Geography and Population in Australia: A Historical Perspective

Geography and Population in Australia:A Historical Perspectivegeor_713 242..260

GRAEME HUGOARC Australian Professorial Fellow, Professor of Geography and Director of the National Centrefor Social Applications of GIS, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. Email:[email protected]

Received 24 January 2011; Revised 23 June 2011; Accepted 24 June 2011

AbstractIn contemporary Australia concerns about the future population have seen thecreation of a federal ministry on population for the first time. One of the uniquedimensions of the population (and immigration) debate in Australia comparedwith North America and Europe is a strong concern with the environmentalimplications of growth. The discourse around these issues has been strong inAustralia from the colonial period and in the last century geographers have beenamong the social and physical scientists who have not only provided an empiricalbasis for the discussion but have been significant protagonists in the debate. Thispaper surveys the debates around Australia’s population since the early years ofEuropean settlement and discusses the involvement of geographers. It argues thatthere is a great deal of continuity in the population debate and that it is importantthat the lessons of their history inform the contemporary discussion. There is boththe need and opportunity for Australia to develop a coherent, holistic, sustainablepopulation policy. It is important that contemporary geographers emulate theirforebears and add their knowledge and expertise to the national discussion.

KEY WORDS population; environment; policy; immigration; distribution

IntroductionThe year 2010 saw for the first time the estab-lishment of an Australian government ministryand department of Population. However, popula-tion issues have been debated in Australia formuch of the period of European settlementalthough the debate has waxed and waned inintensity. Historically geographers have beenamong the social and physical scientists whohave not only provided an empirical base toinform the discourse but often have been pro-tagonists in the debates. This paper examines thedevelopment of the population debate in Austra-lia, especially in the last century and discussesthe role of geography and geographers, espe-cially those based in Australian universities.

The population discussion in Australia hasbeen dominated by a concern with the size of the

Australian population and the relationshipbetween population and environment. However,Australia faces a more diverse range of popula-tion related issues and geographers have made abroader contribution beyond the population–environment issue. In this contribution there hasbeen a strong symbiotic relationship developedbetween the cognate smaller academic disciplineof demography. It is also interesting to note thata strong relationship developed between Austra-lian population geography and demography andtheir counterparts in New Zealand.

The continuing population debate in Australiahas been punctuated by the holding of a numberof, usually government initiated, inquiries whichare listed in Table 1. The reports of these inquir-ies provide an insight into the nature of the popu-lation issues of salience at particular times and

242 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):242–260doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2011.00713.x

also some indication of the role of geographers inthe debate at those times. One is struck in readingthe documents associated with these inquiries oftheir relevance to the contemporary situation andthe importance of not only looking forwards inour population debates but to also learn thelessons of history. Indeed, there has been a greatdeal of continuity in the Australian populationdiscourse over the last century.

Australia has been well served in the scholarlyanalysis of its demographic history. Smith’s(1980) careful analysis of the limited data avail-able on the history of the Indigenous populationcharts the shameful decline in numbers afterinitial European settlement. The definitive workon the post-European settlement populationhistory is that of Borrie (1994), and there are alsotwo interesting collections of key papers anddocuments in Australian population history(Santow et al., 1988; Rowland et al., 1993).Analyses of recent population change have beenundertaken by Hugo (1986) and Khoo andMcDonald (2003).

Historical trends in Australianpopulation growthThere is considerable debate about the size of thepopulation of Australia prior to European settle-ment. The Indigenous population in 1788 wasgenerally estimated to be approximately 300 000but some commentators have suggested that itwas around 500 000 and even may have been as

high as 750 000 (Butlin, 1983). Table 2 traces thedecline in numbers associated with the decima-tion and deprivation the group experienced. Itwas not until the 1940s that their numbers beganagain to increase and even now the numbers arebelow those that were likely to be living in Aus-tralia on the eve of European settlement.

The official census data on the Australianpopulation (which until 1966 excluded theIndigenous population) are depicted in Figure 1.It will be noted that it took 80 years of Euro-pean settlement to reach the nation’s firstmillion. However, with the rapid influx associ-ated with the Victorian gold rush and the expan-sion of the agricultural frontier the secondmillion took less than two decades and the thirdless than a decade. Thereafter, there were fluc-tuations with downturns in economic depres-sions (1890s and 1930s) and wars (1913–1919and 1939–1945) and increases during periods ofeconomic growth.

The striking feature of Figure 1 is the excep-tional nature of the post-World War II period inAustralia’s demographic history. The populationhas more than trebled and has grown consis-tently. While there have been periods of rela-tively slow growth during economic downturnsthere have not been the extended periods of veryslow growth that characterised the first one and ahalf centuries of European settlement. Austra-lia’s population growth rate reached 2.2% in2008–2009, which was the highest rate since the

Table 1 Major inquiries into Australian population.

Year Initiating Body Topic of Inquiry

1903 Legislative Council of NSW The Decline of the Birth Rate and the Mortality ofInfants in NSW (Coghlan, 1903; NSW LegislativeAssembly, 1904)

1917 UK Government Report of the Dominion Royal Commission (Borrie,1994, 202–03)

1944 National Health and Medical Research Council (1944) Report of the National Health and Medical ResearchCouncil on the Decline of the Birth Rate

1965 Committee of Economic Enquiry (1965) Examination of Implications of a High Rate ofEconomic and Population Growth

1972 Australian Government National Population Inquiry (1975, 1978)1988 Committee to Advise on Australia’s Immigration

PoliciesImmigration: A commitment to Australia

1991 National Population Council (1991a and b) Population Issues and Australia’s Future Environment,Economy and Society

1994 House of Representatives Standing Committee onLong Term Strategies (1994)

Australia’s Population Carrying Capacity One NationTwo Ecologies

2010 Australian Government Department of Sustainability,Water, Population and Communities (2010)

A Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia

G. Hugo: Geography and Population in Australia 243

© 2011 The AuthorGeographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers

1960s and was twice the rate at which the world’spopulation was increasing at that time (ABS,2011, 14).

Like other countries, Australia has experi-enced a demographic transition from a high fer-tility, high mortality regime to the present lowfertility, low mortality situation. Figure 2 depicts

the substantial improvement in life expectancywhich has added 13 years of extra life to theaverage Australian since World War II. Thedecline in fertility has taken a different trajectoryas is shown in Figure 3 where the long-termdecline trend was punctuated by the post-warbaby boom, which has had profound implica-tions for the contemporary and future Australianpopulation (Swan, 2010). Australia’s fertilityremains at relatively high levels by high incomecountry standards and has helped to keep naturalincrease positive and substantial whereas inseveral OECD countries deaths now outnumberbirths.

Australia’s population growth has been, and isbeing, shaped by international migration, morethan any other middle sized or large nation.Currently, half of Australia’s population arepermanent or temporary immigrants or theirAustralia-born children (Hugo, 2010). Figure 4depicts the level of net migration since 1860 andsome striking trends are in evidence. Again, thedistinct nature of the post-war period duringwhich net migration has consistently been at ahigh level is striking although fluctuations withthe economic situation are apparent. Without the

Table 2 Australia: estimates of Indigenous population,1788–2009.

Year IndigenousPopulation

Year IndigenousPopulation

1788 314 500 1961 117 4951861 180 402 1966 132 2191871 155 285 1971 115 9531881 131 666 1976 160 9151891 110 919 1981 159 8971901 94 564 1986 227 5931911 83 588 1991 265 3711921 75 604 1996 352 9701933 73 828 2001 410 0031947 87 000 2006 455 0281954 100 048 2010 563 000

Source: ABS Historical Statistics; ABS, 2010.

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

Year

Number % Growth per annum

Num

ber

% G

row

th p

er a

nnum

1792

1802

1812

1822

1832

1842

1852

1862

1872

1882

1892

1902

1912

1922

1932

1942

1952

1962

1972

1982

1992

2002

Figure 1 Australia: growth of the population, year ending 31 December, 1792–2009. (Source: ABS Australian HistoricalStatistics, and ABS Estimated Resident Population Data.)

244 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):242–260


effect of post-war migration the Australian popu-lation would be some nine million persons lessthan at present.

Having briefly outlined the broad trends ofpopulation growth in Australia over the last twocenturies, we will now turn to a consideration ofthe main debates which have accompanied thesetrends and the involvement of geographers inthem.

The initial settlement of Australia –the colonial periodThe colonial period predated the development ofacademic geography in Australia but it is worthmaking a few comments about the developments

and debates, which influenced population trendsduring this era since they impinged upon laterperiods. For much of the colonial period Austra-lia’s European population trends were moreinfluenced by debates and discussions in Englandthan they were by those in the colonies. More-over, prior to Federation each colony had theirown institutions, policies and programs relatingto immigration and the attraction of settlers.

European transportation of convicts between1778 and 1867 introduced 161 000 settlers toAustralia and was the major element of popula-tion growth in the first half century of the colony(Borrie, 1994, 23). Around half of the convictswere sent to New South Wales, 68 000 to Tasma-nia and 10 000 to Western Australia. Initially,there was little interest in England in the far flungcolonies of Australia but free immigrant settle-ment got going in New South Wales in the 1820s(Madgwick, 1937), and the colony began tospread beyond the coast as squatter pastoralistsopened up inland areas. However, in 1828 two-thirds of the European population were still ofconvict origin (Borrie, 1994, 35).

The 1820s saw an important change inEngland with increasing discussion of theMalthus’ Essay on Population (Malthus, 1978),which was initially published in 1798, and asso-ciated with this, growing fears that the countrywas becoming ‘overpopulated’ and that the poorcould not be supported. Ideas of systematic colo-nisation began to be increasingly discussed inboth England and in the colonies in the 1830s

90

80

70

60

50

40

1850 1900 1950 2009

Female

Male

Year

Expecta

tions o

f lif

e a

t bir

th

Figure 2 Australia: life expectancy at birth, 1870–2009.(Source: ABS, various issues of Australian Life Tables.)

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

018601870 18801890 1990 191019201930 1940 19501960 19701980199020002009

Year

Tota

l fe

rtili

ty r

ate

(per

1,0

00 fem

ale

popula

tion)

The

Post War

Baby

Boom

The

Baby

BustStability Stability?

Figure 3 Total fertility rate Australia, 1860–2009. (Source: Hugo, 2001; ABS, Annual Publications on Fertility.)



and the imperial and colonial governmentsbecame involved in colonisation and immigra-tion schemes. Free settlement rapidly changedthe composition of Australia’s European popula-tion. Wakefield and his supporters developed aset of principles whereby ‘initial settlers withcapital who could develop the land and supplylabour and labourers who would be paid a rea-sonable wage but who had not sufficient capitalto invest in land speculation’ (Borrie, 1994, 55).Wakefield’s principles were most comprehen-sively applied in the settlement of South Austra-lia after 1836 (Price, 1928).

Growth in the colonies was steady in the 1830sand 1840s but a major spike in growth occurredin the next decade with the European populationgrowing from 405 400 in 1850 to 1.146 million adecade later. This was due largely to the goldrushes in Victoria, and to a lesser extent NewSouth Wales, but it was also the beginning of theextension of the agricultural frontier. Moreover,the labour shortage generated by the gold discov-eries drew workers from elsewhere in the colo-nies in a similar way to the contemporary miningindustry and led to new initiatives to facilitateimmigration to replace those workers (Blainey,1963; Borrie, 1994, 79). The gold discoveriesalso served to accelerate expansion of agricultureand pastoralism. Borrie (1994, 119) argues that

‘The gold rushes had built up a great storehouseof labour and capital that enabled the easterncolonies to force the pace of development for thenext thirty years’.

Figure 5 shows the contribution of the twocomponents of population growth to Australianpopulation growth over the last one and a halfcenturies. While net migration showed volatilityduring the nineteenth century, natural increaseshowed a steady increase until the depressionyears of the 1890s. Each of the colonies hadassisted migration programs as they sought toaccelerate development and extend their agricul-tural frontiers (Coghlan, 1918; Borrie, 1994,123). Between 1861 and 1900 there were831 219 British immigrants to the Australiancolonies of which nearly half (402 359) weregiven assistance by colonial governments.Nearly half of the migration went to Victoria(Crowley, 1954). It is notable that a high propor-tion of the assisted immigrants were young fami-lies with the colonies having clear intentions tobuild and stabilise their European populations.

Immigration was hence an important driver ofpopulation growth in the 19th century. Apartfrom the initial convict movement there were twomain types of international migration. First, therewas the migration of settlers from Great Britainand Ireland, many of whom were assisted. The

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

–50

–100

–150186018701880 18901900 1910 1920 1930 19401950 19601970 1980 19902000 2010

Year

Net m

igra

tion (

,000)

Figure 4 The variability of net migration flows in Australia, 1860–2010. (Source: Borrie, 1994; Immigration Update, 1991,DIAC unpublished data.)Note: Figures to 1970 based on net gains from all arrivals less all departures each calendar year. Thereafter the figures are basedon fiscal years (June–July) and relate to the net gain from all permanent and long-term movements.



focus was on young families who could facilitatethe economic and demographic development ofthe colonies. There was, however, a second com-ponent – labour migration of non-Europeans. Inthe early years of settlement, convicts provided acheap source of labour but by the 1830s and1840s this source began to dry up and New SouthWales bought in 3000 labourers from China, 100from India and 300 from the Pacific Islands(Borrie, 1994, 183). However, with the goldrushes saw an influx of Chinese, the numbers ofwhom peaked at 38 742 in 1861 (Hugo, 2008).Restrictive measures to limit this migrationbegan in the late 1850s and culminated in a jointconference of the colonies in 1881 whichimposed new restrictions on the Chinese (Price,1974). Figure 6 shows the numbers recorded inAustralian censuses between 1861 and 1947 whowere born in Asia and the Pacific. While thenumbers are inflated by the children born inAsian colonies to European parents it indicatesthat there were small but significant numbersduring the colonial period, especially Chinese.The latter years of the colonial period saw agradually rising debate about the composition ofthe Australian population – an issue that has con-tinued to be debated throughout the period sinceFederation.

The early years of FederationFigure 5 shows that the 1890s saw a downturn inboth net migration and natural increase under theimpact of the 1890’s depression. Net immigra-tion gains fell from 224 040 in the 1880–1885period to 158 701, 22 392 and 2487 in the threesuccessive five-year periods (Borrie, 1994, 123),and there was a net emigration of 18 800in 1900–1905 (Borrie, 1994, 184). Moreover,natural increase levels fell for the first time in twodecades. The collapse of immigration and thedecline in birth rates was a cause of considerableconcern and discussion in the colonies in the1890s and in the early years of the new Federa-tion (Hicks, 1978; Borrie, 1994, 199). This wasreflected in the writings of the New South Wales’statistician (Coghlan, 1903, 69):

The problem of the fall in the birth rate istherefore a national one of overwhelmingimportance to the Australian people, and onits satisfactory solution will depend whetherthis country is ever to take its place amongstthe great nations of the world.

Accordingly, in 1903 the NSW LegislativeCouncil appointed a Royal Commission on ‘TheDecline of the Birth Rate and on the Mortality ofInfants in New South Wales’.

500

400

300

200

100

0

–10018601870 1880 1890 1910 1920 1930 1940 1960 1970 1980 1990 20101900 1950 2000

Popula

tion (

’000)

Year

Net Migration

Natural Increase

Figure 5 Australia: natural increase and net migration, 1860–2010. (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics; Borrie, 1994.)



The Royal Commission argued that ‘Growththrough a high birth rate and a vigorous, non-Asian immigration policy was essential to Aus-tralia’s future welfare’ (Borrie, 1994, 201). Itfocused especially on the former and condemnedthe prevailing attitudes that were bringing downfertility and advocated the prohibition of abor-tion and restriction of the dissemination ofknowledge and sale of goods related to prevent-ing conception. They also sought to encouragefamilies to have more children. It is evident fromFigure 3, however, that the Total Fertility Ratecontinued to fall while Australians increasedtheir use of birth control although many of therestrictions on the advertising, displaying, andspreading of information regarding contraceptioncontinued into the 1970s (Hicks, 1978; Borrie,1994, 201).

The concerns of the new Federation regardingpopulation extended to international migration.The leaders of the new Federation expressedconcerns regarding a lack of sufficient populationto harness the potential of the nation. There was,however, a hiatus in the program of passageassistance for settlers from Great Britain andIreland in the earliest years but it was resumed in1906. In the remaining years before World War IIthere was an upsurge in immigration with the net

migration loss of 18 800 in 1900–1905 beingreplaced by net gains of 57 300 and 136 800 inthe next two five-year periods. As in the nine-teenth century, however, it was developments inEngland that were an important influence. In1917 the Dominions Royal Commission of theUK government called for a concerted effort toredistribute population to the ‘outlying WhiteDominions’ and in 1922 the Empire SettlementAct encouraged the flow of settlers to the Aus-tralian states (Borrie, 1994, 201–202). This sawan upsurge of immigration in the 1920s when thenet migration gain reached 312 800.

Hence, the first quarter century of the Federa-tion largely saw a continuation of the philosophyof the need to expand Australia’s population tofacilitate its development, which characterisedthe colonial era. There was also another elementof continuity – the exclusion of non-Europeans.Indeed, the first legislative act of the new Austra-lian Federal government was the Federal Immi-gration Restriction Act of 1901, which enshrinedthe White Australia Policy, which was not to befinally dismantled until the 1970s. The impact ofthis policy is evident in Figure 6, which showsthe decline in numbers of the Chinese and othernon-European birthplace groups in the first halfcentury of Federation.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Middle East

South Asia

South-east Asia

East Asia

Pacific

1861 1871 1889 1891 1901 1911 1921 1933 1947

Year

Num

ber

Figure 6 Australia: Asia and Pacific-born populations, 1860–1947. (Source: Price et al., 1984.)



‘Australia unlimited’ and the sceptics –the 1920s and 1930sThe towering figure in national debates on popu-lation in the first half of the 20th century, not onlyamong geographers but in the wider public andscientific discourse, was Griffith Taylor (1922;1928). An expansionist philosophy was dominantin colonial governments as well as in the newFederal government. However, by the 1920s thiswas bolstered by the promulgation in Britain ofwhat Borrie (1994, 189) refers to as the ‘men-money-markets’ theory. This held that Britain’scontinued development was contingent on the‘Dominions’ increasing their supply of raw mate-rials to, and providing expanding markets for, thehome country’s manufacturing industry. For thisto be effective, human capital was needed in theDominions. The men-money-markets theorygained considerable support in the UK as well asin Australia. Among other things this led to con-siderable encouragement for emigration to Aus-tralia and attraction of capital from the UK in the1920s. In Australia it led to a growing number ofpoliticians, employers and community leaders tospeak of Australia having infinite resources thatonly needed people and capital to be unlocked.‘Australia unlimited’ boosterism was prevalent.

Powell (1984, 86) demonstrates that Brady’s(1914) work ‘Australia Unlimited’ was represen-tative of the prolific booster literature of the time.It proclaimed a mix of imperialist, nationalist,racist, and expansionist sentiments underpinnedby a faith in the nation’s unlimited resources.These optimistic views were embraced by manyin government, the media and in industry.However, as Borrie (1994, 202) points out, thisoptimism was increasingly being countered bycommentators who questioned the ability of Aus-tralia to absorb unlimited population growth.While there were many such commentators, thegeographer Griffith Taylor was the most outspo-ken and controversial. He did not limit his viewsto his academic writing and speaking but, asPowell (1984, 88) points out:

. . . passionately believed that geographersand other environmentalists in the universitiesand the public service had a duty to be pro-fessionally concerned with the great issues ofthe day.

He was a prolific contributor to newspapers andhe did not hold back:

One may pick up almost any daily paper andread some statement to the effect that Austra-

lia has unbounded natural resources . . . Tothe geographer these statements are patheticwhere they are not tiresome and absurd.

While Griffith Taylor was fearless, direct, andforceful in his attacks on boosterism he also wascareful to assemble and present evidence insupport of his arguments. His maps in particularare not only effectively used in his academicwork but were published widely in newspapersand had considerable impact.

Powell (1984, 87) has provided a succinctsummary of Griffith Taylor’s key argument:

. . . the contemporary origins of settlement inAustralia already closely approximated thelimits which had been set by the very nature ofthe physical environment: whether people,plants or animals were considered, the appro-priate environmental controls could beignored only at a cost.

There is much to support his argument that thefundamental structure of Australian settlementwas already established by the second half ofthe 19th century. Figure 7 shows the centre ofgravity of the Australian population since 1861and indicates that it has moved very little.Despite massive population growth the basicstructure of the distribution of the population hasremained fairly stable. This is in contrast to theUSA where there has been significant change inthe centre of gravity of the population distribu-tion (Plane and Rogerson, 1994).

Griffith Taylor was at the forefront of thedebate on population and carrying capacity inAustralia during the inter-war period but therewere a number of other significant playersincluding a number of geographers. The dis-course on this issue which clearly transcendedthe academic arena to involve much publicdebate has been comprehensively discussed byBorrie (1994, Chapter 9). As with the contem-porary Australian media fixation on numbers,much of the public discussion in the 1920s and1930s was around the issues of carrying capac-ity and optimum populations. Borrie (1994,209) has brought together the various estimatesmade by commentators during this era and theyare presented in Table 3. The gulf betweenthe optimists and pessimists is immediatelyapparent.

The prominent environmental deterministAmerican geographer, Ellsworth Huntington, in1925 used much of Griffith Taylor’s research inhis estimation of Australia’s carrying capacity at



between 15 and 20 million (Huntington, 1925).On the other hand, a German geographer, Albre-cht Penck (Lodewyckx, 1956) estimated in 1924a carrying capacity was 480 million. Edward

East, an American geographer, estimated theAustralian carrying capacity at 40 million (East,1928). Some of the most important contributionsto the discussion on population and carrying

Figure 7 Australia: Centre of Gravity of Population, 1861–2006. (Source: Calculated from ABS Historical Statistics.)

Table 3 Estimates of Australia’s optimum population and carrying capacity (millions).

Estimator Year Estimation ofOptimum PopulationUsing EconomicTheory

Estimation of CarryingCapacity in Terms ofPotential FoodProduction

Estimation of CarryingCapacity Using theComparable DensitiesMethod

Knibbs 1917 132Thomas 1921 50Taylor 1921 and 1937 20–65Penck 1924 480Huntington 1925 15–20East 1926 Less than 40Barkley 1928 30Benham 1928 10–15Mullett and Wadham 1933 40–50Trumble 1937 25

Source: Borrie, 1994, 209.



capacity in Australia during the inter-war periodcame from an agricultural economist, SamuelWadham, who was strongly influenced by thework of Griffith Taylor but also worked andpublished with geographers (e.g. Mullett andWadham, 1933). In particular, his work with theUniversity of Melbourne economic geographer,Wood, in the classic Land Utilization in Australia(Wadham and Wood, 1939), was very influential.As Powell (1984, 97) summarises:

Wadham and Wood bitterly condemnedextravagant over-clearing and over-grazingwhich had caused extensive soil erosion andinitiated desertification of marginal lands inmany regions.

Geographers working in other states were alsoactive in the cautioning against the spread ofagricultural settlement into marginal areas.Charles Fenner (1931, 213) from the Departmentof Geography at the University of Adelaide, forexample, maintained with reference to SouthAustralia:

Agricultural settlement has reached itsnorthern limits . . . future effects should bedevoted . . . to the more intensive utilizationof well watered land that is already underoccupation.

Writing later in the decade, John Andrews (1939,21–22) from the Department of Geography at theUniversity of Melbourne wrote:

The question of population capacity is impor-tant from a number of angles . . . It shouldtherefore form the basis of migrationpolicy . . . Estimates of population capacityare, then, more than exhibitions of academicingenuity, they are a stocktaking, a review ofthe situation on which future developmentwill be based.

The post-war yearsThe post-war era has been an exceptional periodin Australia’s demographic history. Figures 5and 8 show that this period has been totally dif-ferent from the previous 150 years in both popu-lation growth and international migration. Theearly post-war years saw an increase in theintensity of population debates in Australia.There had been earlier commentators who hadraised the issue of the ‘yellow peril’ and thepotential invasion of hoards of people fleeingfrom overpopulation in Asia but the bombing ofnorthern Australia by the Japanese and the threat

of invasion during World War II gave a newurgency to concerns about national security.The need to increase national population tostrengthen national security was a commontheme in the latter years of World War II as wellas in the early post-war period. The key figurewas the first ever Australian Minister of Immi-gration, Arthur Calwell. Calwell argued that agrowth rate of around 2% per annum wasneeded for Australia to provide the humanresources needed by Australia’s booming post-war economy (Borrie, 1994, 222). Calwellfavoured natural increase as the major source ofthis growth but the low fertility of the previoustwo decades convinced him of the importance ofnet migration. He saw migration as the majordriver of needed post-war growth.

A concern with low levels of populationgrowth was included in the agenda of the Depart-ment of Postwar Reconstruction of the Curtingovernment. The National Health and MedicalResearch Council initiated an inquiry into thedecline in the birth rate because it gave rise ‘tothe gravest anxiety about the future of the Aus-tralian people’ (Borrie, 1994, 210). The inquirymade a number of recommendations which in themodern terminology could be called ‘familyfriendly’ to support couples who wish to havechildren and also noted:

. . . the urgency that exists for the develop-ment of a population policy (National Healthand Medical Research Council, 1944, 22).

However, the post-war period saw a remarkableincrease in fertility, which maintained the TotalFertility Rate (TFR) at over 3 for 15 years(Fig. 3). As a result the government placed anyconcern about the low birth rate ‘on the back-burner’ and this concern was:

. . . replaced by a positive policy of immigra-tion. The earlier concern about an optimumpopulation and carrying capacity faded asattention was turned to the impending declinein Australian born labour as a result of thedeclining number of births in the 1930s and asthe demand for labour increased as the transi-tion from a wartime to a peacetime economygathered momentum (Borrie, 1994, 214).

The immediate post-war period saw a number ofchanges with respect to immigration, which wereto make a fundamental change in the size andcomposition of Australia’s population. Theseincluded:



• The setting up of a separate Ministry, andFederal Government department of, immi-gration and the development of a cadre ofbureaucrats (many with academic geographybackgrounds) who became skilled in interna-tional migration policy and practice.

• The setting up of an Immigration AdvisoryCommittee and other organisations to facilitatemigration and settlement. One of these was theImmigration Planning Council which includedleading Australian scholars of immigrationincluding geographers. This began a traditionmaintained throughout the post-war erawhereby the detail of Australia’s immigrationpolicy has been strongly evidence-driven andthat evidence has been produced, in part, bygeographers.

• While Britain remained the largest singlesource of immigrants, there was a fundamentalshift beginning with an influx of Displaced

Persons from Eastern Europe in the late 1940sand early 1950s. Hitherto, Britain had beenthe total focus of immigrant recruitment butthe intake now became more diverse as firstnorthern, then southern, Europe became majorsources and then in the late 1960s the programwas extended to West Asia and the MiddleEast.

The period of the ‘Long Boom’ in Australia inthe first quarter century following World War IIsaw a revival of the philosophy of populationgrowth as being integral to national growth(Borrie, 1994, 231). There was little questioningof the environmental consequences. In the earliergrowth discourse the focus was on the extensionof the agricultural frontier often into marginallands which was strongly opposed by geogra-phers like Griffith Taylor. In the Long Boom,however, the engine of growth was manufactur-

280

260

240

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

–20

–40

–6018501860 1870 1880 1890 1990 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

360

340

320

300

280

260

240

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

–20

–40

–60

Thousand

Year

Total British ImmgrationTotal NetSettler Arrivals

Figure 8 The variability of net migration flows in Australia, 1860–2010. (Source: Borrie, 1994; Immigration Update JuneQuarter, 1991; DIAC, unpublished data.)



ing and the bulk of immigrants were absorbed inAustralia’s largest cities. This shift in opinionwas reflected in the report of a 1965 Committeeof Economic Enquiry set up by the Federal gov-ernment which was instructed to examine theimplications of . . . ‘a high rate of economic andpopulation growth with full employment, in-creasing productivity, rising standards of living,external viability and stability of costs andprices’ (Committee of Economic Enquiry, 1965,89–90). The Committee endorsed the principle ofgrowth and concluded that the benefits of immi-gration outweigh the costs.

The 1950s and 1960s were a period of rapidgrowth in geography in Australian universitiesand in academic geographical research. How-ever, the environmental impact of populationgrowth and Australian policies on populationgrowth and immigration were not debated muchin the geographical community as was the casein the wider community. Greater attention waspaid to the issue of the distribution of the popu-lation and the potential and practice of decen-tralisation. There had been a history in Australiaof concern about the ‘balance’ between urbanand rural populations (Borrie, 1994, 203). Thiswas part of the thinking behind land settlementschemes, especially following the two worldwars (Rowland, 1979). However, in the 1950sand 1960s this discussion on decentralisationwas exacerbated by very rapid growth andemerging diseconomies in Australian cities andconcerns about rural depopulation. The discus-sion about decentralisation began to focus onrelocation of manufacturing and service activi-ties into non-metropolitan areas rather than anextension of agriculture. State governments pro-duced reports on decentralisation (e.g. SouthAustralia Industries Development Committee,1964; Victoria Decentralization Advisory Com-mittee, 1967; Development Council of NSW,1969). Geographers were active in the prepara-tion of these reports and providing critiques ofthem (Hefford, 1965; Daly, 1973; Simons andLonergan, 1973). There was debate regardingwhether decentralisation was desirable or not butalso as to whether decentralisation should be dis-persed or selective.

Pryor (1977, 25) identifies a number of stagesin the evolution of the debate on decentralisationduring this period:

• The debate on dispersed versus selectivedecentralisation in the 1950s and early1960s.

• The emerging emphasis on growth centres andsystem cities in the late 1960s (AIUS, 1972).

• The introduction of the national growth centrespolicy in the early 1970s (Cities Commission,Australia, 1974).

• The search for a more comprehensive nationalsettlement policy (Neilson, 1976).

Such was the level of activity that in 1978 geog-rapher, Robin Pryor, was able to compile animpressive list of State and Federal authoritiesand specific policy measures related to decen-tralisation. He concluded that despite this therehad been a failure to redirect internal migrationsteams to non-metropolitan areas despite asignificant number of metropolitan dwellersexpressing a desire to live outside cities. Geog-raphers were important contributors to the debateon decentralisation in the 1950s, 1960s and1970s but they were especially involved in NewSouth Wales where the State government mademore substantial decentralisation efforts thanothers.

The National Population Inquiry:the 1970s and 1980sIn 1970 the Federal Australian governmentcharged Professor W.D. Borrie of AustralianNational University to undertake an Inquiry intothe national population and this led to the mostcomprehensive analysis of the Australian popu-lation that has been undertaken before or since.The timing of the Inquiry was opportune becausethe 1970s was a turning point in the nation’sdemography. Fertility was declining precipi-tously after the baby boom highs, the babyboomers were creating unprecedented pressureon labour and housing markets as they enteredtheir twenties, the last vestiges of the White Aus-tralia Policy were dismantled and the first influxof Asian immigrants occurred. Moreover, theLong Boom in the Australian economy was overand manufacturing employment, which had beenexpanding rapidly over two decades started todecline as a result of structural change, replace-ment of labour inputs with technology and themovement of manufacturing activity offshore.Australian geographers were active in identify-ing, measuring, explaining, and drawing out theimplications of these profound changes (e.g.Burnley [ed.], 1974, 1980, 1982).

Geographers were among the wide range ofdisciplines who participated in the NationalPopulation Inquiry which extended over the1972–1975 period. They were involved in



making submissions and in writing commis-sioned papers for the Inquiry. One of the latterwas prepared by Holmes (1973) on WaterResources of Australia and the Pattern of Popu-lation Concentration.

While geographers were engaged actively inthe wider population debates in the 1970s, theirmajor contribution was again in the area of popu-lation distribution rather than addressing issuesof the size of the national population and itsimplications for the environment. By the early1970s, Figure 9 shows that the concentration ofthe Australian population in capital cities hadreached unprecedented levels and was becomingan area of increasing concern (Vipond, 1989, 66).Neutze (1965) had analysed the increasingdiseconomies apparent in Australian cities andthere was concern that large cities added toincome inequalities (Stretton, 1970), and therewas increasing pressure to develop a coherentnational urban development strategy (Lloyd andTroy, 1981). With the development of the CitiesCommission and the Department of Urban andRegional Development in 1972 the newly electedLabor Federal government saw Canberra becomeinvolved in settlement and population distri-bution for the first time in the post-war era.Geographers were prominent in their activity,especially Mal Logan (1976) and his colleagues(Logan et al, 1975; Logan and Wilmoth, 1975).However, as Whitelaw and Maher (1988, 133)pointed out:

Attempts to create a national settlement strat-egy in the early 1970s lost momentum with achange in government.

Population and environment:renewed debateAfter three decades of quiescence, the 1970s sawa revival of concern about population and envi-ronment in Australia. The National PopulationInquiry (1975, 213) recognised that while theconcerns about carrying capacity which weredominant in the interwar period:

The climate of opinion that arose around theearly nineteen seventies had a number of newelements.

Part of this involved a revival of concern aboutthe implications of population growth on theenvironment. One element was the introductionof the annual Griffith Taylor memorial lecture bythe Geographical Society of NSW in 1970.Several of these lectures were published andrevisited Griffith Taylor’s work and related themto the modern era. Douglas (1977), in particular,threw out the challenge to Australian geographyto emulate Griffith Taylor in identifying andexploding myths about environment and societyin contemporary Australia. The Australian Insti-tute of Political Science (1971) conducted asummer school on Immigration and Growth andpublished its findings. This was one of the first

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1921

1933

1947

1954

1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

Year

Per

cen

t of p

opul

atio

n

Metropolitan Non-Metropolitan Other Urban Rural

Figure 9 Australia: changing distribution of the population between urban and rural sectors, 1921–2006. (Source: AustralianCensuses, 1921–2006.)



post-war publications to question the pressureswhich rapid population growth were puttingupon the environment.

This discussion intensified in the 1980s. In1984 a book published by the Australian Conser-vation Foundation entitled Populate and Perish?The Stresses of Population Growth in Australia(Birrell et al., 1984) was the most comprehensiveanalysis of the population impacts on the envi-ronment for half a century. The authors (p. 363)conclude:

The human pressures that continuation ofpresent policies will add to Australia over thenext four decades are massive. In our view amovement towards stabilization offers one ofthe most practical and important measuresAustralia as a nation can take to ensure abetter future for its citizens.

Geographers were contributors to this volume asthey were to a volume entitled How Many MoreAustralians? The Resource and EnvironmentalConflicts edited by Day and Rowland (1988, ix).This book sought to draw attention to ‘Certainfundamental principles largely missing fromrecent discussion of public policy relating toAustralia’s demographic and economic future:the existence of biophysical limits, the fact ofecological relationships, and the necessity ofconsidering ultimate goals in the formulationof policies’.

Despite the growing discussion following theNational Population Inquiry there was no officialinquiry into population and environment duringthe 1980s. The one official population relatedenquiry in that decade focused purely on immi-gration. Although one of the objectives of theCommittee to Advise on Australia’s ImmigrationPolicies (CAAIP) known as the FitzgeraldInquiry in 1989 was to investigate the widerimpact of immigration and population growth,the main focus of the report was on immigration.However, geographers were major contributorsto the Inquiry’s work and report (CAAIP, 1989).One of the major outcomes of the CAAIP Inquirywas the setting up of the Bureau of ImmigrationResearch (BIR), which was charged with initiat-ing and carrying out research into the causes andeffects of immigration. The BIR, until it wasclosed down by the incoming Howard govern-ment in 1996, facilitated and presided over aflorescence of research not only on migration buton wider population related issues (Fincher,1999). It gave a major boost to immigrationresearch and its application to policy. Among this

body of work there was a number of studieswhich examined the interrelationships betweenpopulation growth and the environment (e.g.Clarke et al., 1990; Fincher, 1991; Dovers et al.,1992; Burnley et al., 1997). The BIR gave a sig-nificant boost to geographical research relating topopulation and immigration and informed onincreasingly sophisticated public debate on thepopulation–environment issue. However, theabrupt closure of the BIR in 1996 brought muchof this research activity to an end.

The 1990s also saw a number of major inves-tigations into population and environment. Thefirst was the Inquiry into Population Issues andAustralia’s Future: Environment, Economy andSociety undertaken by the Population IssuesCommittee of the National Population Council(1991a; 1991b). The Council was asked by thePrime Minister to ‘examine all pertinent matters– including the impact of population increaseon the economy, environment, human servicedelivery, infrastructure, social equity and inter-national obligations’ (National PopulationCouncil, 1991a, v). The report produced by theCommittee (which included two geographers)argued that Australia was at a crossroads withrespect to its population and called for thedevelopment of a population policy, which seeksto influence and respond to population changeso as to advance economic progress, ecologicalintegrity, social justice, and responsible inter-national involvement. The report advocatedstrongly for a more holistic approach to consid-erations of population, which balanced eco-nomic, environment, and social considerations.It argued that environmental considerationsmade it necessary to adopt a precautionaryapproach to population and to move towards amore sustainable future. It made a number ofsuggestions about how Australia could movetowards the development of a comprehensivepopulation policy which was both proactive andresponsive. Unfortunately, the report was pre-sented to Prime Minister Hawke immediatelybefore he was replaced by Prime MinisterKeating and hence had little impact.

The Australian Academy of Sciences hasplayed a major role in facilitating a nationaldiscussion on population issues. The series ofannual Fenner Seminars on the Environmenthave frequently addressed these issues andinvolved geographers in their discussions (e.g.see Fincher, 2004). In 1994 the Academy held itsAnnual General Meeting Symposium on thetopic Population 2040: Australia’s Choice (Aus-



tralian Academy of Science, 1995). A Workingparty was established and recommended that thegovernment develop a population policy and thatAustralia moves towards a stable population ofaround 23 million by the middle of the twentyfirst century.

Also, in 1994 the Commonwealth House ofRepresentatives Standing Committee on LongTerm Strategies carried out an Inquiry into Aus-tralia’s ‘carrying capacity’ with the followingterms of reference:

• The population growth can be supported inAustralia within and beyond the next 50 years.

• The range of community views on populationsize and its political, social, economic andenvironmental significance.

• The provision of a comprehensive informationbase on which future debates about populationgrowth can be carried out.

• Policy options in relation to population.

Like the other Inquiries in the 1990s there was astrong recommendation to develop a coherentlong-term population policy. The report was cri-tiqued by the geographer David Mercer (1995,25) for among other things ‘its unbalanced focuson the land and water problems of thinly popu-lated rural Australia by comparison with thecountry’s rapidly expanding urban regions’.Much of the argument in the report is covered inCocks (1996).

While the focus here has been to provide ahistorical background to the contemporarydebate about population growth and its impacts,it is important to note that the last decade hasseen a strengthening of the debate (ATSE, 2000,2007; Foran and Poldy, 2002; Hamilton, 2002;Vizard et al., 2004; Carr, 2010; Hugo, 2010;Ridout, 2010; Sobels et al., 2010). The recentpopulation debate in Australia has had a numberof distinctive features:

• Population has been seen as synonymous withimmigration and the other dimensions of popu-lation change are ignored.

• Environmental impacts are a much moreimportant element in the immigration/population debate in Australia than elsewherein North America or Europe.

• The debate has been a strongly polarised onebetween continued rapid population growth onthe one hand and little or no growth on theother.

• The sides in the debate are not drawn alongtraditional lines. There are both anti-growth

and pro-growth elements on both sides ofpolitics.

• There is strong continuity with the past inthat issues of the size of the future populationand optimum population dominate publicdiscussion.

• Another element of continuity is the revivalof interest in population distribution issues,regional development, and decentralisation.

• The debate has generally been populist innature and too often characterised by misinfor-mation, self-interest and bigotry.

• While the debate has been overwhelminglyon numbers, population growth, and the roleof immigration there also have been somediscussions regarding fertility. The FederalGovernment introduced a baby bonus and anumber of family friendly initiatives in aneffort to forestall further fertility decline(Heard, 2010).

Geographers have been important participants inthe Australian population debate over the post-war period. There has been no Griffith Taylorwho has taken on a strong high profile advocaterole but geographers have nevertheless madeimportant contributions:

• Through direct and indirect involvement inmost of the Inquiries into population issues inserving as members of the Inquiries and asproviders of research evidence to them.

• Bridging the gap which often characterises dis-cussion on this issue between the physical andsocial sciences. The debate has too often beencharacterised by discipline groups claiminghegemony for their disciplinary perspective yetit is clear that what is needed is a careful bal-anced consideration of a complex range ofdimensions.

The futureIn 2010 the new Gillard Labor government estab-lished the Federal Minister and Department ofSustainability, Environment, Water, Populationand Communities. The bringing together ofpopulation and environment within a single min-istry provides, for the first time, an institutionalstructure for addressing the complexity of therelationship between environment and popu-lation in a holistic way. It also separates thepopulation issue from immigration within gov-ernment. One of the first initiatives of the newDepartment was to set up three SustainablePopulation Strategy advisory panels to produceissues papers on:



• Productivity and Prosperity• Sustainable Development• Demographic Change and Liveability

These panels produced reports (Carr, 2010;Hugo, 2010; Ridout, 2010), which were the basisfor developing a single issues paper (DSEWPC,2010), which in turn was to inform a public dis-cussion on the population issue. Geographershave been involved in the preparation of thesereports. The public discussion in 2011 will leadto the development of a draft population strategyby the government. For the first time Australiahas the opportunity to develop a coherent policywhich provides a vision for the future nationalpopulation.

It is important that geographers play a role inthe development of an Australian populationpolicy. Too often in the past the populationdebate has been oversimplified and simple ‘silverbullet’ solutions proposed to overcome problems.There is no escaping the complexity of the popu-lation issues which Australia faces and the mul-tiple interactions between their environmental,economic, social, and political dimensions.Geography, as an academic discipline whichfocuses explicitly on these interactions and seeksto understand them, has an important role inthe national discussion to ensure that it is nothijacked by one or other of the key interestgroups involved.

The Australian population debate has beendominated by the numbers issue – How manyAustralians? A Big Australia vs. a Small Austra-lia. This dichotomisation and simplification isunfortunate for a number of reasons:

• Australia’s population challenges extendbeyond numbers and one could argue thatageing is a bigger one but there are manydemographic issues which must be incorpo-rated into the national population strategy.

• The answers which will produce the mostdesirable, sustainable outcomes for Australialie between the Big Australia and Small Aus-tralia positions. The numbers must be shapedby the evidence on economic, environmental,and social outcomes and impacts, and balanc-ing those impacts in the light of the most robustempirical evidence.

• There is not going to be any single magicnumber. Possible population scenarios forshort, medium, and long-term planning need tobe developed and constantly monitored andmodified in response to change.

A national population strategy should involve abalancing of the necessity for workforce growthwith important environmental sustainability,social inclusion, and liveability objectives. It ismore than growth management. Environmentalsustainability must be an explicit part of all strat-egies but social and economic sustainability mustalso be factored in and geographers are wellplaced to facilitate such a holistic approach. It isa complex process and this complexity must notbe resiled from.

A key element of the population strategy isthat it will involve balancing of demands whichare to some extent competing – on the onehand, a drive for economic growth and devel-opment, and on the other, the imperative tomove towards a sustainable environment.However, it is important for the strategy to notbe dominated by one or other of these demandsto the exclusion of the other. The emphasis inthe strategy must be on balancing the twoimperatives to derive the best outcome for notonly present, but also future, generations ofAustralians. It must be stressed that this is nosimple process and needs to be based on abetter understanding of the complexities of therelationships between population growth onthe one hand, and environmental impact on theother, and the potential role of changes in popu-lation size, structure, and spatial distribution inachieving outcomes, which are in the best inter-est of the majority of Australians – both thecurrent population and future generations. Theissue should not be which of the demandsshould be given precedence over the other buthow they can be reconciled.

The emphasis must be on reconciling compet-ing interests and this will involve some trade offsand compromises. Those compromises, however,must be evidence-driven rather than the result ofpressures of interest groups. A key is the recog-nition that population policy should not standalone. It must be integrated within economic,environmental, and social policies on the onehand as well as with spatially oriented policiesrelating to regional development and urbanisa-tion. The population strategy should facilitate theachievement of key national goals like environ-mental sustainability, economic growth, socialinclusion, and security in all its manifestations.Geography provides the basis for considering thecomplex interactions of socioeconomic and envi-ronmental processes, and it is important that itplays a major role in this important nationaldiscussion.



REFERENCESAndrews, J., 1939: Land Utilization and Population, in

National Health and Medical Research Council, InterimReport on the Decline of the Birth Rate. Report of theEighteenth Session, Canberra, 22–24 November 1944, No.1, 21–22.

Australian Academy of Science, 1995: Population 2040:Australia’s Choice. Proceedings of the Symposium of the1994 Annual General Meeting of the Australian Academyof Science.

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences andEngineering (ATSE), 2000: Population Futures. ATSE,Melbourne.

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences andEngineering (ATSE), 2007: 30/50: The TechnologicalImplications of an Australian Population of 30 Million by2050. Retrieved: 1 December 2010 from <http://www.atse.org.au/resource-centre/func-startdown/104/>.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2010. AustralianDemographic Statistics, June Quarter 2010, CatalogueNumber 3101.0, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2011: AustralianDemographic Statistics – September Quarter 2010. Cata-logue No. 3101.0, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Institute of Political Science, 1971: How ManyAustralians? Immigration and Growth. Proceedings of the31st Summer School, Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Australian Institute of Urban Studies (AIUS), 1972: NewCities for Australia. AIUS, Canberra.

Birrell, R., Hill, D. and Nevill, J. (eds), 1984: Populate andPerish? The Stresses of Population Growth in Australia.Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne.

Blainey, G., 1963: The Rush That Never Ends. MelbourneUniversity Press, Melbourne.

Borrie, W.D., 1994: The European Peopling of Australasia: ADemographic History, 1788–1988. ANU Printing Service,Canberra.

Brady, E.J., 1914: Australia Unlimited. Robertson,Melbourne.

Bureau of Immigration Research (BIR), 1991. ImmigrationUpdate, June Quarter 1991, Australian Government Pub-lishing Service, Canberra.

Burnley, I. (ed.), 1974. Urbanisation in Australia: the post-war experience. Cambridge: CUP.

Burnley, I., 1980. The Australian Urban System, LongmanCheshire, Melbourne.

Burnley, I., 1982. Population, Society and Environment inAustralia, Shillington House, Melbourne.

Burnley, I., Murphy, P. and Fagan, R., 1997: Immigration andAustralian Cities. The Federation Press, Sydney.

Butlin, N.G., 1983: Our Original Aggression: AboriginalPopulation of South Eastern Australia, 1788–1850. Allenand Unwin, Sydney.

Carr, B., 2010: Sustainable Development Panel Report.Report commissioned by the Hon. Tony Burke MP, Min-ister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populationand Communities, December.

Cities Commission, Australia, 1974: Urban and RegionalDevelopment: Overseas Experts’ Report, 1973. Occa-sional Papers, 1, Canberra.

Clarke, H.R., Chisholm, A.H., Edwards, G.W. and Kennedy,J.O.S., 1990: Immigration, Population Growth and theEnvironment. Australian Government Publishing Service,Canberra.

Cocks, D., 1996: People Policy: Australia’s PopulationChoices. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Coghlan, T.A., 1903. The Decline of the Birth Rate of NewSouth Wales and Other Phenomena of Childbirth. AnEssay in Statistics. Government Printer, Sydney.

Coghlan, T.A., 1918: Labour and Industry in Australia. PartsV and VI. Cambridge University Press, Oxford.

Committee of Economic Enquiry (Australia), 1965: Report ofthe Committee of Economic Enquiry (typescript). Com-monwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Committee to Advise on Australia’s Immigration Policies(CAAIP), 1989: Immigration: A Commitment to Australia.Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Crowley, F.K., 1954: The British Contribution to the Austra-lian Population: 1860–1919. University Studies in Historyand Economics, University of Western Australia, II, 2,56–87.

Daly, M.T., 1973: Decentralisation: the New South Walescase. Geography Bulletin, 5, 1, March, 6.

Day, L.H. and Rowland, D.T. (eds), 1988: How Many MoreAustralians? The Resource and Environmental Conflicts.Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd, Australia.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Popula-tion and Communities (DSEWPaC), 2010. A SustainablePopulation Strategy for Australia: Issues paper. Common-wealth of Australia, Canberra.

Development Council of NSW, 1969: Report of SelectiveDecentralization. Sydney, March.

Douglas, I., 1977: Frontiers of settlement in Australia – fiftyyears on. Australian Geographer 13, 297–305.

Dovers, S., Norton, T., Hughes, I. and Day, L., 1992: Popu-lation Growth and Australian Regional Environments.Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

East, E.M., 1928: Mankind at the Cross-Roads. Scribner,New York.

Fenner, C., 1931: South Australia: A GeographicalStudy. Whitcombe and Tombs Limited, Melbourne andSydney.

Fincher, R., 1991: Immigration, Urban Infrastructure and theEnvironment. Australian Government Publishing Service,Canberra.

Fincher, R., 1999: Immigration Research in the Politics of anAnxious Nation. Paper presented at the Annual Meetingof the Association of American Geographers, Honolulu,March.

Fincher, R., 2004: Geography and the Population-Environment Debate. Retrieved: 1 December 2010 from<http://www.science.org.au/events/fenner/fincher.htm>.

Foran, B., 2010: A bigger Australia teeters on the edge: com-paring the 2010 ‘Physical Implications’ and 2002 ‘FutureDilemmas’ studies of population growth options. Peopleand Place 18, 50–60.

Foran, B. and Poldy, F., 2002: Dilemmas Distilled: ASummary and Guide to the CSIRO Technical Report.Report to the Department of Immigration andMulticultural Affairs, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems,Canberra. Retrieved: 1 December 2010 from <http://www.cse.csiro.au/futuredilemmas>.

Hamilton, C., 2002: Population growth and environmentalquality: are they compatible? People and Place 10, 1–5.

Heard, G., 2010: Interpreting Australia’s fertility increase.People and Place 18, 10–18.

Hefford, R. K. 1965, Decentralization in South Australia: AReview. Australian Geographical Studies, 3: 79–96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8470.1965.tb00039.x.

Hicks, N., 1978: This Sin and Scandal: Australia’s Popula-tion Debate 1891–1911. Australian National UniversityPress, Canberra.



Holmes, J.W., 1973: Water Resources of Australia and thePatterns of Population Concentrations. National Popula-tion Inquiry Commissioned Paper No. 14, Canberra.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Long TermStrategies, 1994: Australia’s Population ‘Carrying Capac-ity’: One Nation – Two Ecologies. Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, Canberra.

Hugo, G.J., 1986: Australia’s Changing Population: Trendsand Implications. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Hugo, G.J., 2001: A century of population change in Austra-lia. In Australian Bureau of Statistics (ed.) 2001 Year BookAustralia. No. 83, Cat. No. 1301.0. Australian Bureau ofStatistics, Canberra, 169–210.

Hugo, G.J., 2008: Recent trends in migration between Chinaand Australia. Chinese Southern Diaspora Studies 2,82–103.

Hugo, G.J., 2010: Demographic Change and LiveabilityPanel Report. Report commissioned by the Hon. TonyBurke MP, Minister for Sustainability, Environment,Water, Population and Communities, December.

Huntington, E., 1925: West of the Pacific. Scribner, NewYork.

Khoo, S.-E. and McDonald, P. (eds), 2003: The Transforma-tion of Australia’s Population 1970–2030. University ofNew South Wales Press, Sydney.

Lloyd, C.J. and Troy, P.N., 1981: Innovation and Reaction:The Life and Death of the Federal Department of Urbanand Regional Development. Allen and Unwin, Sydney andBoston.

Lodewyckx, A., 1956: People for Australia. Cheshire,Melbourne.

Logan, M.I., 1976: A geographical perspective on urban andregional policies in Australia. Australian GeographicalStudies 14, 3–14.

Logan, M., Maher, C., McKay, J. and Humphreys, J., 1975:Urban and Regional Australia: Analysis and Policy Issues.Sorrett, Melbourne.

Logan, M.I. and Wilmoth, D., 1975: Australian Initiatives inUrban and Regional Development. IIASA, Laxenburg.

Madgwick, R.B., 1937: Immigration into Eastern Australia,1788–1851. Longmans, London.

Malthus, T., 1798: An Essay on the Principle of Population.J. Johnson, in St. Paul’s Church-Yard, London.

Mercer, D., 1995: Australia’s population ‘carrying capacity’.One nation – two ecologies. People and Place 3, 23–28.

Mullett, W.A. and Wadham, S., 1933: Food supply fromthe point of view of population. In Phillips, P.D. andEggleston, F.W. (eds) The Peopling of Australia, FurtherStudies. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 197–219.

National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia),1944: Report on the Decline of the Birth Rate, and Appen-dices. Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra.

National Population Council, 1991a: Population Issues andAustralia’s Future: Environment, Economy and Society. ADiscussion Paper, April, Australian Government Publish-ing Service, Canberra.

National Population Council, 1991b: Population Issues andAustralia’s Future: Environment, Economy and Society.Final Report, December, Australian Government Publish-ing Service, Canberra.

National Population Inquiry (NPI), 1975: Population andAustralia: A Demographic Analysis and Projection, TwoVolumes. AGPS, Canberra.

National Population Inquiry, 1978. Population and Austra-lia: Recent Demographic Trends and their Implications,Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Neilson, L., 1976: Australian policy concerning populationdistribution and redistribution. In Pryor, R.J. (ed.) Popula-tion Redistribution: Policy Research, Studies in Migrationand Urbanisation, No. 2, 40–52. Department of Demogra-phy, Australian National University, Canberra.

Neutze, G.J., 1965: Economic Policy and the Size of Cities.Australian national University Press, Canberra.

New South Wales Legislative Assembly, 1904. Royal Com-mission on the Decline of the Birth Rate and on the mor-tality of Infants, Sydney, Government Printer.

Plane, D.A. and Rogerson, P.A., 1994: The GeographicalAnalysis of Population: With Applications to Planning andBusiness. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Powell, J., 1984: Home truths and Larrikin Prophets.‘Australian Unlimited’: the interwar years. In Birrell, R.,Hill, D. and Nevill, J. (eds) Populate and Perish: TheStresses of Population Growth in Australia. Fontana,Sydney, 47–79.

Price, A.G., 1928: The Foundation and Settlement of SouthAustralia. F.W. Preece, Adelaide.

Price, C.A., 1974: The Great White Walls Are Built:Restrictive Immigration to North America and Australasia1836–1888. Australian National University Press,Canberra.

Price, C.A. et al., 1984: Working Papers in Demography.Department of Demography, Australian National Univer-sity, Canberra.

Pryor, R.J., 1977: Preferences versus policies?: the politics ofpopulation distribution in Australia. Journal of Sociology13, 23–28.

Ridout, H., 2010: Setting Up Australia for the Future. Reportof the Productivity and Prosperity Advisory Panel.

Rowland, D.T., 1979: Internal Migration in Australia. ABS,Canberra.

Rowland, J.J., Jones, G.W. and Broers-Freeman, D. (eds),1993. The Founding of Australian Demography: A Tributeto W.D. Borrie, Department of Demography, ResearchSchool of Social Sciences, Australian National University,Canberra.

Santow, G., Borrie, W.D. and Ruzicka, L.T. (eds), 1988:Landmarks in Australian population history. Journalof the Australian Population Association 5 (Suppl),1–270.

Simons, P.L. and Lonergan, N.G., 1973: The mythical argu-ments for decentralisation. Royal Australian PlanningInstitute Journal 11, 85–90.

Smith, L.R., 1980: The Aboriginal Population of Australia.Aborigines in Australian Society No. 14. A Series spon-sored by the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia,Australian National University Press, Canberra.

Sobels, J., Richardson, S., Turner, G., Maude, A., Tan, Y.,Beer, A. and Wei, Z., 2010: Research Into the Long-TermPhysical Implications of Net Overseas Migration: Austra-lia in 2050. Report for the Department of Immigration andCitizenship by the National Institute of Labour Studies,Flinders University and CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems,December, 356 pp.

South Australia Industries Development Committee, 1964:Decentralization of Industry: Final Report. SouthAustralia.

Stretton, H., 1970: Ideas for Australian Cities. Hugh Stretton,Adelaide.

Swan, W., 2010: Australia to 2050: Future Challenges. Inter-generational Report circulated by the Treasurer of theCommonwealth of Australia, January.

Taylor, T.G., 1922: The distribution of future white settle-ment. Geographical Review 10, 375–402.



Taylor, T.G., 1928: Natural resources of Australia. InCampbell, P., Mills, R.C. and Portus, G.V. (eds) Studies inAustralian Affairs. Macmillan, London, 1–26.

Victoria Decentralization Advisory Committee, 1967:Report on the Selection of Places Outside the Metro-polis of Melbourne for Accelerated Development.Victoria.

Vipond, J., 1989: Australian experiments with regionalpolicies. In Higgins, B. and Zagorski, K. (eds) AustralianRegional Developments. AGPS, Canberra, 65–78.

Vizard, S., Martin, H. and Watts, T., 2004: Australia’s Popu-lation Challenge: The National Summit. The AustralianPopulation Institute (SA) Inc., South Australia.

Wadham, S.M. and Wood, G.L., 1939: Land Utilization inAustralia. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Whitelaw, J.S. and Maher, C.A., 1988: A tale of few cities:urbanisation in a constrained environment. In Heathcote,R.L. and Mabbutt, J.A. (eds) Land Water and People:Geographical Essays in Australian Resource Manage-ment. Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 125–161.



Documents

Geography and Population in Australia: A Historical Perspective