Australia does not have the water and other resources to sustain that figure without hundreds of billion being spent on infrastructure.

That equates to just over half a million per year, where are the houses?

Also of that 40 million if anything like now that would mean we have approx 4 million public servants.

Also how many of that will be ECONOMIC INVADERS by boats.

Regrettably I would say that would be the target no matter who was in power.

<< Find me Ludwig, a party ever likely to rule this country, that has not got the same policy. >>

There isn’t one. As I have said a million times; the Libs and Labs are just the same. And the Groans, alas, haven’t got a sustainable bone their body either!

<< You can not win, not yet, big money owns our future. >>

Yes Belly, so it seems. Even with some real hints at sustainability from Labor; from Carr, Thomson, and from Gillard, it is obviously still a bridge too far.

Looks like we won’t be able to win a genuine swing towards sustainability until it is too late.

<< Get it into your head! The two major parties are in the pocket of big business, so both will have a high immigration policy. "He who pays the piper calls the tune". >>

Ah Banjo, I have that fact firmly and squirmly embedded I the depths of my cranium!

I can just picture it now:

Gillard said three years ago: “I believe in a sustainable Australia, not a big Australia.”

Then her big biz masters said: “Hey Julia, sweetie, you really said something quite naughty there. I know you are brand new to this prime-minister thing, so we won’t punish you just as long as you don’t do it again, and continue to grow Australia’s population very rapidly. In fact, now that we’re on this subject, how about boosting the rate a bit, there’s a good girl.”

“Oh, dear, I’m sorry Sir. Very sorry indeed. I didn’t realise. OK, I shall increase the rate for you.”

( :>(

<< Would Ludwig actually be gullible enough to vote for them just because they promised "sustainability"? It looks like he would! >>

Jardine, I have emphasised many times amongst my copious posts on this subject that if Labor were to adopt a sustainability platform, they’d have to make it believable, which indeed given their record would not be easy.

However, if Carr and Thomson, who both have long histories of lobbying for population stabilisation / sustainability, were to lead the charge, it would be genuine and it would be believable.

<< So I'm glad Gillard has burst your bubble, even if the truth hurts. >>

Gillard hasn’t burst my bubble. She has said exactly what I would have expected her to say. If she’d said Labor was going to significantly reduce immigration, I probably would have keeled over dead with shock!!

<< The population groan for relief from the pack of power-hungry lying sociopaths they have ruling over them - and vote in the other pack of power-hungry lying sociopaths! It's like some kind of neurosis. >>

YES!! Well said.

Hwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwww!!

<< Continued population growth is probably the only way we will ever get governments to act on such matters - it will never be quite enough, and will inevitably be decades late, but still sufficient to keep not-too-far-behind our needs. >>

Interesting Pericles. So what you are really saying is that continued population growth will make the situation so bad that governments are forced to act!

And then yes, it will never be enough. They won’t be able to build enough infrastructure or duplicate enough services to get up to the quality that we had before the population influx that forced them to act!!

And yes again, it will always be behind our needs, chasing the tail of population pressure, struggling like blazes just to keep up the same level of infrastructure and services for ever-more people, without improving the quality of life for the original population at all…… and consuming most of our tax revenue and income from mining and other exports to do it!!

Soggy, Gillard did NOT knife Rudd! Rudd seeeeriously stuffed up! His party saw fit to relieve him of the PMship, something which they would only have done under very serious circumstances. Gillard as then deputy PM was his obvious replacement.

I remember seeing that Bob Hawke interview at the time back in 1983. While Bob should have kept his cool, I have no doubt that he was telling the straightforward truth. His party saw fit to put him in the leadership position. He didn’t knife Hayden.