< …Labor has to get its act together if it aims to offer a viable alternative to the Coalition after three or six years and so far this seems unlikely with the choice of Bill Shorten as the party leader… >

Too right, Peter.

That direction is clear-cut to me, as I have espoused over and over on OLO: Sustainability!

As per Kelvin Thomson’s vision, which he has been pushing for years.

He is the one and only Labor MP, and a very long-standing one at that, who has the right idea!

And he was re-elected last time with the biggest majority of any Labor member.

Reduce immigration progressively down to net zero or at least 70 000. Head for a stable population or at least one that is growing at a much slower rate.

Consequently, greatly reduce the enormous burden of having to constantly provide ever-more infrastructure and services and forever fix up overstressed existing I&S and environmental damage.

This basic platform is surely so obvious! It is something that would surely appeal greatly to the voters…. and get Labor back into power, and the country finally on the right track!

So obvious! Really, Labor is just not going to cut it if they don’t do this. And when they finally do win back power, it will be a case of the voters picking the party that they despise the least, rather than one they truly support…. … … and the country will continue to be steered in entirely the wrong direction.

Ludwig, you are onto it. I been saying all along that we don't need those pesky consuming asylum seekers. We need to control our population. Good start. Now we have to tackle infrstructure and services. I reckon we should start by converting universities into housing for the homeless (and those asylum seekers). The money that would have gone to universities could be used to fund the unemployed (and other bludgers on the public purse) to start subsistance farms. Why should our funds be used for the elite? And those not working really should be looking after themselves.
You (obviously unintentionly) omitted euthenasia. This would be a terrific step forward and provide a way to reduce the (increasingly) aging population making claims for pensions and further burdening the health system. Actually we could probably get rid of that too. Survival of the fittest seems like a good idea and will further assist the spiralling of our population figures.

As you said "so obvious". Those working their little farms wont need roads as they will be trading their wares with those around them and will bee too busy to go anywhere. Like wise the grey nomads wont need 4wds and roads. The new regime will also deter those thinking of coming to Australia.

We will have our land back to a sustainable level in no time flat.

Oh Sparkyq, you started out OK, but then you went totally off the rails.

What we should do is give everyone over 55 a nice Holden, or Falcon souped up V8.

Next we raise the speed limit to 200Km/H for all the oldies.

This simple step solves most of our problems in just one movement. To start with, it will keep Ford & Holden manufacturing cars here, with all those necessary jobs. It will also mean we will harvest all that oil under the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef. More jobs all round.

Secondly it should ensure a rapid reduction in all those troublesome old farts. If we remove the requirement for seat belts, air bags, & fool things like ABS & brake assist from these issued V8s that could speed up the population turnaround even more.

Soon everyone is busy & rich, building cars & pumping oil. We will be so prosperous, every useless yobo from around the world will want in to enjoy the fun.

Hasbeen, you too started out well and, like me, went off the rails.
We don't want yobos from around the world to join in (there are enought arriving by boat at the moment). Ludwigs idea is that we reduce the population not allow all and sundry in. Oh and I like the idea of the V8s but alas, too many emmissions and thus environmental damage ( and the buggers would want more infrastructure to drive them on).

Na Sparkyq, there wouldn't be enough left after the first year or so to need any extra infrastructure.

As for pollution, just consider the CO2 produced as our contribution of fertiliser to the starving billions elsewhere.

Do be careful what you refer to as pollution. Get it that wrong, & next thing you'll have a class action on your table.

Thank you Hasbeen, I stand chastised. (Mind you I wouldn't mind a bit of class action, on my table or any where elese for that matter)