At the recently concluded G20 meeting, Treasurer Joe Hockey committed Australia to 3 per cent economic growth, which is well above the official forecast of 2.5 per cent for Australia and the 2 per cent commitment the world's greatest treasurers have made in the G20 communique ("Hockey in ambitious bid for 3 per cent growth", February 24).

Coincidentally, I have just watched, on ABC TV, a re-run of Peter Thompson's Talking Heads interview with the Canadian environmentalist and broadcaster, David Suzuki, which first went to air in November 2010. David Suzuki said, “... I feel humiliated that I live in a country that demands more already. Why do we cling to the notion that not only must we maintain the current level of consumption, but that it must continue to grow by an exponential factor of 2 to 7 per cent every year? It's ludicrous – we cannot continue to sustain that … I believe that we have to aim not for zero, but for negative growth.”

Joe Hockey has embraced a 3 per cent target for growth, but is more consumption possible or desirable?

Is the Australian government's pledge wise? Is it believable? From where can the commitment of 3 per cent economic growth come from, when it seems manufacturing is collapsing, agriculture is declining because of evermore frequent droughts, and the government itself admits it is struggling to rid Australia of debt?

It's time for us to wise up and listen more closely to people like Suzuki, whose comments apply just as urgently to Australia as they do to Canada. He, to my mind, is much more believable and sensible that our present elected leaders.

Barry Filshie Port Macquarie