So far in the campaign, one issue that particularly interests me is the debate over immigration (of course my local member, who is thankfully retiring, is infamous for linking immigration and terrorism).  The strain on cities is being used as an excuse for limiting immigration (and also, perversely, for turning back asylum seekers), as can be seen in this Age opinion piece today:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/banking-on-hasty-growth-20100721-10l2d.html

The odd thing is, I agree with Richard Denniss, I’m just coming from the opposite perspective.  Whatever our immigration policy is, we need to lessen our environmental footprint, which is presently almost 3 times the global average.  If everyone lived like Australians, we would need 4 earths to support us.**

Whether the population grows or not, we need to sort out our public transport, hospital and aged care systems.  We need to have the debate as to whether cities grow upwards or outwards (or both), and how to maintain liveability in the face of inevitable urban growth (as household sizes shrink, people have babies, and urbanization continues.)

Dr Carolyn Whitzman
Associate Professor in Urban Planning
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning
 
** Source: http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/ausFootprint/default.asp