First of all, cycling isn't growing. Just look at the numbers of teams folding recently. Cycling is shrinking and basically has been shrinking since the start of the Pro Tour. Of course the economic recession didn't help either, but personally I put most blame on the Pro Tour. In my opinion it has done more harm than good. Lots of great races with lots of history have disappeared and got replaced by mostly second grade races teams only care about because the points or money they hand out.
If cycling was indeed growing, as some people seem to believe it is, we would get more and bigger sponsors entering the sport. Instead we see HTC leave, Geox rumored to leave and Leopard, even with the very marketable Schlecks and Cancellara, unable to find a sponsor. Add the teams that are more hobby of some rich guy/area than actual sponsors (Katusha, Astana) and you see cycling isn't doing that well at all. Same story with smaller teams. Bbox after having a very impressive Tour could only barely find a sponsor.
Which brings us to the new Pro Tour licenses. If a team has a solid sponsor (and not some rich guy backing them) and enough quality riders to deserve a place in most of the Pro Tour races, then I'm all for inviting them in. But the simple fact is, many Pro Tour teams have at least 5 major races in a year they just don't belong in. But the even sadder part is that the overall quality of the non Pro Tour teams is declining to the point that inviting more of them is hardly an improvement. See Saur in the Tour.
If GreenEdge needs the Pro Tour license to survive, then they obviously aren't a healthy team. That simple fact means they don't even deserve the license in the first place, because that should be only for healthy teams. Of course GE is going to get the license anyway, because the UCI will push for it. That will of course have the advantage that we will know which teams will start the Tour in November already. But them being Australian shouldn't be an argument.
Take the French teams or Skil as examples. They have been around for ages. They might not have a few big stars like the new teams often do, but their overall quality is quite decent. They have a solid structure and a solid sponsor. Having them in the Pro Tour would be an improvement. On the other hand, look at Leopard and Geox. One bought their way in, the other failed to do so. One folding, one rumored to fold. New sponsors/teams haven't exactly proven to be solid.
To answer Green_&_Gold's question. Cycling is mostly an European sport. Always has been, always will be. There is a reason all major races are in Europe. There is a reason European countries have more teams. Outside of Europe I think only Columbia is worth mentioning as cycling nation. If I was in charge of the UCI, I would be focusing on strengthening the position of cycling in Europe. If areas like Australia or America want to be a part of it, they should start by developing a healthy local scene.