woman living in
1 This quotation was drawn from the transcripts of interviews with Turkish migrants in the Melbourne Turkish Migration (MTM) Survey which �as conducted in 1987 (a detailed description of the MTM Survey is presented in Ii;duygu (1991). In MTM Survey a seven digit identification number was given to each interviewed respondent. In thE: present study, when a case study from this survey is quoted, this identification number is placed at the end of the quotation. Preceding this number, the abbreviation of "R. N°" refers to "respondent number".
Melbourne, Australia in 1987. Indeed, in July of 1970, when Melahat and her family arrived in Melbourne, the difference was not only that it was summer in Turkey and winter in Australia. There was much more than this that distinguished Turkey from Australia. For instance, World Bank (1987) statistics showed that by 1970, Turkey's per-capita gross national product was $US 400, Australia's $US 3.100 ; Turkey's total fertility rate was 5, Australia's 3; Turkey's infant mortality was 134 per thousand, Australia's 18 ; Turkey's life expectancy was 56 years, Australia's 71 ; Turkey's agricultural work force was 71 per cent of the total, Australia's 8 ; and Turkey's school enrollment ratio in secondary school was 27, Australia's 82. Similar statistics from the World Bank also indicated that more than two decades later, the gap between these two countries still persisted : for instance, by the early 1990s, per-capita gross national product in Australia was more than nine times higher than that in Turkey, while the infant mortality rate in the latter was seven times higher than that in Australia. In 1991, Turkey's life expectancy stood at 67 years compared with Australia's at 78. It is easy to make a list of statistical differences showing striking contrasts between Turkey and Australia ; the two countries are even more strikingly different in their cultures : i.e. in language, religion, folkways, mores, and customs. For the migrants it was not easy to be involved, or compelled to live, in the dynamic interplay of all these differences. Becoming international migrants meant uprooting themselves from their old established past and confronting an unknown new future in an entirely different environment. Handling the contrasting features of their past and the future was an extremely challenging task.
This essay is about the migration and settlement histories of the first generation Turkish immigrants in Australia. It presents a profile of the immigrated Turks in Australia focusing on their numbers and characteristics. As far as the relatively short history of Turkish emigration is concerned, the uniqueness of the migration to Australia was obvious in several aspects. Since the early 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Turks have gone abro·ad to sell their labour power m.-1inly under the so-called guestworker scheme. Only a small proportion (estimated l p�r cent) rnigrated to Australia, doing so in a context which was considered -by the Australian government, although not by many of the Turkish migrants - to be pennanent settlement. The main direction of migratory movement from Turkey was to the relatively nearby Western European and Arab countries. However, there was a minor flow, despite its distance, to Australia. It is also possible to see the peculiarity of the Turkish case in terms of the long-established history of Australian immigration
The signing of the migration agreement between Australia and Turkey
in 1967 ... marked a departure from the traditional in Australia's immigration
programme. Turkey has been called 'the first developing country to receive
assisted migration· (Young, Petty and Faulkner, 1980). Certainly the
differences between the cultures, the living and economic standards of Turkey
Ahmet 1<:;DUYGU
255and Australia were wider than those that existed with most other sources of
assisted migration to Australia. Turkish immigration at this time marked the
first major influx of Muslims to Australia (E.A.C. of N.5.
W., 1985 : 8-9).It was the distinctive characteristics of Turkish migration to Australia that furnished us with an unusual model for the study of immigrant settlement and adaptation. Certainly, '[u]nfamiliarity with the general concept of (permanent) migration, and (perhaps consequently) confusion between the idea of migrating to Australia and of participating in the guestworker scheme' (EAC of NSW, 1985:9) were central issues. This made the position of Turkish immigrants a prominent one for examining the interrelationship between the migrants' intent and decision to settle permanently or temporarily, and the way they were incorporated into the social, economic, and cultural settings in the receiving society.
It is interesting to note that although the intention of temporary settlement was common to the initial stage of post-war labour migration in Europe, the experience of the last four decades showed that this movement led to the permanent settlement of immigrants and the development of ethnic communities in these European countries (Castles, 1984 : 15). This happened despite discouragement of such permanent settlement on the part of governments of the receiving countries. There is no doubt that for the individual migrants and their families, who originally intended only a temporary migration, the change from the status of temporary migrant to that of permanent settler was not a simple process. Indeed, in relation to the different immigration policies of receiving countries, this change in settlement intention is even paradoxical : while the guestworker experience of the Turkish migrants in Germany was already shifting to a permanent settlement situation, the settler experience of Turkish migrants in Australia despite the Australian Government's expectation of permanent settlement, led to o n -going confusion between 'being a sojourner' and 'being a settler', with a great deal of intention to return to Turkey (PSDI, 1969, 1970; EAC of NS.W, 1985 : 7-12; 1\duygu, 1988 : 16-17). As I argued elsewhere (I\duygu, 1994 : 77), although intention of temporary settlement generally remained in the minds of Turkish migrants throughout the 1970s, data from my 1987 Melbourne Turkish Migration (MTM) Survey showed that experiences during the last two decades influenced the decisions to change to permanent settlement by a large number of Turkish immigrants in Australia. Thus, the migration and settlement of Turks in Australia developed through a transition from temporary sojourn to unintended settlement.
2. Turks in the Diversity of the Australian Population
It is clear that in general over the last two hundred years, and after the end of World War II in particular, Australian immigration experienced very considerable changes, in terms of the volume of the total intake and the source countries of immigrants. Of course, a striking reflection of this process was exposed in the changing composition of the Australian population over time. In 1947 only 10 per cent of Australians were born overseas and nearly three quarters of them were from the United Kingdom and Ireland. By 1991 the proportion of overseas-born had doubled to 23 per cent, while the figures for those who were born in the United Kingdom and Ireland had decreased significantly : according to the 1991 estimation by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, only less than one-third of the overseas-born Australians were from the United Kingdom and Ireland, while the remaining two-thirds were from over 100 countries : Italy (6,6 per cent}, Yugoslavia (4,2 per cent}, Greece (3,7 per cent), Vietnam (3,4 per cent), Germany (3,1 per cent), The Netherlands (2,5 per cent), and Malaysia (2,1 per cent) were the first seven of the non-English speaking countries (see Table 1). It was an indication of the diverse nature of the population that migrants from another 16 countries accounted for between 0,7 per cent and 1,9 per cent of overseas born persons living in Australia. Hence it was possible to say that towards the early 1990s Australia had one of the most ethnically and linguistically diversified populations in the world (Evans, 1984 : 1063; DILGEA, 1987: 50; Collins, 1988: 28; Lever-Tracy and Quinlan, 1988 : 3). Referring to the ethnic diversification in the country, Castles (1988 : 3), a well-known scholar, even argued that Australia became a nation without a unitary historical and cultural background.
Ahmet l<;DUYGU
257 Table 1: Countries of birth in order of size of their populations in Australia, 1991 Estimation by the Australian Bureau of Statistics Countries of birth Population Percentage of Percentage oftotal population overseas-born population 1. Australia 13.395.500 77,3
-2. UK and Ireland 1.222.000 7,0 31,0 3. New Zealand 287.500 1,7 7,3 4. Italy 261.600 1,5 6,6 5. Yugoslavia 167.200 1,0 4,2 6. Greece 145.800 0,8 3,7 7. Vietnam, 133.400 0,8 3,4 8. Germany 121.(X)() 0,7 3,1 9. Netherlands 97.600 0,6 2,5 10. Malaysia 84.100 0,5 2,1 11. Lebanon 75.4()() 0,4 1,9 12. Philippines 74.300 0,4 1,9 13. Poland 73.800 0,4 1,914. Hong Kong and Macao 73.200 0,4 1,9
15. China 68.500 0,4 1,7 16. India 65.400 0,4 1,7 17. Malta 58.000 0,3 1,5 18. United States 55.500 0,3 1,4 19. South Africa
54.200
0,3
1,4
20. ex-USSR 47.100 0,3 1,2 21. Sri Lanka 38.900 0,2 1,0 22. Egypt 36.500 0,2 0,9 23. Indonesia 33.500 0,2 0,9 24. Turkey 30.800 0,2 0,8 25. Fiji 29.6()() 0,2 0,8 26. Singapore 29.300 0,2 0,7 Other 576.200 3,3 14,6 Total overseas 3.940.500 22,7-TOTAL
17.335.900 100,00 100,00Source : AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1992 Microfiche, 3221.0).
As emphasized by a number of studies, the current size and diversity of the immigrant population in Australia resulted from large-scale immigration programs in operation since the end of the Second World War (Inglis, 1975 : 335; Ozdowski, 1985:536; Hugo, 1986 : 6; Castles, 1987: 2; Borrie, 1988: 115; Price, 1989 : 6). In fact, this was the period in which Australia aimed to increase its population for strategic reasons and to increase the labour force and the domestic market for economic reasons. Thus it turned to a wider range of countries for migrant intake, and consequently the growing number of source countries of the immigrants had a marked impact on the birthplace composition of the population in Australia. Between 1947 and 1990 over four and half million migrants arrived in Australia from a growing diversity of source countries from the four comers of the world. Less than one per cent of them came from Turkey.
ln 1991, with a population of 30,800, Turkish-born persons in Australia constituted a middle-sized immigrant group in the ethnic mosaic of this country. In terms of its size, the Turkish community was the twenty-third largest among the 30 birthplace groups whose population exceeded 20.000. However, as far as the total Australian and overseas born population was concerned, proportionally it was a small group : less than one per cent of the overseas born persons, making only two per thousand of the Australian population, having been born in Turkey. Turkish immigration to Australia, and consequently the establishment of a considerable Turkish community, were results of the extensive immigration program which Australia started to operate after World War II. In the post-war period, when the United Kingdom and Ireland, as the traditional sources of supply, were unable to serve the immigration targets in this country, Australia turned to other sources, first to Northern Europe, then Southern Europe, the Middle East, and more recently to Asia. In fact, the 1967 migration agreement between the Australian and Turkish governments, which initiated large-scale immigration to Australia from Turkey, was regarded as a sib,nificant step in the development of a more heterogeneous immigration program and one that was less concerned with ethnicity, religion and cultural background as considerations in migrant selection' (Manderson, 1988 : 818).
3. Formation of the Turkish Community: Numbers
Although the Australian censuses taken in the first half of this century show the presence of a few hundred people whose birthpla.ce was given as Turkey (see Table 2), it is possible to argue that before 1967 there were very few Turks in Australia. Many of these early Turkish-born settlers were members of other ethnic groups, Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Jews. For instance, it is the breakdown by religion that makes it clear that the vast majority of Turkish-born persons in the 1966 Census (2.476) were non-Muslim, so
Ahmet l<;DUYGU 259 it was highly likely that they were non-Turkish by ethnic origin (Cox, 1975 72). Consequently, one could argue that even if there were some Turkish migrants among these early settlers who gave their birthplace as Turkey, their number was very small, their migratory movement sporadic and restricted to sponsored cases : it was not Turkish immigration, but only of the settlement of Turkish it:Jividuals.
Table 2 : Number of Turkish-born persons in Australia, and annual growth rates, Censuses 1901-1991
Year Number 1901 200 1911 322 1921 185 1933 281 1947 252 1954 1.036 1961 1.544 1966 2.476 1971 1 1 .589 1976 19.355 1981 24 .314 1986 24.529 1991 30.800 1 During the preceding period. 2 Estimate.
Average annual growth rate1 (per cent)
2 4,8 -5,5 3,4 -0,8 20,2 5,7 9,4 30,9 10,3 4,6 0
4,6
Sources : l] DIEA (1979 : 12) ; 2] DILGEA (1989 : 11) ; 3] ABS (1992). Large-scale Turkish immigration to Australia did not begin until 1968. It was the bilateral agreement between the Australian and Turkish governments in October 1967 that provided assisted passages to Australia for selected Turkish workers and their families and paved the way for the arrival of a large number of Turks within a relatively short period. This assisted migration program for the Turkish migrants, in which the selection, transportation, reception, instruction and placement arrangements of the migrants were made by the government organizations and authorities in Turkey and Australia, operated only from 1968 until 1974. As a res11lt, between
1966 and 1976 the number of Turkish-born persons in Australia rose very sharply from 2.476 to 19.355 : the annual growth rate was almost 21 per cent per annum. Although after the termination of the 1967 agreement in 1974 there was a considerable decrease in the growth rate of the Turkish community, the number of Turkish-born persons continued to increase until the early 1980s : from 1976 to 1981 the increase was about 8.000, bringing the total number of Turkish-born people in Australia to 24.314. It seemed, however, that in the first half of the 1980s, the Turkish-born population had become almost stable: in the 1986 Census count, there were only 24.529 Turkish-lborn people in Australia, indicating that the annual growth rate of the last five years was only 2 per thousand. This stability was the result of a quite low level of net permanent and long-term3 arrivals of Turkish-born persons in the early 1980s.
Indeed, this was the period when the number of persons arriving annually dropped to its lowest level since extensive immigration started in 1968, while at the same time the permanent and long-term departures had started to increase steadily. Presumably, there were other factors which also contributed to the stable size of the Turkish-born population counted in the last two successive censuses. For example, as official statistics indicate, there were the deaths of over 130 Turkish-born persons in Australia annually
between 1981 and 1986 (OILGEA, 1989 : 16). On the other hand, there was evidence that short-term visits to Turkey became a common practice among the Turkish-born migrants (see t�duygu (1991 : 177). The Turkish population in Australia had tended to increase in the second half of the 1980s, to about 31.000 in 1991 as a result of family reunification and new family formations.
In terms of its impact on the pattern of Turkish immigration to Australia the importance of the 1967 migration agreement was overwhelmingly clear : in the first five-year period after the agreement almost 13.000 Turkish-born settlers had arrived in Australia compared with only a total of 1.200 who arrived in the last eight years before this agreement. As Young (1988 : 24, 1983 : 34-35) pointed out, the peak in Turkish immigration occurred in 1969-1971, just two years after the 1967 i'lgreement, when almost 4.000 new settlers arrived in a given year. After another smaller peak occurred in 1973-74 the level of migratory movement started to decline rapidly, coming down to an
3 Based on the definition used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, permanent movement comprises arrivals of settlers (i.e. persons who hold migrant visas, r.egardless of stated intended �riod of stay), those who are otherwise eligible to settle (e.g. overseas·bom children of Australian citizens), and permanent departures of Australian residents, including former settlers (i.e. those who on departure state that they do not intend to return to Australia). Long-term movement is defined as the arrivals of visitors (except those who hold migrant visas) and the temporary departures of Australian residents with the intention to stay , in Australia, or abroad respectively, for twelve months or more, together with the departures of visitors and the return of Australian residents who had stayed, in Australia or abroad, for twelve months or more (ABS, 1989 : 22).
Ahmet l(DUYGU 261 intake of 1.000 settler arrivals in 1975-76, and since then fluctuating around 500 to 1.000 settler arrivals each year. However, after decreasing to the lowest annual intake of 490 sei:tlers in 1982-83, the level of Turkish immigration again started to increase steadily : from 740 new settlers in 1984-85 to 1.150 in 1986-87, and later to 1.440 in 1987-88. It was estimated by Price (1992 : 1) that the net migration of Turks to Australia for the period of 1986-1991 was over 4.600. In fact, the last figure was the highest intake occurring after 1974-75.
As stated before, the vast majority of early settlers who had started to arrive in Australia after the 1967 migration agreement were assisted migrants whose migration arrangement were made by the Australian authorities. It is estimated that almost four out of every five of the settlers who came in the period between 1967-68 and 1973-74 had migrated through the assisted migration scheme. After the termination of the migration agreement in 1974, however, most migration from Turkey was unassisted : between 1974-75 and 1980-81 less than 10 per cent of all Turkish settlers were assisted migrants. Of all assisted Turkish-born settlers since 1967-68, 95 per cent arrived in Australia between 1969 and 1974, whereas only 25 per cent of unassisted settlers arrived in the same period. Overall, among those who migrated between 1967-68 and 1986-87, slightly less than half, 48 per cent, were settlers who came to Australia through the assisted migration scheme. In view of the determining role of assisted migration in the whole pattern of Turkish immigration to Australia, it is possible to argue that the mass arrivals of assisted settlers, happening directly after the signing of the migration agreement in 1967, marked an essential stage in the formation of the Turkish community in Australia. It was evident that large-scale Turkish immigration to Australia was not easily possible without such a migration scheme. It was highly likely that after their settlement, the assisted migrants started to sponsor others. In other words, it was the chain migration generated by the early assisted settlers that contributed to the growing number of Turkish-born immigrants in Australia in the last three decades.
4. Ethnic Profile of the Turkish-born Migrants : Origins
Before 1986, any elaboration of the ethnic identity of immigrants from the Australian census data was quite difficult because immigrants were classified by birthplace rather than ethnicity. Census data on birthplace, birthplace of parents, religion and language had several limitations for identifying an ethnic group coming from more than one country, or different
ethnic groups from a single country4. A good example was the case of Turkish( bom) migrants. The possible explanation for this ethnic identity issue among Turkish migrants is derived from the socio-political history of the geographical region whence Turkish migrants came. Anatolia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Iraq, Syria, and Yugoslavia were all provinces of the Ottoman Empire (often mistakenly interpreted as Turkey), an ethnically diverse entity governed by the Turkish state until the First World War. Various new national boundaries, including that of the Republic of Turkey, were later formed in this geographical region, in some cases ignoring ethnic identity and even distributing people of the same national (ethnic) groups among different countries. Thus figures for the immigration to Australia from Turkey might include a number of those of ethnically non-Turkish origin, for instance Arabs, Armenians, Greeks, or Kurds. For the same reason, it would not be surprising to find a number of ethnic Turks who migrated to Australia under other birthplaces, such as Cyprus, Greece, or Yugoslavia.
With the 1986 Census, a large body of data on ethnic origin became available for the various birthplace groups in Australia. Thus, for the first time, it was possible to undertake fairly extensive ethnicity analyses of the Australian population using some direct measures such as ancestry5 and language spoken at home6; so the data from the last census was used in this section to provide the basis for identifying the ethnic characteristics of the Turkish(-born) population in Australia. This analysis was based on the data on birthplace, language spoken at home, ancestry, and religion.
4 However, in the absence of direct data on the ethnic of origin immigrants, using the Census data and other official statistics on birthplace, birthplace of parents, religion, language, marriage, and naturalization C.A. Price has done some excellent work to identify the ethnic composition of the Australian population. Based on the ethnic generation-model method he has calculated the size and strength -- namely three main measures, unmixed origin, total descent, and ethnic strength - of each particular ethnic · group in Austr�lia �or a �riod from 1861 until now. For some details see Price (1979 :
A6&-A97, 1989 . 8-9, n.d . . 1-17)
5 In the 1986 Census, the direct "ethnicity" question asked was : "What is each person's ancestry ? For example, Greek, English, Indian, Armenian, Aboriginal, Chinese etc." The information booklet distributed with the Census form included the following note :
"Ancestry means the ethnic or national group from which you are descended. It is quite acceptable to base your answer on your grandparent's ancestry. Persons of mixed ancestry who do not identify with a single group should answer with their multiple ancestry. Persons who consider their ancestry to be Australian may .answer Austraha." However the ancestry question of the 1986 Census did not measure ethnic origin exactly, it measured only the respondent's perception of his or her "ancestry".
6 Before the 1986 Census, Census questionnaires consisted of some questions on the racial origin and language, but the design and wording of these questions exposed several li�_1tations in order to arrive at some direct measures of ethnicity. For instance, the 1971 Census asked "what is the person's racial origin ? European, Aboriginal, Torres Straits
Ahmet lCDUYGU
263 Table 3 : Religious distribution of Turkish-born persons in Australia,1986Census
Religion
Number
PercentageChristian 4 .029 16,4 Jewish 81 0,3 Muslim 18.706 76,3 Other
843
3,4 Not stated 870 3,5 Total 24.529 99,9Source : Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1986 Census microfiche.
In the census over three-quarters of the 24.529 Turkish-born indicated that they were Muslim, while more than 16 per cent were Christian (see Table 3). Considering the fact that Turks are universally of Islamic faith, it was possible to argue that a significant proportion of this census figure referred to non-Turkish people who were born in Turkey. Indeed, it was a comparison of figures from the 1966, 1976, and 1986 Censuses that made it clear that the proportion of Christians among the Turkish-born persons had decreased dramatically, while that of Muslims had risen: for instance, in 1976 only one in every five of the Turkish-born persons was Christian compared with more than three out of every four in 1966 (Cox, 1975 : 72) ; the proportion of Muslim Turkish-born was around 76 per cent in 1986 compared with 68 per cent in 1976 (Price and Pyne, 1979 : A65). This trend confirmed the fact that most of the Turkish-born population in 1966 were non-Turks by ethnic origin,
and the arrival of new settlers from Turkey, following the 1967 agreement,
changed the ethnic composition of the Turkish- born population in Australia the vast majority of these newcomers were almost certainly Turkish by ethnic origin.Islanders, other origin" ; and the 1981 Census asked "does the person speak a language other than English at home? yes or no".
Table 4 : Turkish-born persons aged 5 years and more in Australia by language spoken at home, 1986 Census
Language Number Percentage
Arabic 433 1,8 French 127 0,5 German 61 0,3 Greek 1.534 6,3 Italian 94 0,4 Turkish 19.488 80;0 Yugoslav 31 0,1 Other 2.331 9,6 Not stated 258 1,0 Total 24.357 100,0
Source : Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1986 Census microfiche.
The presence of non-Turkish persons in Australia's Turkish-born population was also indicated by the breakdown according to language spoken at home. As presented in Table 4, while a full 80 per cent of Turkish-born persons aged 5 years and more speak Turkish at home, the remaining proportion speak other languages, for instance Greek (6 per cent), English (4 per cent), Arabic (2 per cent), French (0.5 per cent). Although one could assume that some of those who speak only English at home were ethnic Turks (Young, 1988 : 22-23), it was likely that the vast majority of these Turkish-born persons who do not speak Turkish at home were members of other ethnic groups. While looking at the information from the 1986 Census on the language spoken at home, however, it became clear that there were also a number of people in Australia who were born outside Turkey but who were Turkish by ethnic origin. In fact, almost two-fifths, or 11.742, of the total 31.230 persons who use only Turkish at home were not born in Turkey (see Table 5) : nearly one-fifth were Australian-born, and more than a tenth were Cyprus-born ; apart from these, there was a considerable number of Turkish-speaking people who were born in Greece, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. It was possible to say that al� of the 6.073 Australian-born who speak Turkish at home were almost certainly the children of Turkish parents.
Ahmet l(:DUYGU 265 Table 5 : Distribution of the people who speak Turkish at home in
Australia according to their birthplace, 1986 Census
Birthplace Number Percentage
Australia 6.073 19,4 Bulgaria 214 0,7 Cyprus 3.797 12,2 Greece 336 1,1 Turkey 19.488 62,4 UK and Ireland 178 0,6 Yugoslavia 192 0,6 Other 328 1,1 Not stated 624 2,0 Total 31.230 100,1
Source : Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1986 Census microfiche.
The fact that there were 3.797 Turkish-speaking Cypriots in Australia in 1986 indicated that Cyprus was the second important source country from which Turkish-speaking migrants came. In fact, the first major Turkish settlement in Australia had come from outside Turkey, with the arrival of Turkish Cypriots from the 1950s onwards as a result of preference given because of their service in the British Armed Forces during the Second World War (Deasey et al., 1986 : 2). It was evident that there was a longer history of Cypriot immigration to Australia : for instance, by 1966 there were over 10.000 Cyprus-born persons compared with only 2.500 Turkish-born persons. This increased to 21.629 Cypriots in 1976, and to 23.645 in 1986. However, again it should be noted that until 1986 it was quite difficult to identify the two different ethnic components of Cypriots in Australia, namely Greek and Turkish Cypriots. But, according to the figures from the 1986 Census, it could be argued that 16 per cent of the Cyprus-born population in Australia were ethnic Turks : in summary, among the 23.645 Cypriots, there were 3.797 Turkish speaking persons, 3.811 Muslims, and 3.850 persons who stated their Turkish ancestry.
Table 6 : Turkish-born persons in Australia by ancestral origin, 1986Census
Ancestry Number Percentage
Armenian 1.402
5,7
Assyrian 214 0,9 Australian 30 0,1 Greek 1.492 6,1 Kurdish 1180,5
Turkish 19.914 81!,2 Otherl1.359
5,5
Total 24 .529 100,01 Includes 'inadequately described', 'not stated'.
Source : Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1986 Census microfiche.
Together with the data on religion and language spoken at home, one must look at the ancestry data available from the 1986 Census in order to reach a satisfactory analysis of the ethnic formation of Turkish-born population in Australia. The answers given to the ancestry question reveal that a significant proportion of the Turkish-born population were not Turks by ethnic origin : as in their first response to the question only 81 per cent, or 19.914 out of 24.529, indicated that their ancestries were Turkish, while 6 per cent gave their ancestral origin as Greek, another 6 per cent Armenian, 1 per cent Assyrian, and the others totalled 6 per cent (see Table 6)7. Among those who gave non-Turkish ancestry as their first response around 100 persons also stated that they had also some Turkish ancestry. Thus it was possible to come
7 At the 1986 Census only 118 Turkish-born persons gave "Kurdish" as their first response to the ancestry question. Since the Jabour migration from Turkey to Western Europe shows that Turkey's Kurdish ethnic minority - which constitutes approximately one-fifth of the country's total population -participated heavily in the
outflow of labour, it was expected that the number of Turkish-born Kurds in Australia would be much larger than 118. It can be argued that because under the current official state policies in Turkey any expression of Kurdish ethnic interests is repressed compfetely, and anybody who refers to it is regarded as "dividing the Turkish nation", thus the respondents were reluctant to give "Kurdish" as their response to the ancestry question.
Ahmet J<;DUYGU 267 to a conclusion that the total number of Turkish-born people who considered their ancestry to be Turkish amounted to around 20.000 only.
Consequently, the figures on religion, language spoken at home, and ancestry showed a clear picture of the ethnic composition of the Turkish-born population in Australia. Indeed, on the basis of these three variables it would not be a misinterpretation to say that roughly 80 per cent of the 24.529 Turkish-born persons in 1986 were Turks in ethnic terms, and the remaining 20 per cent were members of other ethnic groups, mainly Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians. There was also evidence that the latter group in Australia's Turkish-born population had a longer history of migration than the former group.
Table 7: Distribution of persons stating Turkish ancestry according to their birthplace, 1986 Census
Birthplace First response Second Any Turkish ancestry
(N) response (N) (N)
(%)
Australia 9.733 694 10.427 28,3 Bulgaria 210 6 216 0,6 Cyprus 3.680 170 3.850 10,4 Greece 453 70 523 1,4 UK and Ireland 194 19 213 0,6 Turkey 19.910 101 20.011 54,2 Yugoslavia 155 27 182 0,5 Other1 1.317 164 1 .481 4,0 Total 35.652 1.251 36.903 100,01 Includes 'inadequately described', 'not stated'.
Source : Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1986 Census microfiche.
As emphasized before, the number of Turks in Australia was not the same as that of Turkish-born because the Turkish-born population excluded Australian-born of Turkish parentage, and those settlers of Turkish origin who were born outside Turkey. But the information relating to ancestry gave an opportunity to reach a satisfactory estimate of the size of the ethnic Turkish population in Australia. For instance, at the 1986 Census, it was follnd that in
addition to 20.011 Turkish-born people who claimed some Turkish ancestry there were another 16.892 people who gave Turkish as their first or second response to the ancestry question. Thus, the number of persons who stated some Turkish ancestry in 1986 totalled 36.903 (see Table 7). Slightly more than half of those who claimed some Turkish ancestry were born in Turkey, while more than a quarter were Australian-born. It seemed that all of these Australian born persons were the children of Turkish parents. The importance of Cyprus, as the second source country for Turkish immigration to Australia, was also evident in the answers to the ancestry question : more than a tenth of those who claimed Turkish ancestry had migrated from Cyprus.
It was a common practice for Turkish people and community leaders in Australia over time to put the number of Turks living in this country at a figure that was much higher than that shown by the data from Censuses and official statistics (Kasnitz, 1981 : 56 ; Young, 1983 : 33). In fact, this was the case not only before 1980 when there was no comprehensive study of Turks living in Australia, but also during the 1980s when a detailed demographic profile of Turks in this country was carefully compiled and evaluated by Young (1983, 1988). For example a recent publication,
Turkish Community in Australia
(Akcelik and Elley, 1988), contains an article by Young which elaborates on the various demographic characteristics of Turks in Australia as well as their number based on the 1986 Census data. It also contains one by Sayar (1988 : 101) who, without acknowledging any source, claims that the Turkish population in one of the states of Australia, Victoria, is estimated to be between 40 and 60 thousand, consisting of people from Turkey, Cyprus and from Western Thrace (Greece) and Bulgaria. It is obvious that this figure is not substantiated either by Young's arguments in the same publication or by the analysis and discussion in this section which indicated that the number of Turks in Australia was less than 40.000 in 1986. In order to conclude the discussion in this section Table 8 shows the various available figures on the number of Turkish people in Australia in 1986.If the figures at the two extremes are excluded, that is 24.529 persons based on their birthplace and 42.200 based on their ethnic sttrength, it is not difficult to argue that the number of Turks in Australia totalled around 35.000 in 1986. It is possible that results from the two questions, about language spoken at home and ancestry, which were asked in the 1986 Census, gave the most satisfactory estimates for the size of the Turkish community in this country. The figure, 'Turkish ethnic strength', calculated by C.A. Price, 'is basically a genetic measure (and is of interest to epidemiologists and others concerned with genetic characteristics) and shows any particular ethnic contribution' (Price, 1989 : 8-9). The figure of ethnic strength, derived by adding fractions of ancestry, is larger than the census ancestry equivalent for two reasons : first, it includes all those with a fraction of Turkish - 1/4, 1/8, 3/8 etc. - at their fractional values whereas the census only considers the first two ancestries given ; second, it distributes the 3.161.245 persons who gave
Ahmet lCDUYGU
269
their ancestry as 'Australian', the1.066.500
persons who did not answer at all,and the
113.408
persons who gave their ancestry as 'mixed' or 'unknown' (orwho gave a very vague answer) between the other ancestries.
Table 8 : Number of 'Turkish' people in Australia under different categorizations,
1986
Census Categorization Number Turkish-born24.529
Turkish-speaking34.140
Turkish ancestry36.903
Turkish-born mother37.306
Turkish-born father39.185
Turkish ethnic strengthl
42.200
1 Calculated by C.A. Price in
1987
based on the1986
Census.Sources :
1)
Australian Bureau of Statistics,1986
Census microfiche ; 2) Price(1987).
5. Where Turkish Migrants Live : Settlements
Between 1947 and 1976, just under two-thirds of immigrants to Australia settled in New South Wales and Victoria, the most populous two states in the country (Collins,
1988 : 35).
At the1986
Census, of the nearly three and a quarter million oversea s -born persons, more than two-thirds lived in New South Wales and Victoria(63
per cent compared to 60 per cent of the Australian-born). According to a recent publication by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, outlining the reasons behind the concentration of immigrants in these two States.This
isdue in large part to the attraction Melbourne and Sydney [the
two state capitals] hold for incoming migrants. These cities are the major ports
of arrival for immigrants and, as a result of their historic role as centres of
migrant settlement, the major destination for persons arriving in Australia as
part of chain migration, that
is,the reunion of family members from overseas
with persons already living in Australia. Additionally, the majority of jobs in
manufacturing, construction and services, where many migrants have found
employment, are located in these cities (DJLGEA, 1988 : 76).
The general trend and mechanisms observed in the immigrant settlements in Australia were also applicable to the Turkish migrants who tended to settle mainly in New South Wales and Victoria. On the basis of the figures from Censuses it is possible to argue that Turkish-born persons were even more heavily concentrated in the two States than were many of the other overseas-born groups : for instance, in 1986 over 94 per cent of Turkish-born people were to be found in New South Wales (43 per cent) and Victoria (51 per cent) compared to 95 per cent of Lebanese-born, 70 per cent of Italian-born, 81 per cent of Greek-born, or 60 per cent of German- born. While the other three States, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland had about 5 per cent of the total Turkish-born population in 1986, the share of the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory, and Tasmania was less than 1 per cent (see Table 9).
Table 9 : Distribution of Turkish-born persons between each State and Territory of Australia, 1966, 1976, 1986 Censuses
State or 1966 1976 1986 Territory (N) (%) ( N ) (%) (N) (%) New South 964 38,9 8.992 46,5 10.619 .13,3 Wales Victdria 970 39,2 9.358 48,3 12.454 50,8 Queensland 75 3,0 155 0,8 352 1,4 South 296 12,0 464 2,4 560 2,3 Australia Western 123 5,0 307 1,6 424 1,7 Australia Tasmania
8
0,3
10
0,1
23
0,1
Northern21
0,816
0,125
0,1 Territory Australian 19 0,8 53 0,3 73 0,3 Capital Territory Total 2.476 100,0 19.355 100,0 24.529 100,0 Sources : 1] DlEA (1979); 2) DlLGEA (1989).It seems that the extensive immigration which occurred after the 1967 migration agreement caused some changes in the distribution of Turkish-born persons over all Australia (Young, 1988 :
21-22).
Just before the agreement, in 1966, New South Wales and Victoria each had about 39 per cent of the Turkish-born population, while South Australia's share was12
per cent andAhmet l<;DUYGU 271 Western Australia's 5 per cent. In the space of the next two decades, the proportion in New South Wales and Victoria increased considerably, whereas that in all the other States decreased. From the overall change seen in the distribution of the Turkish-born population over time it is evident that the vast majority of Turkish migrants who came to Australia after the migration agreement of 1967 settled in New South Wales and Victoria, and only a very few of them chose to live in other States or Territories. Consequently, this settlement pattern over time was the cause not only of the declining proportion of Turkish-born persons living in other places outside New South Wales and Victoria, but also of the increasing proportion of Turkish persons by ethnic origin living in these two States. Indeed, at the 1986 Census count it was found that among the Turkish-born persons living outside New South Wales and Victoria there was a significant proportion of those who were non-Turks by ethnic origin : 27 per cent of those living in Queensland, 26 per cent in Western Australia, 41 per cent in South Australia, 39 per cent in Tasmania, 29 per cent in Northern Territory, and 53 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory did not state any Turkish ancestry compared with only 19 per cent of those who were living in New South Wales and 16 per cent living in Victoria. Simply, the proportion of non-Turks by ethnic origin among the Turkish-born immigrants who lived outside New South Wales and Victoria was much higher than among those who lived in these two States. In fact, this mass concentration of Turkish people in New South Wales and Victoria became clearer when the classifications based on language spoken at home, ancestry and ethnic strength were considered, rather than birthplace : for instance, 96 per cent of the Turkish-speaking people in Australia, or 95 per cent of those who stated some Turkish ancestry were to be found in these two States (see Table 10).
Table 10 : Percentage distribution of 'Turkish' people under different categorization between each State and Territory of Australia, 1986 Census State or Turkish-born Turkish Turkish- Turkish eth.
Territory ancestry speaking strenghth
(1987) New South 43,3 40,7 40,8 41,0 Wales Victoria 50,8 55,6 53,9 54,3 Queensland 1,4 1,0 1,5 1,3 South 2,3 0,9 1,5 1,3 Australia Western 1,7 1,4 1,8 1,6 Australia Tasmania 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 Northern 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 Territory Australian 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,2 Capital Territory Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 (N) 24.529 36.903 34.140 42.200
Sources : 1] Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1986 Census microfiche ; 2) C.A. Price (personal communication, 1988).
During the two-decade period, 1966-1986, Victoria always had a larger Turkish-born population than New South Wales. However although both New South Wales's and Victoria's share of Turkish-born population in Australia increased after the 1967 migration agreement, the growth patterns of this population in these two states were quite different. New South Wales's share of the Turkish-born population increased from 39 per cent in 1966 to 47 per cent in 1976, and then decreased to 43 per cent in 1986, while that of Victoria continued to increase steadily, from 39 per cent in 1966 to 48 per cent in 1976, and to 51 per cent in 1986 (see Table 9). As stated in a quotation at the beginning of this section, it was in the two state capitals, Sydney in New South Wales and Melbourne in Victoria, that most immigrants in Australia tended to settle. Not surprisingly, Turkish migrants were no exception : Sydney and Melbourne alone accounted for nearly 87 per cent of the total Turkish-born population. Over all Australia, almost 96 per cent of Turkish-born persons were concentrated in the 12 major urban centres. Apart from Melbourne (48 per cent) and Sydney (39 per cent), the largest proportions were in Wollongong (3 per cent), Adelaide (2 per cent) and Perth (2 per cent) (see Table 11). There
Ahmet J<;DUYGU
273 were only two major rural settlements of Turkish migrants iin Australia : in 1986 Mildura (118 Turkish-born) and Shepparton (110 Turkish-born) ; these well-known rural centres in Victoria accounted for only 1 per cent of the total Turkish-born population in this country.Table 11 : Distribution of Turkish-born (T-b) population between major urban centres in Australia, 1986 Census
Major urban (T-b) As % of As % of (T-b) As % of (T-b)
centres population population in population in population in
Centre State Australia
Sydney 9.588 0,3 90,3 39,1 Newcastle 40
..
0,4 0,2 Wollongong822
0,4 7,7 3,4 Melbourne 11.675 0,4 93,7 47,6 Geelong 142 0,1 1,1 0,6 Brisbane 163..
46,3 0,7 Gold Coast 55..
15,6 0,2 Adelaide 435..
77,7 1,8 Perth 364..
85,8 1,5 Hobart 14..
60,9 0,1 Darwin 14..
56,0 0,1 Canberra 73..
100,0 0,3 Remainder of (T-b) 1.144 n.a.1 n.a. 4,7 population in Australia Total 24.529 n.a n.a 100,3Less than 0.05 per cent. 1 Not applicable.
Sources : 1] Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1986 Census microfiche; 2] C.A. Price (personal communication, 1988).
Australia's people are highly urbanised and also concentrated in a
small number of large cities, situated mainly along the eastern and southern
seaboard. There are relatively few medium sized centres and these tend to be
outgrowths or adjuncts of metropolitan coastal development. There is also a
scattering of moderately sized country towns servicing rural areas which have
generally experienced declining or stagnating growth over the last
30years
(ABS, 1988 : 3).
Considering this general description of the settlement pattern of Australia's people in the 1980s, it is possible to say that the settlement pattern of Turkish population in Australia was partly related to that of the total population in this country despite the considerable under-representation of the Turkish population in the areas outside New South Wales and Victoria and its over-representation in these two States. In the 1986 Census count, for example, more than two out of every three persons in Australia lived in New South Wales and Victoria, and were concentrated in major urban centres whose population were over 100.000. The proportion of the total population who lived in Sydney and Melbourne was 36 per cent. The heavy concentration of Turks in Melbourne (48 per cent) and Sydney (39 per cent) - similar to the settlement pattern of many post-war immigrant groups - was at first determined by the 'port' character of these two cities where the migrants first set foot on Australian soil. Indeed, through the transportation, resettlement, and employment arrangement made by the Australian Government in the context of the 1967 migration agreement, almost all of the assisted migrants from Turkey disembarked in Sydney and Melbourne where they were put into migrant hostels and found employment. Over the years, when the community networks were built up, new migrants settled in these cities where their relatives and friends lived, and where the jobs in the expanding Australian manufacturing and building industries could be found.
6. Epilogue
As it was seen in the preceding analysis and discussion on the migration and settlement characteristics of the Turkish immigrants in Australia, extensive migration from Turkey did not begin on a significant scale until 1968. ln the more than 25-year-history of Turkish immigration, the migratory flow was not a homogeneous process. Not only scope and dynamics of the movement, but also the characteristics of the migrants differed significantly over time. There were four distinctive successive periods in which not only the pattern of the migratory flow from Turkey, itself, changed, but also the structural context of settlement of Turkish migrants in Australia was transformed through a transition from temporary sojourn to unintended settlement. The influx of Turkish immigrants to Australia occurred when the large-scale assisted migration program operated from 1968 until 1974. As documented elsewhere (1\duygu, 1991), in this first seven-year period of movement, the migrants were generally village-born, young couples with limited formal education, and little experience of working in industrialized settings. Most had come with the intention of staying in Australia only temporarily, aiming just to save enough money to accomplish their financial goals at home. Since they were
Ahmet l<;DUYGU 275 the pioneers, and since they formed the large proportion of Turkish migrants who arrived in Australia in the overall period of migration from 1968 to 1995, it was notable that they contributed in a significant way to the shaping of settlement characteristics of the Turkish community that furnished an unusual model for the study of migrant settlement in the country of inunigration.
After 1974, Turkish immigration slowed down until the present time, with a slight resumption in the 1980s, and the number of Turks in Australia was mainly increased by family reunion and chain migration. The mid-1970s marked the beginning of the transitional period in which the migrants who came in the earliest period of migration started to think about permanently staying in Australia or going back home. However, at the same time family members, other relatives, and friends started to arrive in Australia to join them, bringing about marked changes in their pattern of settlement. Many tended to move to outer suburbs from inner city areas, renting a bigger house or buying a home there. This was a crucial step towards permanent settlement. But on the other hand a large proportion of those who arrived in the period 1968-74 seriously considered leaving Australia for good some time between 1975 and 1980. Some of them did indeed, leave and some even returned to Turkey and then remigrated to Australia.
Starting with the mid-1970s, the characteristic socio-demographic features of immigrants also changed completely: most were cit y -born, younger than the earliest migrants and with many single men and women with higher education among them. This change became more visible with changing immigration policies and the means of assessment of applicants by the Australian government in the early 1980s : apart from the family reunion program, only some professionals and some skilled workers were able to
migrate to Australia. Thus migrants who had a tertiary level of education
formed a large proportion of all immigrants who arrived in the latest period of migration, from the early 1980s to 1990s. This period also represented an important stage for those who arrived in the early period of migration. It was the time that many of them started to take the decision for permanent settlement in Australia. In many cases, this decision was taken eight or nine years after arrival.
Given the assumption that those with the initial intention of permanent settlement might strike roots quicker and could be keener to adapt themselves into the Australian milieu, the settlement difficulties of Turkish migrants can be partly attributed to the fact that so many of them originally intended only a temporary stay. Obviously, this was not the mistake of these migrants, but it was the result of the established structural conditions in the international migration market in the period from the late 1960s to early 1980s : Australia had drawn settlers from the guestworker-oriented pool formed in Turkey.
REFERENCES
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics),
Australia in Profile,
Catalogue N° 2502.0, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra, 1988.-
1988 Overseas Arrivals and Departures, Australia,
Catalogue N°3404.0, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra, 1989.
AK<;EL1K, R. and ELLEY, J. (eds.), Turkish CommuniJy in Australia, Australian-Turkish Friendship Society Publications, Melbourne, 1988.
BORRlE, W.D., "Changes in Immigration Patterns Since 1972", in : Jupp,
J. (ed.),
The Australian People,
1988, pp. 111-118.CAAIP (Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies),
Immigration, a Commitment to Australia,
Three Volumes, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1988.CASTLES, S.,
Here For Good,
Pluto Press, London, 1984.- "A New Agenda in Multiculturalism",
Multicultura·l Australia
Papers N
°61,
Clearing House on Migration Issues, Richmond, 1987.- "Comments on the Possible Social Impacts of Alternative Immigration. Scenarios", in :
CAAIP, Immigration, A Commitment to
Australia, Consultants' Report,
1988, pp. 1-17.COLLINS, J.,
Migrant Hands in a Distant Land,
Pluto Press, Sydney, 1988.COX, D., "Turks in Australia", in : Commission of Inquiry into Poverty,
Welfare of Migrants, AGPS, Canberra, 1975, pp. 70-77.
DEASEY, M., MAPOLAR, R. and WHEELER, J., "The Turkish Elderly in the Western Suburbs of Melbourne: Meeting Their Needs",
Multicultural
Australia Papers N
° 60, Clearing House on Migration Issues, Richmond, 1986.DIEA (Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs),
Australian
Immigration Consolidated Statistics, N
°10, 1978,
Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, Canberra, 1979.
DILGEA (Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs),
Australia's Population Trends and Prospects, 1988,
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1988.-
Australian Immigration, Consolidated Statistics, Number 15, 1988,
Ahmet
ICDUYGU 277 EAC of NSW (Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales)Eighteen Years After,
An Interim Report by the EAC of NSW, Sydney, 1985. EVANS, M.D.R, "Immigrant Women in Australia : Resources, Family, and Work",International Migration Review,
18(4) : 1063-1090, 1984.HUGO, G., "Recent Changes in Australian Immigration Policy : Some Policy Implications", paper presented at the 3rd National Conference of the Australian Population Association, Adelaide, 1986.
l<;DUYGU, A., "Non-Intended Settlement and Ethnic Adaptation : the Case of Turkish Migrants", paper presented at the Australian Population Association 4th. National Conference, Brisbane, 1988.
- "Migrant as a Transitional Category : Turkish Migrants in Melbourne.
Australia", Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, 1991.
- "Unintended Turkish Immigrant Settlement in Australia",
International Migration,
32(1) : 71-93, 1994.INGLIS, C., "Some Recent Australian Writing on Immigration and Assimilation",
International Migration Review,
9 (3) : 335-344, 1975.JUPP, J. (ed.),
The Australian People. An Encyclopaedia of the Nation,
its People and their Origins,
Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1988.-
The Challenge of Diversity,
Office of Multicultural Affairs,Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1989.
KASNITZ, D.J., "Work, Gender, and Health among Southern Italian Immigrants in Melbourne, Australia", Ph. D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1981.
LEPERVANCHE, M.D., "Australian Immigration 1788-1940 : Desired and Unwanted", in : Wheelwright, E.L. and Buckley, K. (eds.),
Political
Economy of Australian Capitalism,
Vol. 1, 1975, pp. 72-104.LEVER-TRACY, C. and QUINLAN, M.,
A Divided Working Class,
Routledege & Kegan Paul, London, 1988.
MANDERSON, L., "Turks", in : Jupp, J. (ed.),
The Australian People,
1988, pp. 818-825.OZDOWSKI, S.A., "The Law, Immigration and Human Rights : Changing the Australian Immigration Control System",
International
Migration Review,
19 (3) : 553-554, 1985.PRICE, C.A., "Ethnic Composition of the Australian Population", in : Price, C.A. (ed.),
Australian Immigration, a Bibliography and Digest, N
°
4,
Australian National University Press, Canberra, 1979, pp. A68-A97.- "Ethnic Groups in Australia", in : Jupp, J. (ed.),
The Challenge of
Diversity,
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1989, pp. 6-19.- "Net Migration and Birthplaces : Australia", Canberra, 1992. (mimeograph)
PRICE, C.A. and PYNE, P., "Foreign Born Persons in the 1976 Census of Australia", in : Price, C.A. (ed.),
Australian Immigration, a Bibliography and
Digest,
1979, pp. A37-A67.PSDI (Psychology Section, Department of Immigration), "Survey of Turkish Workers", Canberra, 1969. (mimeograph)
SAY AR, H., "Turkish Australians and Education in Australia", in : Ak\elik, R. and Elley, J. (eds.),
Turkish Community in Australia,
1988, pp. 101-110.WHEELWRIGHT, E.L. and BUCKLEY, K. (eds.),
Politica! Economy of
Australian Capitalism,
Five Volumes, Australia and New Zealand Book Company, Sydney, 1975.WORLD BANK,
World Tables 1987,
Washington D.C., 1987.YOUNG, C.M., "Education, Employment and the Turkish Community in Australia",
International Journal of Turkish Studies,
2 (2) : 35-57, 1983.- "The Changing Demographic Profile of Turks in Australia", in :
Ak\elik, R. and Elley J. (eds.),
Turkish Community in Australia,
1988, pp. 21-46.YOUNG, C.M., PETTY, M. and FAULKNER, A.,
