Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window



Related issue outlines:
No related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
For later or follow-up newspaper items (additional to the items displayed in the newspaper items section at the end of this outline) , go back to the Newspaper Index section of the Echo site. Use the search-words birthrates and population
2010/09: Should Australia ban branding on cigarette packages?

2010/11: Population growth: is a 'big Australia' desirable?

What they said...
'I actually believe in a big Australia. I make no apology for that. I actually think it's good news that our population is growing'
Former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd

'I don't support the idea of a big Australia with arbitrary targets of, say, a 40 million-strong Australia or a 36 million-strong Australia. We need to stop, take a breath and develop policies for a sustainable Australia'
Current Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard

The issue at a glance
On October 22, 2009, Dr Ken Henry, the Secretary to the Treasury, stated, '...since publishing the Intergenerational Report 2007, our long term projection for Australia's population ... [has] increased from 28.5 million in 2047 to more than 35 million people in 2049.
This 25 per cent increase in our 40 year projections reflects the combined effect of higher net overseas migration and a recent pick up in the fertility rate of Australian women.
Today's population is about 22 million. So we are now projecting an increase of 13 million people, or around 60 per cent, over the next 40 years.'
On the evening of October 22, 2009, the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was asked about these figures on the ABC's current affairs program, The 7.30 Report. Mr Rudd responded, 'I actually believe in a big Australia. I make no apology for that. I actually think it's good news that our population is growing.
Contrast that with many countries in Europe where in fact it's heading in the reverse direction. I think it's good for us, it's good for our national security long term, it's good in terms of what we can sustain as a nation.'
Industry welcomed the projections, arguing such growth was good for Australia's economic health. However, the Prime Minister's comments created a political flurry, with the Opposition leader and a variety of others advising caution. The issue became conflated with the government's supposed inability to stop the increase in asylum seekers arriving in Australia.
Mr Rudd later appeared to revise his position, clarifying that the figure of 35 to 36 million by 2050 was a projection based on current trends and was neither a goal nor a prediction of the government's.
When Mr Rudd was replaced as Prime Minister of Australia in June, 2010, by his former deputy, Julia Gillard, one of her first actions was to declare that rather than supporting 'a big Australia', she supported 'a sustainable Australia'.
The issue of what size Australia is desirable, how we achieve it and how we prepare for it, will clearly not go away.

Background
(Most of the following information comes from the Wikipedia entry for 'Australia'. The full text of the entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia)
Most of the estimated 22 million Australians are descended from colonial-era settlers and post-Federation immigrants from Europe, with almost 90% of the population being of European descent. For generations, the vast majority of immigrants came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still mainly of British or Irish ethnic origin. In the 2006 Australian census, the most commonly nominated ancestry was Australian (37.13%),[186] followed by English (31.65%), Irish (9.08%), Scottish (7.56%), Italian (4.29%), German (4.09%), Chinese (3.37%), and Greek (1.84%).

Australia's population has quadrupled since the end of World War I,spurred by an ambitious immigration program. Following World War II and through to 2000, almost 5.9 million of the total population settled in the country as new immigrants, meaning that nearly two out of every seven Australians were born overseas. Most immigrants are skilled, but the immigration quota includes categories for family members and refugees. The Federal Government estimates that cutting immigration from 280,000 to its target of 180,000 will result in a population of 36 million by 2050.

Internet information
On March 15, 2002, On Line Opinion published an opinion piece by Dr Paul Norton of the Department of Politics and Public Policy and the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University. The piece is titled, 'The nature of Australia's population debate'.
The full text of this item can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1905&page=0

On October 22, 2009, Dr Ken Henry, the Secretary to the Treasury, adressed the Queensland University of Technology Business Leaders' Forum on the topic, 'The Shape of Things to Come: Long Run Forces Affecting the Australian Economy in Coming Decades'. The address included estimates that at current rates of growth Australia's population would reach approximately 35 million by 2050.
The full text of this address can be found at http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1643/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=QUT_Address.htm

On October 22, 2009, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd was interviewed on the ABC's 7.30 report about both border control and asylum seekers and Ken Henry's comments on Australia's population growth. It was during this interview that the Prime Minister remarked that he favoured 'a big Australia'.
The full text of this interview can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2721817.htm

On January 28, 2010, the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was again interviewed on The 7.30 Report about growth in the Australian population and how we might best respond to it. In this interview the Prime Minister gave some detail of what he believed the challenges were and how he thought they might be met. He also indicated that the 35 million figure was a Treasury estimate based on current trends, not a target which the Government was determined to pursue.
A full transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2804229.htm

On April 8, 2010, the BBC's Sydney correspondent Nick Bryant reported on the Australian government's decision to appoint a minister for population at the same time as a Sydney think-tank survey indicated that many Australians had reservations about population growth.
The full text of this report can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/nickbryant/2010/04/rethinking_big_australia.html

The Business Council of Australia (BCA) favours a big Australia. On April 8, 2010, it issued a statement outlining some of its reasons for supporting this development. The full text of this document (including an interview the ABC's Fran Kelly conducted with the president of the BCA) can be found at http://www.bca.com.au/Content/101670.aspx

On April 10, 2010, an opinion piece by Peter Hartcher was published in The Sydney Morning Herald which suggested that the government was avoiding having a full and informed debate on the Australian population question.
The full text of the article can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/growing-pains-trouble-rudd-in-big-australia-20100409-rynu.html

On April 29, 2010, the federal Opposition announced its opposition to what it termed the 'Prime Minister's 36 million population target'. The full text of this media release can be found at http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/04/29/Coalition-rejects-PMs-population-target.aspx

Arguments in favour of a 'big Australia'
1. A 'big Australia' would be a boost for the Australian economy
It has been claimed that strong population growth would protect Australia from the downward economic spiral that results from population decline.
A spokesman for The Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chris James, has claimed, 'What happens when you don't have strong population growth is a situation like Japan where stagnation is the order of the day...When areas depopulate, the level of demand in the economy drops. That effects business, business stops investing, employment falls and people begin to leave, so it effectively feeds on itself.'
A recent report praised Australia's overall population growth of 1.9% in 2008, and credited it as being the reason why Australia fared so much better than other developed countries during the global financial crisis. It stated that in simple economic terms, more people means more customers, which results in more jobs.
In February 2010, the Ethnic Communities' Council of Victoria stated, 'Many of the economic and social concerns raised [about migration and population growth] fail to recognize the profoundly positive social, economic and cultural impact immigrants have made to Australia. Economic concerns generally relate to the increased cost to social welfare and the strain to certain industries such as education and health. Yet immigrants have contributed enormously to Australia's economic prosperity and growth and without immigration the labour force participation rate, a key indicator of economic growth and welfare, would stagnate.'

2. A 'big Australia' would reduce the problem of our ageing population
Australia's population is aging, that is, the proportion of citizens over the age of 60 is growing. This is a consequence of relatively low birthrates and the fact that the 'baby boomer' generation, those born during the period of population growth after World War II, are now in their fifties and sixties. It has been claimed that without an increase in population from both natural population growth and through migration, Australia will not be able to support its aging citizens once they are no longer able to work.
Graham Bradley, the president of the Business Council of Australia, has stated, 'If you look at the intergenerational report, the important conclusion from that is not whether our population is going to be 30 million or 32 million or 35 million or 36 million in 2040. It's about the demographics that are changing in Australia, with the number of retirees that need to be supported by the working population.
And that can't be addressed completely by natural birth rate, which is, of course, increasing as well. So that's why we say we need, over the long term, sustained ... migration, particularly focused around skilled migration.'
Commonwealth Treasury secretary, Ken Henry, has noted that Australia's population is ageing rapidly. He has stated, 'Forty years ago, 8 per cent of us were aged 65 or more. Today the figure is 13 per cent, and 40 years from now it is expected to be 22 per cent. Over the same period, the share of the population in paid employment - and therefore paying taxes to fund the services and pensions of the more numerous elderly - will fall.'
There are those who argue that only substantial population growth, whether through an increased birthrate or through migration will allow Australia to support its growing number of elderly citizens.

3. A 'big Australia' would expand the tax base, allow for economies of scale and improve community services for all Australians
It has been claimed that a larger population would actually fund the services it requires by expanding the tax base governments can draw on.
Aaron Gadiel, the chief executive of Urban Taskforce Australia has claimed that a large population increases the tax base to fund improvements to infrastructure and welfare services. Mr Gadiel has stated, 'We shouldn't be trying to fight it, what we should be trying to do is ensuring that we've got the investment and infrastructure that makes that process easier to manage.
I think people should be focussing on how much state, federal and local governments have been investing in urban infrastructure to help absorb population growth.'
It has also been claimed that a larger population base would be an added incentive to improve many public services. Transport companies would be more inclined to expand services, for example, if they were assured of substantial public patronage. The same is true of the incentive for government investment in infrastructure that population growth supplies. It has also been claimed that increased population allows for significant efficiencies which mean that these services can be supplied at a lower per capita rate and so at a lower cost to each taxpayer.
'Australia's Population Future', is a position paper prepared for the Business Council of Australia by Professor Glenn Withers in April 2004. The paper states, 'For goods and services not traded internationally, population size spreads the costs of public goods and networks such as public administration, transport and utilities and allows for more domestic competition so reducing the domestic prices of these services.'

4. A 'big Australia' would increase Australia's national security
It has been claimed that a larger population would enable Australia to better defend itself in time of war and would make Australia a less attractive target for foreign aggressors.
It has also been suggested that a larger population and thus a larger and better equipped defence force would make Australia a more attractive ally to those countries with whom we are currently in mutual support alliances or with whom we might wish to enter into such alliances in the future.
Australia's wartime prime minister, Ben Chifley, supported a larger Australia. He argued that the 7,517,981 Australians who lived here in 1946 were nervous about our vulnerability to attack from Asia and that a wealthy, well-populated, well-armed friend of America had a much better chance of sustaining alliances and contributing to its own defence.
Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser has also argued that a relatively under-populated Australia is actually a target for envy and aggression from other nations. Mr Fraser has stated, 'If we believe we can maintain Australia at 18 to 20 million people without increasing envy, without marginalising ourselves, without challenge, then we are gravely and seriously mistaken.' Malcolm Fraser has recommended an Australia of 45 million to 50 million by 2050.
The executive chairman of IBIS Business Information, Mr Phil Ruthven, has also stated that Australia's security interests will force acceptance of a bigger population because this and our involvement in a regional government 'is the best way to avoid war'.
Mr Ruthven claims there is also a moral imperative. If Australia is 'fair dinkum about a fair world', he has claimed, it should accept a higher population density. In Asia, the average population density is 85 people per square kilometre. Australia's is just two.

5. A 'big Australia' would promote a more balanced Australian society and avoid a range of social problems
It has been claimed that a stagnant population leads to population imbalances, the degeneration of cities and to crime.
A spokesperson for the Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry has stated, 'What happens when you don't have strong population growth is a situation like Japan where stagnation is the order of the day, or Detroit where depopulation causes urban degeneration and crime.
When areas depopulate, the level of demand in the economy drops. That effects business, business stops investing, employment falls and people begin to leave, so it effectively feeds on itself.'
It has been claimed that a falling national population leads to situations where the only people to remain in a depopulated area are those who cannot afford to leave. Housing prices fall, services decline, there is unemployment and under-employment and a growth in drug-taking, assault, robbery and other crimes against property.
The Australian Treasury's recent Intergenerational Report Treasury outlines the detrimental effect of low population growth, which it illustrates by reference to Japan and Italy. In these countries population decline will mean stagnation, old age dependency issues, serious equity challenges and major social problems.

Arguments against a 'big Australia'
1. The projected population would place too much strain on Australia's water resources
Critics of a 'big Australia' argue that a dry continent such as Australia must secure reliable water sources before it can consider allowing or encouraging substantial further population growth.
Greg Hunt, the shadow federal spokesman for climate action, environment and heritage, has stated, 'Investment in water efficiency for a thirsty country should be the starting point for considering population, not an afterthought.'
Mr Hunt claims that the approach of the former Rudd government was misguided as it was contemplating population growth without first ensuring adequate water supplies to make such growth viable. Mr Hunt has argued, 'The heart of sustainable water infrastructure is a national vision to ensure that we have sufficient water for our cities, our food security and our environment. This means investment in a once-in-a-century modernisation of our food production so as to save more than 600 billion litres of water a year at present lost through inefficient water use.'

2. Australian cities could not adequately accommodate the population endorsed by 'big Australia' advocates
It has been argued that Australian cities could simply not support the sort of population growth that is being predicted. It is claimed that housing stock is already inadequate and that housing prices are already so high that some people will never be able to afford to own their own homes.
Federal Labor MP and former frontbencher Kelvin Thomson, the member for Wills in Melbourne's northern suburbs has stated, 'Melbourne is becoming an obese, hardened-artery parody of its former self. Like a man rapidly gaining weight who simply loosens his belt rather than confront his weight problem, Melbourne needs to ask itself, is a population of 5 million really going to give us a better city than one of 4 million?
We are now growing by 75,000 people every year, 1500 every week, over 200 every day. This is pushing up housing prices and making housing unaffordable for the young...'
This position has been put more expansively by Barry Cohen, a minister in the former Hawke government, who has claimed, 'With a population of 22 million, the deterioration in the quality of life in our cities is already obvious. Daily our media highlights the inadequacy of our schools, hospitals and transport system, housing and water shortages, and spiralling land prices. You don't need to be an urban planner, demographer or sociologist to see the problems.
If the 35 million predicted by 2050 is correct, with Sydney and Melbourne rising to seven million each, we are courting disaster. Double the population and life in the cities will be intolerable.'
It has further been noted that Australia's settlement pattern of a family home on a quarter-acre block means that high density housing will not be readily accepted.
Tory Maguire, writing for The Punch, has noted, ''While people complain about the urban sprawl of Australian cities, we're still acutely averse to the concept of raising our children without the luxury of our own back yards.'

3. Australia's infrastructure and transport services could not accommodate such a population
It has been claimed that Australia's roads and transport networks would not be able to cope with the population growth that some have suggested will or should occur.
Federal Liberal MP and former immigration minister, Kevin Andrews, has argued, 'Why is the Rudd Government hell-bent on bringing more and more people to Australia? How many people do we need?...
Our roads are congested, our public transport overcrowded ... Journeys that once took 30 minutes often take an hour. The congestion has spread beyond peak hours to much more of the day.'
The need to balance population against Australia's infrastructure's capacity has been stressed by Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens. Mr Brown has stated, 'Australia's population should be determined by the capacity of our environment and our infrastructure. Australia cannot support an increase in population to 35 million by 2050.'
A similar point has been made by the leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. Mr Abbott has stated, 'The Coalition will seek to restore public confidence in the integrity of our migration program, by ensuring that it is consistent with a sustainable population growth path.
Decisions about immigration numbers should take into account regularly updated expert advice about projected future population numbers and whether planned infrastructure is likely to be able to cope.'
Since her assumption of the role of Prime Minister, Julia Gillard has adopted a position similar to Mr Abbott's. Ms Gillard has stated, 'I don't support the idea of a big Australia with arbitrary targets of, say, a 40 million-strong Australia or a 36 million-strong Australia. We need to stop, take a breath and develop policies for a sustainable Australia.
I support a population that our environment, our water, our soil, our roads and freeways, our busses, our trains and our services can sustain.'

4. Australia's health services would be overtaxed by this level of population growth
It has been claimed that Australia's health services would not cope with a significant increase in the nation's population.
An independent analysis by the Australian Medical Association has concluded that Australian public hospitals are dysfunctional, operating at full or above-full capacity, and urgently in need of increased capital funding. An important finding was that major metropolitan teaching hospitals operate on a bed occupancy rate of 95% or above. The report noted that hospital overcrowding was the most serious cause of reduced patient safety.
It has been claimed that, even at Australia's current population of only about 20 million people, the public health system is struggling to cope with demand. Changes will be required to deal with a vastly increased, yet still ageing, population and the attendant multiple comorbidities, many attributable to increased urbanisation.

5. This level of population would result in an increase in crime and social dislocation
It has been suggested that the strain of migration and the lack of a secure base within the country to which migrants come, may lead to them having a higher than anticipated involvement in criminal activity.
Andrew Bolt, a commentator for The Herald Sun, has stated, 'Crime rates among the Vietnamese-born are still very high, decades later, and the rise of ethnic gangs among the recently arrived is troubling.'
Andrew Bolt has further noted, 'The NSW police's biggest specialist unit is its Middle Eastern Crime Squad, with 120 members, and jail rates in Australia of the Lebanese-born are higher than for any other ethnic group except Tongans, Samoans, Romanians, Vietnamese and now the Sudanese.
More worrying, NSW police say they're even more likely to arrest the children and grandchildren of the Lebanese-born.'
It has also been claimed that an increased population through migration can result in a proportion of the population feeling relatively little commitment to the country to which they have migrated. The claim has further been made that ethnic diversity can reduce the trust citizens place in one another. Andrew Bolt has also claimed, '... high immigration ... inevitably ... brings in people who feel less connection to this country, and thus less duty to it. It can be like the difference between renters and owners. Who looks after the place better?
These changes are so great that by 2025 more than half of us will have been born overseas, or will, like me, have at least one parent born abroad.
This alone is a challenge, since many studies in many countries - including one here by the Australian National University's Dr Andrew Leigh - show that the more ethnically diverse a place, the less trust people have in each other.'
Monash University population expert Dr Bob Birrell has said a large influx of people with few or no English skills is creating social problems in suburbs such as Dandenong, Sunshine and Broadmeadows. Dr Birrell has stated, 'Social divisions are becoming more obvious and geographically concentrated (and certain areas) are being overlain by an ethnic identification.'

Further implications
The population debate is difficult to conduct in Australia. As Dr Paul Norton, from the Department of Politics and Public Policy and the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University, notes, '[It] intersects with many others, including those about the environment, Australia's economic future, immigration and race politics, "the family" and gender politics.'
It is a highly populist issue, that is, one which evokes vigorous, often unthinking reactions from much of the electorate who have historically seen population growth through immigration as a threat to racial and cultural homogeneity and to the job security of current Australians.
The debate has now become more complicated by gender issues such as how actively governments and employers should seek to encourage women to have children and whether that be via baby bonuses, childcare provision or paid maternity leave. It is also complicated by the skills shortage issue.
Australian employers do not have a strong record of supporting their female employees to have children and remain in the workforce. They also do not have a good record in the area of on-the-job skills training. Thus the importation of skilled labour in areas of shortage has become a recourse adopted by governments and favoured by employers because the alternative involves greater long-term planning and investment than we have typically shown ourselves capable of.
Now the debate is complicated still further by our growing recognition of the fragility of our environment and our awareness that our population is ageing. This means governments, employers and Australian citizens have a very difficult balancing act to achieve. Our ageing population would appear to mean that we have to foster population growth, presumably through both natural increase and immigration. However, our finite natural resources suggest that there will be a limit to the growth that is sustainable. Finding this balance should involve honest, rigorous economic, scientific and political debate.
The issues involved are so emotion-laden that the debate appears to be politically very dangerous for any government that seeks to conduct it. It is interesting that one of the first policy announcements Julia Gillard made on becoming Prime Minister stated that she was not a supporter of the 'big Australia' policy with which her predecessor had become associated in the public mind. This was smart politics. However, it is to be hoped that soon, perhaps after the next election, all interest groups will be involved in an informed debate on what level of population growth is desirable for this country.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age:  January 26, page 4, news item by Y Narushima, `Australia "must plan for new city" to cope with population'.
http://thebigchair.com.au/news/water-cooler/new-city

The Australian:  February 2, page 12, comment by Barry Cohen, `Populate and we will perish'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/populate-and-we-will-perish/story-e6frg6zo-1225825667779

The Age:  January 29, page 3, news item, `Rudd cools on a "big Australia"'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-cools-on-a-big-australia-20100128-n1ps.html

The Age:  February 28, page 17, comment by Josh Gordon, `Congestion the ultimate cost of people ingestion'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/congestion-the-ultimate-cost-of-people-ingestion-20100227-pa9u.html

The Australian:  March 31, page 14, comment by Graham Bradley, `If we want more people we have to plan better'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/if-we-want-more-people-we-have-to-plan-better/story-e6frg6zo-1225847684873

The Age:  March 31, page 1, news item (contains growth / population statistics) by Tim Colebatch, `People our biggest import as Melbourne gets squeezier'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/people-our-biggest-import-20100330-rbhv.html

The Australian:  March 30, page 13, editorial, `Leadership and vision for a big Australia'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/leadership-and-vision-for-a-big-australia/story-e6frg71x-1225847154106

The Australian:  April 8, page 5, news item by Patricia Karvelas, `Two-thirds are opposed to "big Australia"'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/two-thirds-of-population-are-opposed-to-big-australia/story-e6frg6nf-1225851118624

The Age:  April 8, page 1, news item by Katharine Murphy, `Population can't be capped, says the minister'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/population-cant-be-capped-minister-20100407-rs6s.html

The Australian:  April 7, page 13, editorial, `Big or little? The debate is on'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/big-or-little-the-debate-is-on/story-e6frg71x-1225850666205

The Australian:  April 7, page 12, comment by Paul Kelly, `Rudd moves to defuse growing population pressure'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/rudd-moves-to-defuse-growing-population-pressure/story-e6frg6zo-1225850659563

The Australian:  April 7, page 1, news item by Patricia Karvelas, `Business rejects migrant cut'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/business-rejects-migrant-cut/story-e6frgczf-1225850680819

The Age:  April 7, page 17, comment (with Spooner cartoon) by Katharine Murphy, `When size does matter'. (Cartoon also in online version)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/when-size-does-matter-20100406-rpbo.html

The Herald-Sun:  April 6, page 26, comment by Philip Hudson, `Size matters when it comes to the debate on population'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/size-matters-when-it-comes-to-the-debate-on-population/story-e6frfhqf-1225850098996

The Australian:  April 6, page 10, comment by Michael Sainsbury, `How to defuse population bomb'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/how-to-defuse-population-bomb/story-e6frg9p6-1225850074371

The Age:  April 6, page 10, editorial, `Challenges of "big Australia" demand attention'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/challenges-of-big-australia-demand-attention-20100405-rmzv.html

The Australian:  April 5, page 12, comment (with cartoon) by Glenn Milne, `"Big country" grows into a big problem'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/big-country-grows-into-a-big-problem/story-e6frg6zo-1225849635690

The Age:  April 4, page 1, news item by Josh Gordon, `Rudd flips on "big Australia"'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-flips-on-big-australia-20100403-rkvo.html

The Australian:  April 14, page 3, news item (contains survey statistics) by Stephen Lunn, `Women don't want a bigger population'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/women-dont-want-a-bigger-population/story-e6frg6nf-1225853375973

The Age:  April 14, page 5, news item by Farah Farouque, `Majority oppose population growth: survey'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/majority-oppose-population-growth-survey-20100413-s7n5.html

The Age:  April 11, page 15, comment by Fergus Hanson, `It's time for open discussion on how big is too big'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-time-for-open-discussion-on-how-big-is-too-big-20100410-rztm.html

The Australian:  April 10, Inquirer section, page 1, comment by George Megalogenis, `What if we raise the plank'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/what-if-we-raise-the-plank/story-e6frg6z6-1225851691388

The Australian:  April 9, page 16, comment by Greg Hunt, `More people in an ailing infrastructure won't make a big country'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/more-people-in-an-ailing-infrastructure-wont-make-a-big-country/story-e6frg6zo-1225851579053

The Australian:  April 9, page 6, news item by David Uren, `Regional labour shortages to dictate the pattern of population growth, says Burke'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/regional-labour-shortages-to-dictate-the-pattern-of-population-growth-says-burke/story-e6frgczf-1225851584427

The Herald-Sun:  April 28, page 30, comment by Andrew Bolt, `Urban logjam a danger sign'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/urban-logjam-a-danger-sign/story-e6frfhqf-1225859042433

The Australian:  April 24, Inquirer section, page 7, comment by Barry Cohen, `Population size is the debate we need to have'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/population-size-is-the-debate-we-need-to-have/story-e6frgd0x-1225857317470

The Australian:  May 6, page 12, comment by Barry Cohen, `Let's not beat about the bush, there's room aplenty'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/lets-not-beat-about-the-bush-theres-room-aplenty/story-e6frg6zo-1225862745959

The Australian:  May 10, page 14, comment by Peter McDonald, `Demand for workers will outstrip fears about resources'.
http://www.apo.org.au/commentary/demand-workers-will-outstrip-fear-about-resources

The Australian:  May 18, page 12, comment by John Pasquarelli, `Abbott should run a mile from "big Australia" policy time bomb'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/abbott-should-run-a-mile-from-big-australia-policy/story-e6frg6zo-1225867925050