<< As for population- sadly as they don't actually give a toss about population policy for the same reason Dick Smith and myself do (that is, quality of living and slowing down urbanization- as opposed to a more superficial stance, I can't really say I'm sorry they left it out. >>

But, but, but, King Hazza, if you care as much about this issue as Dick Smith and Ludwig, you’d want the Greens to be very strong on it, wouldn’t you?

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I would wish all those posting comments first understood what the constitution really stands for.
See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog at http://www.scribdd.com/InspectorRiakti (various correspondences to the Governor-General included) and you may just learn that who forms government got absolutely nothing to do with the INDPENDENTS, Greens, etc, because the Governor-General alone determines who shall be commissioned regardless of any majority in the House of Representatives.
E. Barton was commissioned to form a government on 26 December 1900, before the federation existed, and so no Parliament either. Learn what the constitution stands for and you all might just realise you are all conned.
Currently there is not a single Member of the House of Representatives as they are all Members of the House of Representatives designate!
Parliament is to vote on bills not to decide who forms government. That is the job of the Governor-General exercising prerogative powers!

Ludwig, because somebody 'cares' about population, doesn't mean it's because of overcrowding, local degradation or resource thinning; they might be thinking "world population" and our responsibility to take some of the pain, or 'people are taking up too much space and resources', combated precisely by squeezing people into smaller areas and restricting rights to transport infrastructure and resources.

Some might place population above skilled migrants AND refugees, some place skilled migrants above population but more above refugees, some people might put refugees above population and make the skilled migrations pay the price.

Just because somebody agrees (in a general way) that something is a problem, doesn't mean they have a practical worthwhile approach to stopping it. And sadly from my own experience the greens members are rather divided on why they have a problem with overpopulation (some holding a less than appreciable view in my opinion).

The impression I'm getting from the various deals which have been brokered is that we have a chance of some changes which may if cemented into place improve the quality and transparency of this and future federal governments.

We should all be hoping that this works for long enough to make it hard to back down from a variety of "concessions" that the green's and independents have got from Labor (and some supposedly also agreed to by Abbott).

I would have preferred not to have Labor back in but given the nature of the election campaign I'm not greatly convinced that the coalition would have done a much better job than Labor. The country may get a better outcome from this than seemed possible with either side winning in it's own right.

R0bert

King Hazza, understood and agreed.

But Dick Smith made his position abundantly clear, and this is what Bob Brown – apparently – was agreeing with.

I’ve got to assume that old Bob was having an out-of-body experience on Q&A where he so strongly supported Dicko…and has since withdrawn back to his long-held position of remaining quiet about population with respect to a slower growth rate and a sustainable society.

You are therefore probably right – it was better that the Greens didn’t push the population issue because they would probably have pushed it in entirely the wrong direction!

Ludwig is right, and if anyone has a different opinion to him they're wrong. Therefore to be right, you must agree with Ludwig.