Steve, you do of course realise that your desires to greatly boost our population have been shared by many throughout the history of Australia. That mindset has almost exclusively been held by those in positions of power where they would have made it happen if it was possible for it to happen.

But of course, it hasn’t been possible, due to the natural limitations of this continent. We would have had a population comparable to that of the US by now if the same sort of resource capacity existed here. Our small population on a large land mass is due directly to our very poor resource base, most significantly water and fertile soils.

But then you now all of this. So why do you push for us to grow a much larger population?

It’s as crazy as Perseus’ notion that a simple reshuffling of government could greatly boost populations in regional areas.

Lyn Allison is an "under-the-carpet" representative. Like so many of her Parliamentary colleagues. It is very hard work being a politician,harder for statesman, especially a woman in that bear-pit. And Lyn does not make the grade: she treats symptoms rather than their causes, while labelling the treatment "long term".
It is the sort of thing our politicians, of all colours, have been dealing out to us since 1994. In that year, the (Labor) Government held an inquiry into the possibilities for Australian society, under the constraints of resources, landscapes, climate, for various numbers of people.
The Government did not like the outcome, and ignored it.
In 2002 the (Liberal)Government received the report it had commissioned into "Options to 2050 for Australia's population, technology, resources and environment" (short title Future Dilemmas). The Government did not like the outcome, and only released it to the public under its imprimatur after lengthy delay.
In spite of Governments' grumpiness about them, both are valuable sources of information for anyone who wants to point to our future directions, based on fact rather than fanciful wish. As are other sources in a similar vein, such as Doug Cocks' books People Policy, and Future Makers Future Takers.
While we do need people to remain on the land, in sufficient numbers and sufficiently committed to looking after it for fair return, shifting an ever-expanding urbanised population into new areas is no "long term" solution. If Lyn Allison, as a concerned Australian, had taken the trouble to do the homework encompassed in the above available exercises, she would be aware of it.
As for contributor Steve Madden - what to make of someone committed to 100 million people for Australia? Googling "Steve Madden" brings up a New York-based footwear house. However, if Australian, would he have ever experienced the beauty, and the terror, of viewing, while shadeless for the coming day, a mid-summer centralian sun rising, overpowering, giant-like from beneath a parched horizon teetering on the brink of desertification?

Australian agricultural exports $26.3 billion FY 2005. Agriculture uses 59% of our water.

If we didn't export our water we would have plenty to serve our needs.

We are one of the most "resource rich" countries in the world. Yet we sell cotton to China (and buy the T shirts back) and iron ore to Korea (and buy their ships and cars back).

$30 billion in the "Future Fund" why don't we spend it on infrastucture, rail, roads, telecommunications? Too hard, lets export our water and buy crap back.

The Romans 1900 years ago figured it out why can't we?

Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. - Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121 AD - 180 AD)

Lyn, I agree with your article. Australia should move from dominance of a few cities to a network of environmentally and socially sustainable smaller mini-cities. Under present economic systems everything we do is economically inefficient - profit, consumerism, market forces. We should have no inertia to subsidise dispersed mini-cities if they meet environmental and social sustainability criteria. The townships Claudiecat mentioned were new towns. It is existing towns we need to redevelop and re-enter into a settled network.

OK, so limited decentralisation may have some merits (but only within a paradigm of population stabilisation).

Of course, redeveloping existing towns is preferable to building whole new towns, or “mini cities”.

Depending on a bunch of variables, the optimum size for a ‘city’ is about 100 000 to 120 000 thousand, according to a reputable report I read a few years ago (which I can not remember the source of).

So (with reference to my part of the world), Mackay is getting there, while Townsville and Cairns are past the optimum level. Does this then mean that we should be striving to halt population growth in T and C in the same way as we should be doing in the large cities? Does it mean we should be encouraging growth in Albury/Wodonga and many other centres with the intention of raising their populations to about 100 000?

How many centres would we need to raise their populations to 100 000 in order to relieve the growth pressure on Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and SEQ?

While the net effect in these smaller centres may be positive in terms of quality of life for the average person, there will be considerable downsides for most current residents. In fact, my feeling is that most existing residents will suffer a net loss in their quality of life, while it will be new residents that will make the majority of the gains.

In some cases, the effects may be quite drastic. For example, Cairns suffered awful problems with increased crime rate, increased unemployment and increased costs of just about everything during its rapid growth phase of the late 80s and 90s. This really knocked around local residents badly.

Once we have worked out where population growth in the name of decentralisation is the least damaging, or where it does not have a net negative effect, we will be left with very few centres suitable for significant growth... along with lots of small country towns which can grow a bit with almost entirely positive benefits.

So I have to seriously question the real merits of mass decentralisation

Population explosians are fine for those who can negotiate cheaper wages, fine for developers who can level the bush for more and more housing, fine for supermarts ect.
But not so good for supplying hospitals, medical services, schools and all the unglamourous things a population expects.
Not to mention crime and all the services that go with keeping criminals away from society.
In your brave new world of expanded population, some one has to pay and it is always those who can least afford it.