This type of thinking doesn't explain Houston, Las Vegas, Phoenix - the list goes on. These are large cities by Australian standards but fit very few of your criteria. Las Vegas depends on the Hoover Dam, but certainly not trade or shipping.
Water supply is the major issue in Australian cities, but this can be solved (see Kalgoorlie) if people put their mind to it. I agree that Australia needs to develop the regional areas more.
Houston is actually the 2nd biggest port in the USA and 6th biggest in the world. It's also surrounded by oil and natural gas. Phoenix and Vegas are weird ones, but most large cities in the USA are on a big lake, river or ocean, or some combination of those.
My bad with Houston. I must have been thinking of Dallas.
The factor with Las Vegas and Phoenix are that they are modern growth cities. You don't need a deepwater port to facilitate growth in a modern city, just a good airport, good road/rail links and good communications infrastructure. You could argue that Phoenix is propelled by retirees and golf players and Las Vegas by gambling - but the reason doesn't matter, just the fact that a city can be sustained does.
My understanding is that Vegas is on a major highway and has a natural trade (gambling). Other Nevada gambling towns which are not on that route are less successful. Is that correct?
To cover myself, refer again to my prefatory remark that I was generalising enormously.
Water supply is the major issue in Australian cities, but this can be solved (see Kalgoorlie) if people put their mind to it. I agree that Australia needs to develop the regional areas more.