Net overseas migration: why is it so high?
Birrell, Bob ; Healy, Ernest
Between 2004-05 and 2007-08 net overseas migration (NOM) increased
dramatically. In 2006 the ABS introduced a new methodology to measure
NOM. This article shows that the effect of this new methodology on NOM
estimates was minor. Most of the growth was real and was mainly
attributable to increases in the temporary entry visa categories,
especially overseas students. The article also shows that the net loss
of citizens and permanent residents--the alleged brain drain--is much
smaller than previously assumed.
INTRODUCTION
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), net
overseas migration (NOM) increased from 123,800 in 2004-05 to 277,330 in
2007-08. These are final estimates. The preliminary estimate for 2008-09
is 299,000. The figures quoted above incorporate a change in the
methodology used to estimate NOM from the September quarter of 2006.
There were two major changes in this new methodology. The first was a
new measure of who is included as a resident. A resident is anyone who
has stayed in Australia for 12 months out of 16 months. It does not
matter what their residence status is. To be counted as a departure, a
resident must have left Australia for at least 12 months out of 16
months. (Henceforth, the new measure is referred to as 12/16.) Prior to
this change, a resident was regarded as one who had stayed in Australia
for a continuous 12 months and a departure was one who stayed away for a
continuous 12 months.
The second change was that the ABS used a traveller, rather than a
movement, database in calculating who was in or out of Australia
according to the above definition. This aspect of the methodology is
explained below. The striking increases in NOM since 2004-05 have
attracted considerable attention and controversy. In part, the
controversy relates to the methodological changes just described for
estimating NOM. Some commentators have argued that the increase in NOM
may be partly an artefact of these changes and that, for this reason,
concerns about the scale of the increase have been unnecessarily
alarmist.
In this paper, we first discuss the way the ABS measures NOM and
the implications for estimates of NOM flowing from the changes to the
methodology introduced in 2006. The paper then examines the growth in
NOM between 2004-05 and 2007-08 by the visa category and the major
country of birth of those counted as arrivals and departures during
these years. The purpose is to get a better understanding of the source
of growth in NOM. As discussed below, an accurate understanding of these
sources is important because immigration planning and estimates of
future population are in part based on assumptions about the scale of
NOM.
This analysis uses a customised set of NOM data by visa class for
the years 2004-05 to 2007 08. Final data for 2008-09 must wait until
records of actual movements of travellers become available for the 16
months after arrival or departure in 2008-09. The methodology used by
the ABS for this data set is that introduced in 2006 (that is, it
incorporates the 12/16 rule). Thus, the estimates for 2004-05 and
2005-06 are comparable with those for 2006-07 and 2007-08.
ABS METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING NOM
Under the new traveller-based methodology, the ABS compiles
information on the movements of all travellers who arrive in or leave
Australia each year, whether they be visitors, students, temporary
workers, those holding permanent resident visas, New Zealand citizens or
Australian citizens. This is based partly on data from the passenger
cards that travellers complete when leaving or arriving in Australia and
partly on administrative records obtained by the Department of
Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) for its Travel and Immigration
Processing System (TRIPS). From these records the ABS is able to
calculate and estimate NOM each quarter. It does so by using a unique
identifier for each traveller in order to construct a traveller history
for all arrivals and departures.
The new methodology has two benefits. The first is that it removes
inaccuracies deriving from persons who arrive or depart on multiple
occasions. The creation of the movement record for each traveller
removes a potential source of double or multiple counting. Previously,
such movements had to be estimated by matching incoming and outgoing
passenger cards. (1) The second benefit is that the new methodology
permits the calculation of the actual stay in or away from Australia by
each traveller and can therefore be used to count those who meet the
12/16 measurement rule for the purposes of calculating NOM. The ABS can
now measure the actual behaviour of travellers in terms of the duration
of their stay or departure. Under the new methodology, NOM is the
difference between arrivals who stay for 12 months or more over 16
months (who are added to the population) and residents who stay away for
12 months or more over a 16 month period (who are subtracted from the
population). (2)
DOES THE NEW METHODOLOGY INFLATE NOM?
According to ANU demographer, Peter McDonald, the ABS did not count
movements of temporary residents prior to the introduction of the new
methodology in 2006. He states that: 'since 2006 people who enter
Australia on a long-term temporary basis have been counted as migrants.
If they had been counted before this, migration during earlier years
would have been higher'. (3) This view has been widely
disseminated. However, it is not true. The ABS has always counted
temporary residents, regardless of the purpose of their stay, if they
meet the prevailing definition of a resident for NOM purposes. As noted,
the measurement of the time of stay or departure changed in 2006, but
not the range of travellers eligible to be counted as part of NOM.
This change is potentially important. As the current Minister of
Sustainable Population, Tony Burke, has said, the old methodology
'knocked out most overseas students' because a very large
number visit their families one or more times each year. (4) Burke does
not imply that the new methodology is ill-advised, but rather that it
may have had a large impact on the NOM estimates. In our view, it is
appropriate to include people as residents if they stay for a minimum of
12 out of 16 months. To suggest that overseas students are not part of
Australia's population because many go home once or twice each year
is misleading. Their presence in the major metropolises is palpable and
their demand for housing, transport and other services has a major
impact on these cities.
Table 1 provides a comparison between the old methodology and the
new methodology for measuring NOM for 2004-05 and 2005-06. These
estimates combine the effects of the two changes in the methodology
introduced in 2006. The move to the 12/16 definition has the effect of
increasing the number of both arrivals and departures for the purposes
of calculating NOM, because it removes the restriction that the stay
must be for a continuous 12 months. The change to a traveller rather
than a movement measure could have had the opposite effect because it
removes the possibility of double or multiple counting of travellers who
come and go frequently. However, this effect was largely removed prior
to 2006 by the category jumping adjustments the ABS used to make in
order to account for travellers staying or departing for durations
different to those stated on the arrival or departure passenger card. As
is evident from Table 1, the net effect of the new methodology is to
increase NOM relative to the old methodology. The counts derived from
the old methodology come from the ABS Australian Demographic Statistics
(cat. no 3101.0) releases. (5) Those for the new methodology derive from
the customised NOM data set provided by the ABS.
Table 1: Net overseas migration (NOM) as measured by the old and new
methodologies 2004-05 to 2008-09
Net overseas migration (NOM)
Old methodology '000 New Increase
methodology '000 per cent
2004-05 123.8 142.5 15.1
2005-06 146.8 171.4 16.7
2006-07 232.8
2007-08 277.3
2008-09 298.9
Source: Old methodology, ABS Demographic statistics, September quarter
2009, May 2010
New methodology, customised ABS dataset held by CPUR
As Table 1 indicates, the effect of the new methodology is to
increase NOM by about 15 to 17 per cent for the two years 2004-05 and
2005-06. For the purposes of our inquiry into the causes of the sharp
rise in NOM, the base year is 2004-05 as calculated under the new
methodology. The expansion from 142,500 in 2004-05 to 277,300 in 2007-08
under the new methodology is real. It reflects the new and sensible
definition of who is a resident (the 12/16 rule) and it measures actual
travellers rather than movements. It captures their true behaviour
rather than their intentions as recorded on their passenger cards.
Burke was probably correct to say that the new methodology is
capturing more overseas students and other temporary arrivals than under
the old methodology and that this is the main explanation for the
difference between the counts produced by the new and old methodology.
However, the difference of 16 to 17 per cent is small, relative to the
scale of the increase in NOM when measured under the new methodology.
There was a near doubling of NOM between 2004-05 and 2007-08 from
142,500 in 2004-05 to 277,300 in 2007-08. This increase must be
explained by changes in the numbers and characteristics of arrivals and
departures of migrants and residents. It is not a consequence of changes
to the methodology as the comparison between the two methods for the
overlapping period (Table 1) clearly shows.
NOM BY VISA CLASS AND RESIDENCE STATUS
Table 2 provides a summary of changes in NOM between 2004-05 and
2007-08 by broad visa category and citizenship status. It groups
detailed visa categories into broad categories, including students (on
higher education, vocational, English Language Intensive Courses for
Overseas Students [ELICOS] and other student visas), and those with
permanent residence visas (who are not citizens), Australian citizens
and New Zealand citizens.
Table 2: Net overseas migration (NOM) in 2004-05 and 2007-08 by broad
visa class
Net overseas migration (NOM)
Visa class 2004-05 2007-08 Change Share of
2004-05 growth
to 2007-08 per cent
Business 13,110 34,830 21,720 16.1
long-stay (457)
Student 45,250 108,740 63,490 47.1
Visitor 21,510 29,010 7,500 5.6
Bridging -6,730 -6,200 530 0.4
Other temporary -540 -1,200 -660 -0.5
entry
Working holiday 9,410 21,360 11,950 8.9
maker
Permanent arrival 71,140 86,400 15,260 11.3
Australian -21,440 -20,310 1,130 0.8
citizen
Onshore -3,520 -3,540 -20 0.0
New Zealand 20,630 36,090 15,460 11.5
citizen
New Zealand 16,880 32,770 15,890
born *
All other -6,290 -7,820 -1,530 -1.1
Total 142,530 277,360 134,830 100.0
Source: Customised ABS dataset held by CPUR
Note: * New-Zealand born are a subcategory of New Zealand citizen
One caution in interpreting these statistics is that the travel
record of an arriving or departing person does not include information
on any earlier visa that the person may have had. Thus, if an overseas
student on completion of a course subsequently succeeded in gaining an
onshore permanent residence visa or bridging visa (pending a decision on
his or her application for a permanent residence visa), the student
would appear in the departures column as an onshore permanent resident
or the holder of a bridging visa if they departed for 12 out of 16
months.
Table 2 shows that the main group driving the surge in NOM since
2004-05 is overseas students. They constituted nearly half of the
increase in NOM (63,490) between 2004-05 and 2007-08. The contribution
of others on temporary visas to the growth in NOM is also important. The
business long stay (457) visa holders contributed 21,720 to the growth
in NOM between 2004-05 and 2007-08, working holidaymakers contributed
11,950 and visitors 7,500. These three groups combined contributed
41,170 to the increase in NOM between 2004-05 and 2007-08. Together with
students, these temporary-entry migrants contributed 77.6 per cent of
the growth in NOM between 2004-05 and 2007-08.
Table 2 also confirms the crucial role that New Zealand citizens
are currently playing in increasing Australia's population. They
contributed 36,090 to NOM in 2007-08 and some 15,460 to the total
increase in NOM of 134,830 between 2004-05 and 2007-08. New Zealand
citizens include both the New Zealand-born and third-country migrants
who migrated to New Zealand and subsequently obtained New Zealand
citizenship. Both groups can freely come to and go from Australia. Table
2 shows that the great majority of the New Zealand citizens counted as
part of NOM in 2007-08 were New Zealand-born persons (32,770 out
36,090).
WHY TEMPORARY RESIDENTS ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF GROWTH IN NOM
The reasons why NOM is currently dominated by temporary visa
holders include the liberalisation of the rules of eligibility for
temporary visas by successive Australian governments. As a result, the
number of visas issued under these temporary categories has increased
sharply during the period studied. Even if it is assumed for the moment
that most of these temporary visa holders will leave, there will be lag
factor in departures while the number of arrivals bounds ahead. This
alone will ensure an increase in NOM from this source. However, the
Australian government has also provided inducements for temporary visa
holders to apply for other temporary-entry visa subclasses or to change
their status to permanent residence while in Australia. These
inducements have limited the rate of departure from Australia. The
overseas student group illustrates the point. Table 3 shows the
contribution to NOM by major country-of-birth groups within the student
visa category.
Table 3: Constituents of NOM--students by major country of birth,
2004-05 to 2007-08
Birthplace Arrivals 2004-05 Net Increase
Departures
India 9,550 670 8,880
China 15,930 2,320 13,610
Nepal 260 70 190
Vietnam 1,300 340 960
Other 39,510 17,900 21,610
Total 66,550 21,300 45,250
Birthplace Arrivals 2007-08 Net Increase Net Increase
Departures 2004-05 to 2007-08
India 35,540 1,290 34,250 25,370
China 29,630 3,820 25,810 12,200
Nepal 7,320 40 7,280 7,090
Vietnam 4,960 690 4,270 3,310
Other 57,720 20,580 37,140 15,530
Total 135,170 26,420 108,750 63,500
Source: Customised ABS dataset held by CPUR
The number of student arrivals counted in NOM doubled from 66,550
in 2004-05 to 135,170 in 2007-08. Since students typically stay two to
three years, the lag factor alone ensured a significant increase in NOM
from this source. But, it is also evident that departures have increased
at a much slower pace than arrivals. This means that many are extending
their stay as students perhaps by switching courses. This appears to be
the case with the India-born, who contributed by far the largest
component of the growth in NOM among student visa holders over the years
2004-05 and 2007-08. By 2007-08, only 1,290 India-born students on
student visas left Australia for 12 months out of 16 months. Yet
arrivals were 9,550 in 2004-05, 12,960 in 2005-06, 24,390 in 2006-07
(not shown in Table 3) and 35,540 in 2007-08. If their purpose was to
gain a qualification and return home, many thousands of these students
would have done so within this period.
They have not left because the Australian government has created a
raft of options enabling them to stay. These include applying for
permanent residence under the onshore skilled-migration categories
designed for overseas students and the graduate skills visa (subclass
485) for which almost all students who complete their courses have been
eligible. This visa allows a stay of 18 months in Australia. Until
recently, all overseas students who finished their courses and met the
accreditation and English-language requirements could also apply for
permanent residence visas under the skilled migration visa subclasses.
This was so even if their qualifications were not those required for an
occupation listed on the Critical Skills List operative since January
2009. They have been granted bridging visas that allow indefinite stay
in Australia until their application is processed.
This situation is about to change because of the Labor
government's decision to largely decouple immigration selection
under the skilled migration program from the completion of courses in
Australia by overseas students. Fewer students are likely to be
attracted to Australia and more of those already here will have to
return home because their qualifications will not be sufficient to lead
to a skilled permanent residence visa.
PERMANENT RESIDENTS AND AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS
Table 4 provides details of the numbers of Australian citizens and
permanent residents who arrived and departed in 2004-05 and 2007-08 and
who met the 12/16 definition of NOM. As we will see, these figures put
quite a new complexion on what has hitherto been assumed about the scale
of movement of Australian citizens and permanent residents in and out of
Australia for a year or more.
Table 4: Arrivals and departures, 2004-05 and 2007-08, by selected
country of birth for citizens and permanent residents, Australia
2004-05
Arrivals Departures
Country Aust. Permanent Aust. Permanent
of birth citizens residents citizens + onshore (1)
China (2) 890 7,080 2,120 1,390
India 380 6,540 840 790
United Kingdom 5,680 12,410 5,110 1,470
Australia 46,160 60 63,110 70
Total 69,330 75,570 90,770 9,210
2007-08
Arrivals Departures
Country of Aust. permanent Aust. Permanent
birth residents citizens residents + onshore (1)
China (2) 1,220 9,400 2,650 2,100
India 610 12,030 1,490 930
United Kingdom 5,800 17,040 5,410 1,940
Australia 51,720 100 65,410 110
Total 75,950 91,520 96,260 10,770
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, cusotmised NOM data 2004-05 to
2007 08 held by CPUR
Notes: (1) Permanent resident departures include
those whose visa was issued onshore
(2) Excluding SARs and Taiwan; SARs = special autonomous regions.
Permanent residents
Permanent residents for this analysis are defined as those who
possess a permanent residence visa granted cither overseas or onshore
within Australia. They cease to be permanent residents if they become
Australian citizens. Permanent residents as defined do not include New
Zealand citizens.
The Australian government's permanent migration program
increased from around 134,000 in 2004-05 to around 173,000 in 2007-08
(figures include the humanitarian component). As a result, there has
been some increase in the net movement of permanent residents between
these years from 71,140 to 86,400 (see Table 2). This increase would
have been larger if those granted permanent residence onshore were
included. However, because they are already in Australia, they are only
counted once in NOM on their initial visa at arrival. Nonetheless, it is
clear that the permanent program is only a minor source of the increase
in NOM since 2004-05. As demonstrated above, this increase is dominated
by those holding temporary visas.
The main interest in the findings concerning permanent residents is
the small number leaving Australia and staying overseas for 12/16. As
Table 4 shows, only 10,770 who met this criterion departed in 2007-08.
This figure barely moved from that recorded for 2004-05 when 9,210 were
counted as NOM departures. This group includes permanent residents who
had entered on a temporary basis and changed their status while in
Australia, as well as those who arrived in Australia originally with a
permanent residence visa. The 10,770 figure is tiny given that there is
a rapidly-growing stock of over one million residents in Australia who
are permanent residents.
This finding is contrary to what might be expected from the
migration literature. The emphasis has been on the ways in which
migrants, including those who are nominally permanent, are becoming more
mobile in the current globalised environment because of the ease of
retaining business and social links in their homeland.
Australian citizens
Another striking finding is the small net loss of Australian
citizens--just 20,310 in 2007-08 (see Table 2). The figure was similar
for each year 2004-05 to 2007-08. It needs to be remembered that most
Australians are citizens, including by 2006 some 75.8 per cent of those
who were overseas born. (6) At the time of 2006 census, some 17.1
million Australian residents, or 86 percent of the total of 19.8
million, were Australian citizens. The number is also small when
considered in the context of the long-running publicity about
Australia's alleged 'brain drain' of residents.
A recent example is the press release from the Minister for
Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Evans, which accompanied DIAC's
annual report on emigration for 2007-08. The Minister stated that in
2007-08 some 76,923 Australian residents left Australia permanently.
This figure is not NOM data but rather is derived from the overseas
arrivals and departures movement data base. (7) These data come from
passenger cards. They report what departing residents say is their
intended length of stay overseas, and in this case that they intended to
leave Australia permanently. The passenger cards ask people to tick
whether they are a visitor departing or a resident departing. So the
category of residents for the movements data should be very close to the
category of citizens and permanent residents as defined for NOM
purposes.
Senator Evans bemoaned the loss of skilled persons and commented
that: 'These latest figures also reflect the current global demand
for skills and internationalisation of the labour market as part of the
broader process of globalisation'. (8) Evans was referring to the
demand for skilled professionals, especially in the finance and banking
area, who were highly sought after by 2007-08.
However, as is now known through analysis of the NOM data, the
76,923 permanent loss that the minister was worrying about was in fact
much smaller. The NOM data enable the identification of the residents
who said that they were leaving Australia permanently in 2007-08. Some
73,782 of the 76,923 were so identified. Of these, only 14,658 actually
stayed overseas for 12 out of the 16 months following their departure.
Concerns about a brain drain from citizens and permanent residents
have been based on the movements data. Until recently, these have been
the used by commentators (including us) on resident loss. However, this
should no longer be the case now that the more accurate NOM data, using
the new methodology, are available. As indicated, with the example of
those stating an intention to leave permanently, the movements data
seriously exaggerate resident loss. The 2007-08 Emigration Report states
that, as well as the 76,923 Australian residents who left Australia
permanently, another 102,066 left long-term (that is, for a year or
more). On the return side, the report indicates that 110,066 Australian
residents returned after a long-term stay overseas. Again, these are
movements data based on passenger card records.
On these figures the loss of Australian residents was 68,157.
According to the overseas arrivals and departures movement data, the
annual resident loss has been around 50,000 to 60,000 each year for the
past decade. (9) Given the scale of these losses, it is not surprising
that it is often argued that Australia needs a strong migration program
just to compensate for a large continuing resident loss.
However, the findings from the new NOM methodology do not support
this conclusion. In the case of Australian citizens, there was a net
loss in 2007-08 of just 20,301. Clearly, departing residents have been
exaggerating their intentions to depart permanently or long-term (for a
year or more) relative to what the NOM data reveal was their actual
period of departure. Conversely, a small minority of those who said that
they were departing short term actually turned out to be NOM departures
(staying overseas 12/16). The balance, however, is very much towards the
overstatement of departure intentions. The small number of permanent
residence departures, measured in NOM terms (10,770) suggests a similar
conclusion.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POPULATION POLICY
Those who think that Australia needs a big migration intake because
it is currently suffering a serious brain drain are mistaken. The net
loss of Australian citizens and of permanent residents is remarkably
small. The other side to this point is that those who wish to plan for
long-term population stabilisation in Australia may have to reconsider
their assumptions about the level of net overseas migration which would
achieve this goal. For example the Australian Conservation Foundation
(ACF) proposes that Australia could stabilise its population by
mid-century at around 27 to 30 million. The ACF thinks this could be
achieved without the Australian government having to compromise its
humanitarian and family reunion commitments. (10) It is unlikely that
the ACF is assuming that skilled migration will be reduced to zero. If
so, the stabilisation scenario appears to be based on the assumption
that a substantial migration program could be sustained that is
compatible with a low net migration outcome, one that is consistent with
the 27 to 30 million figure. This would only be possible if there were a
large loss of residents each year.
This is an issue that all advocates of population stabilisation
will has to come to grips with. If Australia's low net loss of
permanent residents and citizens continues, any plan to stabilise the
population will have to incorporate tougher restrictions on the
migration intake than have hitherto been thought to be necessary.
CONCLUSION
The new methodology to measure NOM is a vast improvement over the
old methodology. Because it is based on travellers' histories it
removes the problem of double or multiple counting and abolishes the
need to rely on traveller statements (via passenger cards) about their
intentions to leave or stay in Australia. As we have seen, these
traveller histories are far more reliable than the movements data
because they measure the actual length of stay or departure. Yet DIAC
continues to publish movements data in its annual Emigration Reports and
in its biannual Immigration Update reports. These data, especially for
resident movements (as distinct from settler arrivals), grossly
exaggerate resident losses. If DIAC continues to publish them it should
do so with explicit warnings as to their limitations.
The methodology implemented in 2006 incorporated the 12/16 rule,
which means that arrivals and departures do not have to be continuously
present or absent for 12 months to be counted in NOM. The NOM calculated
on this basis is a little higher than under the old methodology. This
outcome does not distort estimates of Australia's population.
Rather, it gives a better indication of the size of this population,
from the point of view of the social and economic implications of the
migrant presence in Australia. For example, students who return home for
a month or two each year but who stay in Australia for at least 12
months out 16 ought to be counted as residents because of their housing
and other service needs.
The extraordinary increase in NOM as measured by the new
methodology from 142,400 in 2004-05 to 277,360 in 2007-08 provides a
real indication of population growth in Australia resulting from
international movement. Two major factors are responsible. The first is
the surge in temporary migrants over the past decade, including
students, 457 visa holders and working holiday makers. Migrants on
temporary visas contributed 77.6 per cent of the overall increase in NOM
over the years in question. Our analysis shows that this increase is
partly due to the lag effect of continuous increases in arrivals in
these visa categories and partly due to the propensity of these migrants
(especially students) to extend their stay in Australia via the many
avenues the Australian government created to make this possible.
It follows that, with the recent reforms restricting these avenues,
NOM from this source could fall just as rapidly as it rose. This is
likely over the next few years due to the combination of a decline in
student visas issued (already sharply down in the first three quarters
of 2009-10) and limits on the availability of pathways to onshore
permanent residence.
The second contribution to the NOM surge is something of a paradox
as it concerns what has not happened. All those who have followed
demographic debates in Australia will be familiar with the claims that
Australia has experienced a serious and growing resident loss--even a
brain drain. This loss has prompted national concern, but is hardly a
surprise for those familiar with the academic literature on global
mobility. Who could be surprised if residents and migrants are less
stable in their domicile in a global economy which facilitates and
encourages mobility?
The NOM data show that these perceptions are based on misleading
movements data. The loss of residents from Australia, whether they be
citizens or permanent residents, according to the NOM estimates, has
been much lower than that indicated by the overseas arrivals and
departures movements data. The net citizen loss by 2007-08 was just
20,310. The net loss of permanent residents was 10,770. Because these
losses are so small, they have offset very little of the increase in
arrivals over recent years.
These tiny losses from citizens and holders of permanent-entry visa
holders require a rethinking of claims about the seriousness of resident
loss and the underlying theory about increased global mobility that
underpins our understanding of these issues. The small citizen and
permanent resident losses should be a cause for celebration about the
attractiveness of living in Australia. However, they also imply that it
will be hard to stabilise Australia's population if this pattern
continues in the context of a simultaneously high migration intake.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the ABS for assistance in providing
data and conceptual clarification for this article.
References
(1) Information Paper: Statistical Implications of Improved Methods
for Estimating Net Overseas Migration. Australia, 2007, Catalogue no.
3107.0.55.005, Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). p. 11
(2) Migration 2007-08, Catalogue no. 3412.0, July 2009. ABS, p. 59
(3) P. McDonald, 'Rubbery figures on migrant flood,' The
Age, 7 April 2010, p. 17
(4) T. Burke, Address to the Built Environment Meets Parliament
conference, 16 June 2010
(5) There is a detailed analysis of the differences for 2004-05 in
Information Paper, 2007, op. cit., p. 18. The final estimate for the
previous methodology for 2005-06 comes from Demographic Statistics,
September Quarter, Catalogue no. 3101.0, ABS, 2008
(6) Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), Population
Flows: Immigration Aspects, 2008-2009 edition, 2010, p. 15
(7) Overseas Arrivals and Departures, Catalogue no. 3401.0 May
2010, ABS, see electronic spreadsheet Table 2.
(8) DIAC, Emigration, 2007-08. Senator Evans' press release
was headed 'Australia's brain drain biggest on record'
(Tuesday 7 October, 2008)
(9) DIAC, Emigration, op. cit., Tables 1 and 2
(10) C. Berger, 'The population myth', Habitat Australia,
July 2010, p. 15
