Her we go again with the usual litany of half truths and falsehoods.
1 While the total immigration intake may be 175,000 pa you forgot to deduct the number of Australians settling overseas. This is circa 60,000 pa but whats a 33% exaggeration to an ideologue.
2 Yes, there is an overconcentration of people in the major cities and the immigration program has been biased towards people who will settle in cities, but this is due to a lack of a decentralisation policy, not a general population problem.
3 The shortage of water in the cities is due to a lack of water tanks in the cities. 20% of Australians regard a water tank as a normal household outlay. But the city population think it is their right to take water from someone else up stream without making any attempt to take all reasonable steps to help oneself before holding one's hand out for a community service.
4 If the population nazis had their way in 1950 then our current population would only be 10 million. And this sounds fine until we realise that our GDP would only be half of what it is today. And it is unlikely that we would have any sort of industrial base in those circumstances, certainly no automotive plants nor much local IT.
5 If population was only 10 million (Flanery wants only 4.5 million) and our GDP was only half then our defence budget would only be half. And we would not be able to maintain our technological edge in the region, we could certainly not have liberated East Timor, and we would not be building our own submarines, ships and equipment. And every tin pot regional "Mahatir" would treat us like a dish rag.

In short, history would repeat itself. A small, inward looking local culture would merely mind the continent until a much more aggressive and populous culture decided it was time to take the opportunity presented to them on a platter.

We may not need "cannon fodder" anymore but we still need "tax fodder", and more of it.

... And here we go again with more socialist-inspired twaddle.

If Gosling’s theology was correct, then how could the US, with a population 15 times ours and total rainfall only about 35% higher, possibly have such a high standard of living (GDP about 35% higher per capita)?

In regard to water, Australia has probably the highest per capita rainfall of any country. It’s about 210 gigalitres per person per annum, compared to a world average of 18 gigalitres per person per annum. (Source data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/cty/obs/TYN_CY_1_1.html ). It is ridiculous to talk about a shortage of water as due to anything but central planning and government-regulated water monopolies.

Agree with Perseus on a few things

2. Decentralisation - If I remember correctly 40% of rainwater in Australia falls onto the top northern part of Australia. We need to get the population "demographic" to shift.
3. Why in this country it is NOT mandatory to have water tanks in all new houses to flush the toilet which I think (please help) a large proportion of household water goes into is beyond me.
4. Start to restrict population growth too much and the country starts to die. Older people live longer and the health and social burden becomes too much. And as much as we might not like to admit, a vibrant young culture has much less chance to stagnate

Perseus says:

"If the population nazis had their way in 1950 then our current population would only be 10 million. And this sounds fine until we realise that our GDP would only be half of what it is today".

So what - why is GDP the holy cow, which provides the only measure of a country's success.

Perseus says:

"And it is unlikely that we would have any sort of industrial base in those circumstances, certainly no automotive plants nor much local IT."

So what? Automotive plants are closing down all over the world. IT equipment is almost totally imported from overseas.

Perseus says:

"we would not be building our own submarines, ships and equipment. And every tin pot regional "Mahatir" would treat us like a dish rag."

Ah, so the hidden agenda is that we need lots of people to protect ourselves from the Yellow Peril, and so we can invade other countries on flimsy pretexts like WMDs.

Perseus says:
"In short, history would repeat itself. A small, inward looking local culture"

Haven't you noticed? We've already got that.

Tom, utterly brilliant piece.

Perseus, your points on the need for decentralisation and water tanks are indeed valid, but the 33% oversight (if true) doesn't devalue the remaining 67%, and your other points, they are founded on half-baked assumptions. Re: GDP - What advantage is a growing taxable population, when most of it makes no contribution to the value of goods exported from Australia? The majority of us just exchange goods and services amongst ourselves, and import everything else we might want from overseas. Simply, if our population increases and those people don't generate exports, the 'value of exports per capita' decreases.

Consider also, our failure to invest in educating our young generations in fields that will enhance our nations wealth, whilst burdening them with HECS debts and unaffordable housing. We end up with a young generation spending their income repaying huge mortgages, instead of having spare cash that could be used to invest in R+D. With investment in R+D instead of new homes, I'm sure we could maintain our tech edge. Then imagine further, if those employed in the home building industry, were instead trained to be employed in fields that actually generated export income for Australia.

Readers should not overlook the significance of the following points made by Tom:

>> "Those who stand to benefit from population growth are investment bankers, real estate agents, property developers, and construction companies..."

>> "They are the same people who give generously to support the re-election of the Howard Government and buy influence with the Opposition parties and the State Labor governments"

>> "population growth has to be turbo-charged for easy economic growth - developing properties is so much easier than coming up with clever new products, like Finland and its Nokia mobile phones".

I recall Andrew Bartlett's recent article calling for politicians to justify their position on high immigration (27/11/06) and the many reader comments that followed it calling for ecologically sustainable population levels. Hopefully this article will build pressure for those justifications, and also, a national debate on the broader issues of ecological sustainability and population growth.

Perseus,

The only half decent argument you make against stopping population growth is defense. However there are examples of small countries that have been able to defend themselves against large aggressors (such as Israel). We also have the advantage of having an ocean dividing us from the rest of the world not to mention some friends such as the US and even the UK and Europe. If an aggressive China, Indonesia or India wishes to invade us, it will make little difference if we have a population of 10 million or 25 million.

Your other arguments make no sense at all. It is not the GDP but the GDP per person that matters to the economy and there is little evidence that indicates that you need a growing population to have a growing per capita GDP. Further, most of our exports are minerals, energy and agricultural products not manufactured goods or motor cars. These exports are produced by a very small part of Australia’s workforce, and almost exclusively outside our big cities. If you made a country by drawing a line north of the tropic of Capricorn you would have a fabulously rich nation with a population of a million working in the minerals, agricultural and tourist industries. A larger population has not made any difference to our major export industries.

As far as water is concerned, I suggest you do some calculations on the amount you can store in a rainwater tank. It is a tiny fraction of the average water allocation to the average suburban house. Rainwater tanks might provide you with a decent supply of drinkable water, but does very little for the overall supply problem unless you have massive tanks.I cannot see why it is so difficult to see that a growing population will have an adverse influence on water supply.

Australia’s lifestyle is based on a small population and a beautiful clean and relatively unspoiled environment. Why do we want to throw that away?

Peter Ridd