It is based on an analysis of Department of Immigration & Citizenship (DIAC) international student visa records - over 400,000 students - matched with police crime victimisation records. Context is provided by the AIC’s National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) database and the Australian component of the 2004 International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS).
The report comments that -
Overall, the AIC determined that there was neither administrative nor victimisation survey data in existence that could provide adequate information about the extent of recorded crime against Indian and other international student populations studying in Australia, nor could existing data assist in identifying whether the rate of victimisation of international students was higher than the rate of victimisation of Australian students or a comparable Australian population. With the support of state and territory police agencies and DIAC, the AIC developed a study to estimate the extent to which international students were victims of crime, based on the matching of names and dates of birth from student visa information held by DIAC against police victim records.Significantly, the authors conclude that -
Data was analysed for student visa holders from the five countries with the largest student populations living in Australia between 2005 and 2009 — India, the People’s Republic of China, Republic of Korea (South Korea), the United States and Malaysia. A total of 496,902 individuals were identified in the DIAC database. Of these 445,615 (90%) were primary applicants (ie seeking to study at an Australian institution). Australian state and territory jurisdictional analysis of student visa holders was made possible using the Commonwealth Register of Institutions & Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) identification number.
Of the 445,615 primary applicants with a known CRICOS number, 35% were listed as studying in New South Wales, 34 percent in Victoria, 15% in Queensland, 7% in both South Australia and Western Australia, 2% in the Australian Capital Territory, 1% in Tasmania and less than 1% in the Northern Territory.
Once identified, student visa data from DIAC was matched with each Australian state and territory police agency’s crime victim data. A de-identified dataset of victims was then provided to the AIC and analysed. The initial database contained 23,732 victimisation records for all possible offence types. Of these records, a proportion were later identified as ineligible for inclusion in the final analysis. This was mostly a result of duplicate records or records that were incorrectly selected during the application of Soundex in the matching process. Further, some records were for offence types (disorderly conduct, breaches, traffic and driving offences) which could not be reasonably counted as incidents of victimisation based soley on the offence description alone. These incidents were excluded from the analysis. Finally, a number of offence types (eg sex and fraud offences) were excluded because sample sizes and offence numbers were insufficient to conduct reliable comparative analysis at a jurisdictional level. Of the remaining data, three key offence types — assault, robbery and other theft — were chosen for comparative analysis. In all, the final database contained 13,204 unique victims (3% of all students) who reported a total of 14,855 records of assault (n=3,201), robbery (n=3,206) and other theft
(n=8,440).
Overall, international students from the five source countries generally experienced incidents of physical assault at significantly lower rates than in the general population in each state/territory jurisdiction in 2009. This was true for most nationalities in most jurisdictions and was a generally consistent finding for each year since 2005. In some cases, comparisons between students from different countries showed that for some years, in some jurisdictions, Indian students had experienced higher rates of assault than students from China, Korea, Malaysia and the United States.
The nature of assaults (day of week, time of day and location) experienced by international students was generally consistent between students of different nationalities and the reference Australian populations. The notable exception was that a greater proportion of male Indian students were assaulted in commercial (retail) locations and in, or near, public transport facilities.
Combined data for all jurisdictions illustrated that between 2005 and 2009, two in every five assaults (42%) of international students, occurred in an unspecified location on the street or in the open space. A further 21% occurred at a residential location, 12% at a commercial (retail) location and 10% at a commercial (hospitality and entertainment) location. The latter category includes, among other things, hotels, motels, nightclubs and restaurants. Further, approximately one in 10 incidents was recorded at, or in connection with, public transport facilities. This profile of assault is generally consistent with the profile of assault for the Australian general population.
There were a few notable differences evident between students from different countries. Indian male students, for example, were more likely to have been assaulted at a commercial (retail) location (16%) compared with Chinese (9%), Malaysian (9%), Korean (4%) and US students (4%). Similarly, Indian male students were more likely to have been assaulted on or around public transport facilities (12%) compared with Korean (4%), Chinese (5%), US (4%), or Malaysian students (2%). Conversely, Indian students had proportionally fewer residential assaults compared with Chinese students.
As with location, it was also possible to profile assaults against international students by examining the time of day and day of week on which the assaults took place. For all international students who were assaulted between 2005 and 2009, most were assaulted in the evening hours midnight and 4 am (31%) and between 8 pm and midnight (29%). Relatively few assaults occurred during the daytime hours between 8 am and 4 pm (15%) and the distribution of assaults across the week was relatively even, if not slightly skewed towards the weekend. There was no notable difference between students from different countries in the distribution of incidents across the week. While no nationally comparative data on time of day and day of week of assaults is available, crime statistics published for Victoria were used as a comparison; these statistics presented a similar temporal pattern for assaults.
Like assault, the nature of robbery was generally consistent between the countries and followed patterns consistent with the general Australian population. For international students between 2005 and 2009 -• almost two in every three robberies (63%) occurred in an unspecified location on the streetRobberies recorded against Indian students were significantly more likely (25%) to have occurred in commercial (retail) locations and more detailed analysis found that of these cases, almost two in three occurred at service/petrol stations. By comparison, only 12% of Chinese students who were robbed at a commercial location were robbed at a service or petrol station; Chinese students were more likely than Indian students to have been robbed at a shop or store (39% cf 12%) and slightly more likely to have been robbed at a 24 hour convenience store (17% cf 12%).
or in an open space;
• eighteen percent occurred at a commercial (retail) location;
• nine percent on or near public transport; and
• four percent at a residential location.
On examining the temporal factors for the robbery of international students, patterns were consistent with what is known of robbery in general, with most robberies occur in the late evenings and early mornings. For all international students who were robbed between 2005 and 2009, most were robbed in the evening hours between 8 pm and midnight (47%), and midnight and 4 am (23%). Relatively few robberies occurred during the daytime hours between 8 am and 4 pm (9%), and the distribution of robberies across the week was relatively even, if not slightly skewed towards the weekend. As was the case for assault, the lack of difference identified between students groups for the temporal factors was expected, given that robbery is primarily an opportunistic crime which is not traditionally racially motivated.
This analysis of international students as recorded victims of crime in Australia, in essence, indicates that international students are less likely or as likely to be victims of physical assault and other theft. Further, that the level of crime experienced by international students of different nationalities varied, with Indian students typically experiencing the same or a heightened incidence of assault and other theft than other student nationalities. The findings for robbery were more concerning in that international students, again predominantly Indian students (males and females) but also Chinese males, were significantly more likely to be the victim of robbery for some jurisdictions for some years compared with Australian reference populations drawn from the ABS statistics for each jurisdiction.
Although the findings from this study indicated higher than average rates of robbery among Indian international students compared with the general population, and higher rates of assault for Indian students compared with students from other countries, they should not yet be interpreted as evidence of racism. As has been stated throughout this report, the nature of the data used in this study does not permit a reliable test for racial motivation. Further, there are a number of other differences (other than a person’s racial appearance) that are likely to vary significantly between different student groups that may be important contributors to one’s risk of victimisation.
International students in the main are a particularly vulnerable group due to a range of factors including demographic characteristics and a lack of economic security together with relatively limited options of employment, housing and transport. The types of employment, areas of residence and evening activities (including both shift work and use of public transport) are specific areas of risk for international students that appear to explain some of the incidence of robbery for Indian students, in particular. Other research has shown that a high proportion of migrants to Australia from both English and non-English speaking countries are employed in the accommodation and food services industries, followed by the retail sector. The employment of international students in low-skilled, low-paid roles follows this pattern, with the largest proportion (29%) employed in accommodation and food services, followed by the retail trade (16%)
Indian students in particular, are known to have a greater proficiency in English and, as such, appear much more likely than students from east Asian countries to find employment in the service sector. This includes service stations, convenience stores, taxi drivers and other employment that typically involves working late night shifts alone and come with an increased risk of crime, either at the workplace or while travelling to and from work.
Further, the limited availability of on-campus accommodation for higher education students, and the lack of on-campus accommodation for vocational students, have led many to secure private rentals in inner urban areas as well as to rely on public transport in areas with higher concentrations of crime. Together with their over-representation as employees in the hospitality and services sector, students are therefore faced with multiple risk factors that increase their probability of victimisation irrespective of their racial appearance. The finding that there was a substantial over-representation of Indian students in retail/commercial robberies lends support to this view.
