Australia has 2.8 people per square kilometre. If the entire population of Australia were packed into one place at the current supposedly sprawling population density of Melbourne, we would use no more than 44,000 square kilometres, leaving more than 99 per cent of the nation, 7.6+ million square kilometres, completely empty of people.

If we increase our population, to 35 million, we need only 70,000 square kilometres and still have more than 99 per cent of the nation empty of people.

If the entire population of Victoria were packed into one place at Melbourne’s density, more than 90 per cent of the state would be completely empty of people.

England manages to fit ten times the Victorian population into an area the same size as the state with only one very large city and more than 80 per cent of its people living outside London – in villages, large towns and manageable cities.

If Australia had 20 million households each on a 1,000 square metres, they would take up only 20,000 square kilometres of the 7.7 million we have. Hospitals, schools, restaurants, shops, etc do not have to take up any more land because of the size of housing blocks, though transport does. I have been through wilderness areas in the US, with its 300+ million people in an area not much larger than Australia. There is plenty of room for decent-sized blocks of land in this country.

If population has to grow, decentralisation – not sprawl, not urban consolidation - is the answer.

Chris C
I agree with you that decentralisation is the solution to reducing the size of our larger cities. It will also reduce the current situation where larger urban areas take much of the water from country areas. Look at Melbourne's pillaging of the waters in the North of that State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Australia

The point is our land is largely arid - the size of the land mass is not the only factor. Only a small percentage of our land mass is suitable for agriculture, much of it being developed.

As I said earlier if Australia had the lovely rolling green hills of England all over we could certainly take a lot more people. Sadly we don't. England is not a good example, there are many in the UK concerned about optimal population levels, not just in the UK but worldwide.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.ukpoptable.html

Severin, "Yes, Rudd is a complete fool to believe in a big population, however the alternative (Liberal Party) are no different"

I agree with you.

There is NO political mandate for a 'Big Australia' and all political parties are avoiding discussion either through pretending they are unaware of voter opposition, or by shelving the issue by calling for an inquiry to be held some time in the future.

I agree that urban sprawl is not really the problem.
Urban siting is the problem.
If our major cities were situated in featureless desert country (or better yet, on the ocean) then such cities could quite conceivably contribute to increased bio mass and biodiversity; that is assuming urban environments absolutely have to involve above ground dwellings, covering good soil with tar and cement, etc.
The fundamental problem of urban sprawl is that it almost invariably occurs on good arable river flats, for purely historical reasons which don't necessarily still make sense; particularly at a time when we need all the farmland we can get.