Pericles,

Why do you imagine that federal and state governments that are happy to ignore or overrule local residents on development and environmentalists on a host of other issues would suddenly cave into them on dams? The real issue is lack of suitable sites, a problem made more acute with risks of more evaporation and less run-off due to climate change. See

http://www.abare.gov.au/interactive/08_ResearchReports/Urbanwater/htm/chapter_2.htm

Desalinated water is 4-6 times as expensive as dam water and very energy hungry. Why would our politiicians go for it if dams were a viable option?

Switzerland (not a member of the EU) is at the top of the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index with a population growth rate of 0.276% (CIA World Factbook figure), compared to our current 2.1%.

http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm

None of the other top 10 countries, which don't include us, have even half our rate of population growth. Singapore, the US, and Japan are all non-EU countries, and Germany and Japan are actually losing population, at -0.053% for Germany and -0.191% for Japan. To put these figures into perspective see this graph from the World Bank.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:JPN&dl=en&hl=en&q=Population+Japan+graph

It is reasonably correct to say that there are more Japanese alive now than at any time in human history.

Not the worst article I've read. First of all is the author looking at Norway since the beginning of time because since 1980 it's population growth is about 1.7 percent.

The title presumes (a) Norway is prosperous therefore (b) Australia is not. This is false logic.

Australia is doing very nicely considering we just spent $40B on pump priming the economy.

Quite right we could do with more infrastructure but keep in mind we're 120 times larger than Norway. One might like to have a look at Norway's tax structure as they service a high end social welfare and health system. That's good, right? It's good if you want high taxes.

Why can't we be more like Norway? Because we're Australian.

Pericles - I'm puzzled .... I cheerfully admit that there is no causal relationship between population growth and economic prosperity. That, indeed, was the whole point of my article. I wrote it to rebut assertions (in the Intergenerational Report and by the Government) that population growth is necessary for economic success. Clearly, economic success is related to factors other than population growth, as you've pointed out.

I'm not "blaming" population growth for anything; I'm making what I thought was a moderate and sensible point that our economy doesn't have to depend on rapid population growth.

Cheryl - I didn't assert that (a) Norway is prosperous therefore (b) Australia is not.

I asserted that (a) Norway has a strong economy and a stable population, therefore (b) Australia could have a strong economy and a stable population too. Australia is indeed prosperous - my point is that we don't need rapid population growth to sustain that prosperity

Mac - Sure, Norway's special. But what's really unique is not that they have great mineral wealth (so does Australia), but that they chose to exploit that resource through a national oil company which reinvests all the profits for the long-term benefit of the community. Most other OECD countries permit private companies to extract mineral resources and distribute the profits to shareholders, leading to a short-term consumption boost rather than long-term prudential reinvestment in the community.

Berger,

Yes,I agree with your comments about Norway's policy in regard to conserving its oil wealth.I wonder if there's some advantage in small populations when introducing such measures,a less macho, more co-operative ethos perhaps.

I don't like Charles Berger's article because the comparisons don't stack up. The whole piece is about population, the environment and growth - just look at the title - and it tries to make comparisons between Australia and Norway, Slovakia etc that are fundamentally flawed.

Its a bit disengenuous to say that there is no link between population growth and economic prosperity. The truth is that the size of your domestic labour force, their purchasing power as consumers and their youth and replacement rate are all factors that affect economic growth. But there is no direct link as such between population and growth. You could be a very large country but be very poor or very small and rich. Either way, Berger misrepresents the position on population growth and prosperity.

The other main flaw in Berger's argument is the idea that wealth from natural resources could easily be reinvested into Australia. Norway exploits its resources through a national company. Australia's national resources mines, farms etc, are mostly privately owned. Add the fact that the Howard Govt blew 140 billion or the 170 billion collected in tax from these activities on middle class welfare etc then you'll see why its a false comparison. We wouldn't be able to 'nationalise' these assets without paying fair compensation.

I am most definitely convinced that a country does NOT need an increasing population to prosper, and as an active follower of scientific news sites, convinced that there may well be decreasing need for human employment over automated production- decreasing the need for more employees.
Our only problem is a shortage of skilled workers- especially medical staff- whom we can advertise for abroad and try to provide more incentives for pursuing academically at home.

As for managing the increase of population (and there will be- even if we're sensible and keep it a small one), the ONLY way to do that without stomping over someone's rights or significant environmental deterioration is to locate an area- both rich in water (not already significantly relied on by some fragile ecosystem- like some artesian basins), and actually accessible to some business-rich city or more, and create an entirely new city- with proper infrastructural provisions and jobs to offer- and to appeal to the excess populations of the big 5 cities to move there. If its near (but not looming right next to) an agricultural area it might actually be welcomed by the community having some services nearer to home.

Otherwise (and a better option for now), I nominate our capital city CANBERRA to be the first to start developing up- unlike Sydney and its surrounding towns (which are near or well over full-capacity) Canberra actually has plenty of unused space. As in many parts around that city, there are uninhabited areas with nothing but squillions of BARREN crisscrossing roads separated by grassy patches of dirt which absolutely nobody will miss if someone built some highrises on. In fact, I didn't even see any houses for miles of these areas.
And of course, we can start around Parliament House- to create the maximum awareness of the need to consider the rights of the neighbours who may experience reduced comfort and privacy when a giant flat pops up next door when considering my other proposal.