Interpreting a Statistical Source on Post-War Immigration

The student has misread a growth-contribution figure as a stock figure. Net migration contributing about 40 per cent of population growth means that of the increase from 7.6 to 10.4 million, roughly 40 per cent came from migration. It does not mean 40 per cent of the total population were migrants. This error inflates the claimed scale of demographic change and makes the argument vulnerable. It also weakens the essay because the student uses the statistic as the sole basis for a sweeping claim ('completely changed') without examining social and cultural effects such as the growth of migrant communities, changes to food and religion, or the White Australia policy's gradual erosion. A more defensible argument would use the statistic to establish the scale of migration, then evaluate its social impact with additional evidence and acknowledge limits to change.

The student should adopt a qualified judgement. First, use the statistic accurately to show that migration was a major driver of population growth, which supports the case for significant demographic change. Second, distinguish between demographic, economic and cultural dimensions of change, giving evidence for each. Third, identify continuities-for example, the persistence of the White Australia policy into the 1960s and the fact that many migrants assimilated rather than immediately transforming institutions. The conclusion should weigh these dimensions: immigration substantially changed Australia's population and cultural mix, but the extent of social transformation was uneven and contested. This structure directly answers 'to what extent' by measuring change against continuity, rather than asserting total transformation. It also demonstrates the historical skill of evaluating significance and avoids over-reliance on a single statistic.