Prev
Next

The key to coping with more people is to send them bush

Peter Lewis

by Peter Lewis

20 Apr 05:45am

Must Reads

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it - this is a caption

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

180

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment - this is a caption

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

27

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest - this is a caption

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

3

Filed under: Big Australia, Economy, Immigration, Migration, Population, Tony Burke

32 comments

It is easy to dismiss the growing backlash to population growth as a case of national NIMBYism, but the story could have more to do with the capacity of our major capital cities to deal with any extra people.

Our cities can't take much more

While there was lively debate over the idea of a new city in yesterday’s Punch the latest Essential Report shows the real issue is whether the government should tell new arrivals to go bush.

In what could be a real clue to the Federal Government in how to handle this difficult issue, most Australians actually support an increase in the population of major regional centres and smaller regional towns.

Do you think Australia needs a larger population, a smaller population or about the same population in the following areas?

Source: Essential

These findings offer a new layer of complexity to a debate that is becoming the new political black, with mainstream parties increasingly uncomfortable with a pro-growth agenda while the extreme Right and progressive Left jockey for ownership of the contra.

In a separate question this week, respondentss said they think the government should take active steps, such as incentives, to get migrants to move to the nation’s regions.

So rather than just being a case of putting up the ‘we’re full’ sign, the growing mood seems to be that we need interventionist government policy to managing a desirable population increase, through controlling where new arrivals set up digs.

This is what makes population such a juicy political issue.

While it lies at the heart of so may of our important national debates – the problem is that when it comes to discussing population, there is little consistency in any of them

Aging – where will the tax base come that will finance the retirement of our Baby Boomer generation? (ie we need more people)

Economic Growth – where is the workforce to drive our long-term economic growth? (ie we need more people)

Health – how can we provide the hospital and primary care services for a growing and aging population? (ie we have too many people)

Infrastructure – how can we increase the capacity of transport to meet a growing population – and how will we pay for it? (ie two bob each way)

Water – is Australia a continent that can sustain more people without having to build hundreds of carbon gurgling desalination plants? (ie we have too many people)

Education and training – is it in the interest of the developed world for its best and brightest to migrate to developed nations? And if not, what right do we have in stopping people migrating to a better life? (ie we shouldn’t really be taking other people)

National Security – is the doctrine of populate or perish still relevant? Or is it enough to have multi-purpose detention centres? (ie we need more people or we’ll get more people who we don’t want)

Climate Change – and finally, the ultimate population debate – how do we reduce our carbon emission while increasing our population base? (ie we are all doomed anyway)

All these debates can be run, with or without the genie, of cultural background emerging from the bottle. At their heart they come down to attitudes to the economic orthodoxy, that growth is an unassailable good.

So if you can answer all these questions in a way that provides some form of coherent political narrative, speak up, you have a clearer mind than me.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
223The world puzzles over Australia's Prime Minister

32 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:27am | 20/04/10

      Good to see you taking a more nuanced, realistic view of the immigration issue, Peter. I was getting sick of the old Labor drumbeat of “xenophobia, racism, ignorance, dog whistling”, as I’m sure many others were.

      Treating the issues seriously will go a long way toward taking the heat out of the debate - unlike your earlier efforts of crude insults directed at those who questioned Rudd’s policies.

      Reply

    • Jack Thomas says:

      10:49am | 20/04/10

      No, the key to coping with more people is to not accept them in the first place. Horse, bolted stuff Peter.

      Shifting the problem to country towns is a joke and acceoptance that you have failed both the Australian people and those you claim to be trying to help.

      Why are we even listening to a telephone interviewer trying to dictate policy anyway? By his own admission, the writer has worked previously for Unions NSW and helped advise the ACTU on its Workchoices strategy ahead of the 2007 election.

      Whilst I agree with your comment about the growing backlash to Rudd’s failed immigration policy, I think you miss the point and just allow pathetic Labor stooges (like persiephone) to tell lies and make wild claims.

      Perise - we do not have “plenty of room”, our cities are gridlocked by overloaded and poor infrastructure, facing skyrocketing household energy bills, and housing will be out of reach for millions of Australians.

      The Neo Socialists happily give away access to a once envied quality of life for the average Australian, in favour of people who can’t be bothered obeying our laws or waiting in the queue. People who travel across several countries until they have found the soft touch and free money of Australia under Kevin Rudd.

      I’m still waiting for the Neo Socialists to answer the question of how they intend to combat climate change while opening the doors to tens of thousands of these illegal immigrants?

    • persephone says:

      10:55am | 20/04/10

      Jack - of course we do.

      New York caters for a much bigger population than Melbourne and does so in a quarter of the area.

      More people in the cities, close to the CBD, reduces gridlocks, because they’re not all trying to get in from outside (they’re already there).

    • Hay, NSW townie says:

      07:27am | 20/04/10

      64% in favor of increasing the size of smaller rural towns pretty well sums up why I am screaming about this issue.
      Most of these towns have existing infrastucture such as schools and hospitals operating below capacity now.

      Many have vacant houses, have good highways, some have rail and their town size could be expanded with out any dramatic environmental impacts.

      And the town center would still probably be within walking distance to the outer town residences.

      I don’t see water being a huge issue, most local governments are installing metered raw water in these towns so a lot of water will probably become available as people as a reaction cut back there lawn and garden areas which in many rural towns with house blocks often 3 times bigger than those in the city. Water issues in most rural areas are more to do with irrigation rather than domestic use which is fairly small in comparison.

      The average commute time to and from work in these small towns is probably 4 minutes all up, most of which is probably getting in and out of your car or on and off your bike.

      Other than a local taxi and community bus not much other local public transport is required. More taxis and community buses could be added with more population.

      Plenty of cheap land available and if companies were offered tax breaks and incentives and workers earning above $30000 per year were given a zone tax rebate, I think the incentive would be there for people to come out to these rural areas. Perhaps the government could prioritise something like one of the major solar power stations to be built with a “Solar Flagships” grant to be decided by Minister Martin Ferguson later this year to a location such as Hay, where I know at least one company has a proposal in.

      That would be a start.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      07:35am | 20/04/10

      Our cities do have plenty of room - we have the widest urban sprawls of any Western country, I believe.
      Other comparable countries have much more compact cities, with far larger populations.
      It’s partly our urban sprawl which creates transport problems; in cities like New York, for example, a large part of the population gets along fine without owning a car.
      Interestingly, in Victoria at least, the regions are growing more quickly than Melbourne.
      If you want country towns to grow, the answer seems to be bringing more people into the state.
      To address some of your points:
      * desalination can meet all of our water needs. We can also recycle, as most major cities do elsewhere. Alternatively, we can encourage better use of water in agriculture - a hundred or so farms, supporting one hundred families, uses more water than many major cities - and use the water saved for city dwellers.
      * education - so let’s train our own. Not that difficult a question, really.
      * national security - it’s not about population numbers comparitively, or we’d be creamed. It’s an economic argument again - in order to maintain a certain level of defence, you need to maintain a certain level of GDP. So the numbers here are to do with having enough people to generate the wealth which allows you to buy the snazzy aircraft.
      * infrastructure. Is more than transport, btw. BUT higher density living solves some of the infrastructure problems, as it lessens the need for public transport and for roads.
      * climate change. Yes, it’s a problem, but again, we can’t treat any issue to do with cc in anything but global terms, as that’s the only way it can be dealt with. So the question shouldn’t be whether a higher population will increase Australia’s emissions, but whether a higher population will increase global emissions.

      Reply

    • Pete says:

      09:45am | 20/04/10

      Desal better meet our waters needs most our rivers are shot or polluted or saline drains… Will desal still support the wacky farming technology of flood irrigation? Will desal stop the loss of fragile topsoils from Australian farms and increasing salinity diminishing our farming capacity? Or the loss of Aussie small farmers because Big Food is making their profit margins impossible?

      Most of our food bowls would have been flogged to death by 2050-2100.

      Australia can’t solve a longstanding key national crisis like the farming and water management trainwreck in the Murray Darling system - why would it be able to undertake more serious national growth projects? Sounds like faith based policy to me…

    • Tom says:

      10:08am | 20/04/10

      @peepers - your statement ‘Alternatively, we can encourage better use of water in agriculture - a hundred or so farms, supporting one hundred families, uses more water than many major cities - and use the water saved for city dwellers.’ highlights that despite your long winded efforts to give the impression you know what you are talking about, in reality you don’t have a clue. 

      In these mega densely populated cities that you believe are the answer - where exactly are all these people going to grow their food? Sorry but your inference that because 100 farming families are using more water than a mega city and we can just take some of the farmers water and use it to flush toilets and have a shower is the answer.

      This thinking is stupidity at its worst. These 100 farmers do use a lot of water to grow the food and clothes you wear, and also provide substantial export income to the nation - i dont think your cities would last long if there was nothing to eat.

      Want proof of what happens when food production and irrigation is neglected look no further than the once thriving city of the Khmers. Angkor Wat is a stunning monument to the power of agriculture and the folly of humans who ignore their food producers

    • persephone says:

      11:13am | 20/04/10

      Pete

      we’re talking about the needs of cities here. If we use desal, we put less pressure on water supplies elsewhere, and free up water for other uses.

      However, as you point out quite rightly, there are some major problems with the way we do agriculture at present.

      Flood irrigation is on its way out, btw, if it hasn’t already gone. The prolonged drought gave farmers the incentive to look at more water friendly irrigation methods, which one expects they’ll continue once the drought is over. (Not saying it doesn’t still happen, but it’s increasingly rare).

      No, there is no connection between desal and topsoil loss or increasing salinity. The first is solvable with sensible farming practices, which are becoming more and more common; not burning off stubble, for example. Most farmers are very aware of the need to preserve topsoil and are educating themselves on the best ways to achieve this.

      Salinity is best tackled by wise watering, as covered above. It is a problem of over irrigation.

      I’m not sure that the ‘death of family farms’ is a real problem. Most family farms are dying because the kids don’t want to go on the farm. Larger scale agriculture may actually mean more production per hectare, not less.

      And no, we can’t stop droughts or other natural disasters. We can plan better for them though - desal, for example, gives our major cities drought proof water supplies.

      Tom

      They’re going to grow their food in country Australia, which could see the loss of water rights from one hundred farms without much impact on food production (the land will still produce, it just won’t produce at much).

      At present, we export 66% of the food we produce (of course, we import some, too). We’re nowhere near even close to full food producing capacity, and in fact use land very wastefully (because we can afford to). We could probably triple our production without much effort, if we needed to (there aren’t the markets to make it worth our while at present).

      Similarly with water savings: although wasteful use of water in rare now in terms of how the water is delivered, the way water is used is often very wasteful. Some crops would be better off grown elsewhere; some animals use far more water per kilogram of meat produced than can really be justified.

    • glory says:

      02:53pm | 20/04/10

      permaculture is the answer to all these problems,channelling the sea inland to create vast flooded inland seas,desalination plants to provide fresh drinking and agricultural water,building new towns and cities on those created inland seas.Inviting all who want to become Australians to come and live in these created inland seas ,waterways ,towns and cities.One manditory law and language for all Australians.

    • Douggie says:

      02:59pm | 20/04/10

      Persephone,. You are making the VERY big assumption that any of our governments, (state, federal, or otherwise) will have the means, know how, or even the desire to engage in the massive, long term infrastructure projects to get your desalinated water, and reclaimed water from farmers with their ‘better usage” techniques pumped all around the country to the places where its needed.

    • persephone says:

      04:11pm | 20/04/10

      Happening as we speak, douggie - look at the upgrade of Victoria’s irrigation infrastructure, which will result in real water savings and deliver extra water to Melbourne.

      Billions of dollars in investment from both the Vic & Fed governments.

    • Petek says:

      10:17am | 21/04/10

      Billions of investment in irrigation and water won’t save our river systems or farms. Hundreds of millions millions if not Billions have been spent on the Murray Darling and it will still die from bureaucratic neglect.  Again Perse you are adopting a faith based policy to our leaders handling a challenge of this scale.

      Perse we need a new evidence based approach when looking at whether Labor and the Libs are up to even delivering affordable housing in the next 10 years - forget the dream of ramming millons of more people into busting at the seams cities… Labor and the Lbs can’t handle it… FACT

    • persephone says:

      11:18am | 21/04/10

      acker

      don’t need to - born and bred in this particular briar patch.

      Firstly, the water has been made available for pumping to Melbourne because of the huge investment made into irrigation infrastructure, which has saved 210 megalitres per year, 70 of which are being sent to Melbourne.

      Of the other 140 meg, 70 will go to farmers and the other 70 to help the environment.

      Which demonstrates what I’ve been saying: 70 meg isn’t really much when you consider the whole system, but it has made a significant difference to Melbourne’s water security.

      Petek

      alas, doesn’t matter how many billions you invest, if the water simply isn’t there, you can’t create it out of nothing.

      The ultimate solution for the problems of the MD is rain and lots of it - we’ve got about ten years of deficit to make up, and good falls over a couple of months isn’t going to do that.

      The billions spent, however, means that when we do get the rain, the water will go to where it’s needed more efficiently and with less waste. Once it’s there, it will be used more effectively.

    • Coxy says:

      07:47am | 20/04/10

      I’m from the bush and I say let the people come. It would help our area in terms of growth and also we may get another doctor, a McDonalds and it might be easier to get rouseabouts, tractor drivers and other farm workers that are pretty much impossible to get now. We may also get a grader along the gravel road outside my house more than once a year and they might upgrade the unreliable power supply. Plus there might be enough people in the local on a Friday night to warrant a courtesy bus or even a taxi which would save me running the gauntlet.

      Reply

    • Alyssa KT says:

      09:04am | 20/04/10

      You’re better off without McDonald’s. Sad that you think having one makes a town.

    • Coxy says:

      11:08am | 20/04/10

      I’m not hell bent on the McDonald’s thing, but sometimes it would be nice to have the option. McDonald’s also would provide employment opportunities for the younger members of the community.

    • PeteK says:

      08:29am | 20/04/10

      “Aging – where will the tax base come that will finance the retirement of our Baby Boomer generation? (ie we need more people)”

      Why repeat misnomers Peter? We can use the populations of other countries to increase our wealth, by getting them to produce goods and technology while we hold the patents, copyrights, intellectual property etc. Our creative industires sector is one of Australias biggest and fastest growing industries (and appears to be recession proof as well) We are an inventive nation -  it’s just that our major parties are too big business focussed of late. (And Howard was too busy 1950ing)

      Dumb countries just dig holes and squander their wealth. Study what smart countries are doing, instead of just repeating Rudd’s and Abbott’s lines.

      (And the key to settling people to the bush is making it totally unaffordable for young people from the bush to live and work in the cities)

      Reply

    • jim says:

      08:47am | 20/04/10

      Just so un-innovative.

      If you make the bush attractive business-wise, then everyone will flock there.

      Forexample, lay a huge optical cable into a bush town, and people can set up internet business there that is cheap and can manufacturer or produce raw material.

      Hire a few tech developers and financial people to setup an online shop for customers that want to buy whole sale…etc

      I’m willing to relocate for that (preference is a fishing farm), but the transport infrastructure and the NBN is just not there.

      Reply

    • Russell says:

      08:55am | 20/04/10

      Thank you Peter, this is one of the better of the now ubiquitous forums on population.

      I was born in small, dying town. The business and civic leaders were desperate to attract and keep people, but the shops kept closing, the people who stayed got older, and the young and ambitious left (yes, me) for brighter shores. I can’t bear to go back there now, it is just too depressing. All those who say “Australia is full up, go away” to immigrants owe it to all of us, to explain how that dismal future will not also be Australia’s.

      If they don’t, they have nothing to contribute to this debate.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      09:25am | 20/04/10

      I don’t believe tariff protection is the answer to helping Australian businesses.  The biggest disincentives to decentralisation are the costs of communications and freight.  Country areas have tons of room which can cope with population growth. On the ABC’s Q&A programme Heather Ridout mentioned that a BIPARTISAN approach should be developed to cope with the asylum seeker problem. From the look on Scott Morrison’s face, she’d suggested taking poison! It’s NOT what the Liberal Party is about! They can’t exist without being antagonistic!  However if we approach the population debate with a positive and planned mindset, we might even progress to subsidising businesses in rural areas, and atrract the growth away fron capital cities

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      09:54am | 20/04/10

      Acotrel,

      Says “The biggest disincentive to decentralisation are the costs of communications and freight”!! I doubt this is true, many regional centres were boom towns when freight wad hauled by horsedrawn carts and cummunications were letters or telegraph.

      The real reason that the regional centres have died, is the fact that governments have become city centric. With todays communications there is no reason why government departments could not be spread throughout the regional centres. Many of our large cit hospitals could also be relocated to regional centres givimg better health coverage.

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      09:57am | 20/04/10

      acotrel, firstly I can’t see anyone mentioning tarrif protection so I’m not sure what the relevance of that point is, but you are right on that point, tarrif and indeed non-tarrif protection is of little value.  Where you are misguided is the issue of a bipartisan (or BIPARTISAN as you seem to prefer) approach.  The issue is that Kevin Rudd has no idea what bipartisan means and nor do some of his cheer squad members.  Bipartisanship does not mean that “all opposition should just shut up and support my way of doing things”, when Mr Rudd learns to listen and consult, not just go through the actions, then there is a chance of a bipartisan approach.  Tony Abbott’s response when Rudd called for a bipartisan approach to health reform may have been a little over the top but it reflects the naive and immature approach to consultation that is one of the hallmarks of this government.  Rudd’s appeal for bipartisan support covers not only his first and fatally flawed ETS (emissions trading scheme -  in case any ALP members have forgotten) but health reform and illegal arrivals in Australia - I for one would like to see an opposition and indeed a Senate question those proposed schemes and modify them so they work, instead of bending over and taking whatever proposal Rudd dreams up.

    • tyu says:

      09:55am | 20/04/10

      Why do politicians want to increase the population through mass immigration when the evidence from countries like Norway, Austria, Sweden, and New Zealand shows that a rapidly growing population does not improve the standard of living but actually decreases it?

      Reply

    • Jim Walker says:

      04:38pm | 20/04/10

      JAW says The USA would totally disagree with your comment . History proves their point. History only repeats itself because nobody reads it, so each generation goes ahead reinventing the wheel & making the same stupid mistakes ,all in the name of progress.

    • Mickey says:

      06:19pm | 20/04/10

      Up to now, the only reason we have for flooding western nations with third-worlders are economic ones. This may or may not have worked as a one or two-decade stop-gap solution after westerners slowed down on having kids but anyone who thought this was a long-term solution has rocks in their head, I’m afraid. Was not ever going to work long-term, will not ever work long-term. The cracks and the strain are starting to show in almost all western societies. WIll not have a happy ending.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      12:03pm | 20/04/10

      If it became mandatory that ALL “asylum seekers” faced a mandatory 20 years’ life in rural areas in order to gain permanent residency in Australia, the boatloads of economic opportunists would soon stop coming. Problem solved.

      Reply

    • TB says:

      01:54pm | 20/04/10

      “where is the workforce to drive our long-term economic growth? (ie we need more people)”

      Yet another one of the minions brainwashed into the infinite growth paradigm - the absolutely nonsensical notion that we can have “growth” forever and ever in a world with finite resources. Sounds like you believe in the Luddite’s fallacy, too - the preposterous idea that we’ll never ever run out of jobs. Hardly surprising for a union man, I suppose (after all, a union’s job is to make sure other people keep theirs). As an aside, I believe unions and the labour movement as a whole are quickly becoming anachronistic. The future is in the deliberate displacement of human labour via automation, something which has already been slowly happening for decades, and will only increase in pace exponentially.

      You briefly alluded to the energy demands of a larger population (in regards to the question of water needs). This is one area where Australia is showing a jaw-dropping level of stupidity. Thousands of kilometres of coastline, and almost innumerable square kilometres of empty land being roasted by the sun, and yet here we are hopelessly dependent upon fossil fuels, with some people arguing that our only viable option is to go nuclear.

      Reply

    • Luke says:

      02:26pm | 20/04/10

      Simply required is vision and that is sadly lacking at a national level.

      Even in the health debate, it’s been all about moving numbers around on a “feral abacus”, rather than engaging with the Australian people on being involved in something that will change the fabric of our nation.

      Once you have the visionary narrative, the implementation be it subsidised housing, tax breaks, whatever.  The Australian people are even prepared to sacrifice their own best interests for a compelling vision.

      I don’t think we are ever going to see a visionary narrative from Rudd, or Abbott. 

      The two rejected Liberal leaders - Costello and Turnbull - could have done this, and there is a chance Gillard has it in her.  For Australia’s sake let’s hope we see more of this adventurous visionary spirit.

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen of God's Own Country, Rural SA says:

      11:33pm | 21/04/10

      Haven’t you heard? ? The country was closed down by Labor in favor of cities as essential services are centralized in the big smoke

      Reply

    • Front Man says:

      01:04pm | 26/04/10

      Spot on, Robert.
      Politicians from all sides will try to pander to the seats where the population is already settled into marginal, urban and suburban seats.
      Anything they will or can do has to be sold into the marginals, and in SA’s case that means stripping out any stable Government jobs and moving them to marginal city seats.
      Given the huge advances in technology, there is no sane reason that Govt service-centres, or headquarters, could not be based in regional SA.  Unless getting re-elected and avoiding a blowout in Adelaide’s commercial property sector - abandoned by businesses fleeing SA’s failing economy.
      The truth is that the people who make their public service careers out of regional SA do not want to live here, they know how badly it has been hollowed out by the political classes.
      If these clowns didn’t have massive state taxes and the Workcover levy, mining royalties and the “stimulus” rorts we’d be back in the State Bank days.  In a sense, we are.

    • acotrel says:

      06:29pm | 22/04/10

      We need a rethink about the education system in rural areas.  Project Management is a basic business skill needed for development of infrastructure.  In Goulburn Ovens TAFE, it is taught as one subject in an information technology course.  So tradesmen don’t get exposure to it, nor do engineers and scientists! While we rely on academics to determine the relative importance of various skills, our country will go backwards.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 28 May 12 12:01AM

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 27 May 12 10:49PM

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:12PM

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:03PM

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed