Australian Sub-Groups – Key Differences

This section will focus on the four Australian sub-groups: Anglo- Celtic/Caucasian (ACA), Chinese (ACH), Christian (ACR) and Buddhist (AB). The views of ACA and ACR were the most compatible whilst those of AB were at most variance with those of its main group.

[1] Like the FLE choices made by main Australians, ACA and ACR considered ‘hiring the foreign skilled already in country’ first, ‘bringing in the foreign skilled’ second and ‘set-up of branch’ third [app. VI.166, VI.178, VI.189,

VI.200, VI.211]. AB held both these first and second choices as their top preferences whereas ACH had ‘set-up of branch’ foremost in their list.

[2] Of the six reasons favouring the foreign skilled brought in, ‘skill gap/shortage’ was the first reason of main Australians (89%, mean=5.90), ACA (91%, mean=5.87) and ACR (87%, mean=6.00) [app. VI.168, VI.180, VI.191, VI.202, VI.213]. AB preferred ‘skill transfer/ exchange’ (100%, mean=6.00) as their first reason whereas ACH chose these two and ‘specialist positions’ (89%, mean=6.00) as their primary reasons for ‘bringing in the foreign skilled’.

[3] AB was the only sub-group to deviate from the popular choice of ‘meet short supply in industry’ for ‘bringing in the foreign unskilled’ [app. VI.168, VI.180, VI.191, VI.202, VI.213]. They preferred ‘take on jobs locals not prepared to do’ (41%, mean=5.14) as their main reason for doing so.

[4] Of the six reasons favouring ‘hiring foreigners already in country’, ‘best person for the job’ was most preferred by main Australians (90%, mean=5.52), ACA (91%, mean=5.47) and ACR (89%, mean=5.61) [app. VI.168, VI.180, VI.191, VI.202, VI.213]. ACH (94%, mean=5.82) and AB (100%, mean=5.71) considered ‘PR is the same as a local’ most of all.

Like the main Australians (83%, mean=4.83), ACA (81%, mean=4.69) and ACR (79%, mean=4.57) least preferred ‘cultural diversity is good for the company’. ACH (94%, mean=4.82) and AB 100%, mean=4.47) felt ‘ability to fit in with local environment’ was least of the six reasons for ‘hiring foreigners already in country’.

[5] Of the four reasons not favouring ‘work sent’, ‘local community missing out on generation of wealth’ was the first reason considered by ACA (47%, mean=6.03) and AB (47%, mean=6.13) [app. VI.171, VI.183, VI.194, VI.205, VI.216]. Main group had ‘prefer product to be made locally’ (50%, mean=5.87) as their first reason. ACH chose ‘possible disappearance of particular jobs for local community’ (61%, mean=6.18) whilst ACR selected

‘loss of jobs to local community leading to increase in unemployment’ (58%, mean=6.06) as their best reason for not favouring ‘work sent’.

On the least of the four reasons not favouring ‘work sent’, main Australians (48%, mean=6.04), ACA (45%, mean=5.94) and ACR (56%, mean=6.03) regarded ‘possible disappearance of particular jobs for local community’ whilst ACH (61%, mean=5.27) and AB (47%, mean=5.75) considered ‘prefer product to be made locally’.

[6] Instead of the most popular reason (loss of jobs to local community leading to increase in unemployment) for not favouring ‘set-up of branch’, ACR preferred ‘possible disappearance of particular jobs for local community’ (11%, mean=5.86) whilst MM chose ‘prefer product to be made locally’ (14%, mean=6.00) [app. VI.171, VI.183, VI.194, VI.205, VI.216].

MM considered the remaining three (14%, mean=4.00) as their least reasons for not favouring ‘set-up of branch’. ACA (7%, mean=4.60) and ACR (10%, mean=5.00) regarded ‘prefer product to be made locally’ whereas AB preferred ‘possible disappearance of particular jobs for local community’ (12%, mean=6.00) as least of the four reasons. These two latter reasons were different from the most least of reasons selected by main group and ACH. Their least reason was ‘local community missing out on generation of wealth’.

[7] Of the five reasons not favouring ‘company relocation’, ‘local community missing out on generation of wealth’ was the first reason nominated by ACH (83%, mean=6.20) and ACR (84%, mean=6.15) [app. VI.171, VI.183, VI.194, VI.205, VI.216]. Main group felt most for ‘prefer product to be made locally’ (77%, mean=5.48). ACA considered ‘effect on small businesses that are dependent on business from this company’ (75%, mean=6.18) whilst AB chose ‘possible disappearance of particular jobs for local community’ (88%, mean=5.33) as their best reason for not favouring ‘company relocation’.

On the least of the five reasons not favouring ‘company relocation’, main group considered ‘possible disappearance of particular jobs for local community’ (76%, mean=6.03). ACR regarded this reason and ‘effect on small businesses that are dependent on business from this company’ (82%,

mean=6.16) least for not favouring ‘company relocation’. ACH selected ‘prefer product to be made locally’ (83%, mean=4.73) their least. ACA (73%, mean=5.98) and AB (82%, mean=5.71) nominated ‘local community missing out on generation of wealth’ as least of the five reasons for not favouring ‘company relocation’.

[8] In terms of employment of the three categories of foreign labour, all Australian sub-group of companies reported having ‘foreigners already in country’, followed by ‘foreigners brought in’ and ‘work sent overseas’ [app. VI.172, VI.184, VI.195, VI.206, VI.217]. AB companies had employed the most ‘foreigners already in country’ and ‘work sent overseas’ whilst ACH companies had the most ‘foreigners brought in’.

ACH companies employed most whilst ACR companies employed least of the three categories of foreign labour.

[9] ‘Technical’ personnel were the most popular category of foreign workers employed by Australian companies [app. VI.40-41, VI.48-49, VI.56-57, VI.64-65]. Other than those employed by ACR companies, ‘technical’ foreign workers were given salary and work conditions stipulated by Australian labour regulations. ACR companies brought in ‘technical’ foreign workers on standards recommended by Australia as well as those of the international market.

AB companies brought in mostly ‘managerial’ foreign workers and gave them international market standards type of salary and work conditions. Other than ‘technical’, they also most employed ‘administrative’ foreign workers ‘already in the country’. These foreign workers were accorded Australian salary and work conditions.

[10] Of the three sources of foreign labour, AB companies most preferred ‘recruit personally from overseas’ (76%, mean=4.92) instead of ‘local labour agency’ (76%, mean=4.38), which was the favourite choice of the majority of Australian companies [app. VI.174, VI.186, VI.197, VI.208, VI.219].

[11] Of the four sub-groups, AB (mean=5.06) were the most favourable to whilst ACR (mean=3.48) were the least supportive of living in a foreign country [app. VI.42, VI.50, VI.58, VI.66].

[12] Of the three most important job selection factors, main Australians, ACA and ACR felt that ‘work experience’ was first, ‘educational qualifications’ was second and ‘years of work experience’ was third [app. VI.175, VI.187, VI.198, VI.209, VI.220]. ACH and AB considered ‘years of work experience’ in second and ‘educational qualifications’ in third places instead.

[13] Of the sub-groups, ACA (64%) had the highest whilst AB (47%) had the lowest percentage of respondents who agreed that ‘profit is the prime motive of business’ [app. VI.35, VI.43, VI.51, VI.59, VI.67].

Of the four reasons, main Australians (61%, mean=5.92), ACA (61%, mean=5.98) and ACR (61%, mean=6.13) were most agreeable with ‘reason for being’ for doing so. ACH chose ‘measure of success’ (50%, mean=5.78) whereas AB preferred ‘cannot keep going otherwise’ (47%, mean=5.00) as their main reason for agreeing with the profit statement.

[14] Of the four sub-groups, ACR was the most deontological whereas AB was the least deontological on FLE [app. VI.177a]. None of the sub-groups went completely deontological.

ACR and ACA had the highest profit mean (5.92) whilst AB had the lowest profit mean (5.19) of the four sub-groups.