Steve... sorry to disagree again but you are wrong.
If suddenly we had a population of 100,000,000 we don't have the infrastructure to support them.

Infrastructure comes first.
Water comes first.

Otherwise there is kaos and death.

BTW, most arid populated country?
Do you understand why we are coastal dwellers?
We can't and maybe never will be able to support 100,000,000 people.

foundation,

It seems the urban 4WD’ers have reason to also feel mildly offended as well – but I agree, in urban areas they seem an aberration. Again I agree, medium density town housing is probably the way to go – and yes, high-rise structures have been proven to consume energy inefficiently.

It would seem, your local area is quite self-sufficient, with its natural resource – sadly it’s not the norm for many if not most rural areas. Globalisation is bringing about some unpleasant change –our ‘Aussie’ parochialism doesn’t equip us for survival. As mentioned by another poster, our comparatively small population cannot cope with huge infrastructure – extensive arterial road networks, cabling, pipelines, power grids and other networks etc. cannot be spread indefinitely over vast spaces.

The leadership our communities provide is going to be crucial – grass roots leadership, not the top-down ‘high-profilers’. Planners have mostly generated community through adversity – the community formed here is one of opposition. As vague as this might seem, the acceptance of new technology, so called hard planning and engineering solutions is increasingly dependent on supportive communities receptive to change

I agree with T800 and Ludwig. We desperately need to have a population policy as a first step.

Perseus. You may have stated your house tank thoughts time and again, but that does not make it right.

It probably will reduce reliance on reticulated water in the summer rainfall areas, i.e. The north and eastern coastal fringe, but not worth a bumper in the dry summer areas. Have you any idea how much water is required for, say, 5 hot months with little or no rainfall.
I live in a dry summer area, with my own water supply, and I know.

Steve. If you believe what you write about a high population. Well you a lost cause.

Angelo,

I am puzzled by the idea that Australia is running out of people. According to ABS figures approximately two babies are born and one net migrant arrives for every person who dies. A fertility rate of 1.7 plus a modest rate of immigration is more than adequate to maintain the population in the long run.

Australia has about the same amount of arable land as France, but it is of much lower average quality. Arable land doesn't exist in much of Australia so unlike the US we don't need to provide infrastructure over much of the country. We are more like Algeria or Tunisia, where they don't worry much about providing services to the Sahara.

More people are not always better. Living standards increased dramatically for the survivors of the Black Death. According to the ABC's 'Thousand Years in a Day' series in 2000, those living standards weren't matched again in Europe until the late 19th century. There is no correlation among developed countries between population size or growth rate and GNP per capita (see the CIA World Factbook). Scandinavian countries are near the top of the pops on the UN Human Development index despite small populations, and low population densities and growth rates. There is a correlation between population growth and social inequality. Steve pointed to the big per capita GNP of the US, but not the fact that the median wage is no better than in Canada or that it is worse to be in the bottom 10% in the US than in any other OECD country (graphs from State of Working America, Economic Policy Institute, www.epinet.org).

I agree that decentralisation would help deal with the diseconomies of scale in big cities and give many people a better life. It is not a panacea to allow unending population growth

"We desperately need to have a population policy as a first step."

I agree wholeheartedly, but not one that is influenced by "agendas" like many espouse on this site.

With Australia, its economic zones, exclusive fisheries and claims in the Antarctic, less than 20 million people lay claim to one sixth of the world.

Is this sustainable? I think not.

Small states may well result in the merging of local government into the one administration as is already the case in the ACT. But that would be up to the new state concerned, not us.

Polling by AJ Brown of Griffith Uni found that about 45% of Australians support some form of government reform and this was fairly evenly split between those who wanted to eliminate states altogether and have larger local governments and those who wanted new smaller states for regional communities. The rest just hadn't thought about it at all but once the options are explained, they appreciate the scope for improved governance.

But when we look at these options closer, they are essentially the same option. The key element that the "abolish the states" people wanted dealt with was the distant, one-size-fits-all, metropolitan government. But by cutting the existing state into a number of smaller ones, we do, in fact, abolish the existing one and replace it with more regional specific ones with the same powers.

At a recent forum on the topic in Sydney, Prof. Wiltshire, former head of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, responsible for disbursing federal funds to the states, outlined the problems in ensuring the funds go to the intended communities. He finished his talk with the urge to "get out there and form new states".