I fear the seed of revolution are being sown.
So much discontent breeds disillusion and disillusion leads to social anarchy.
We are not some radical free franchise like Turkey or France driven to venting our frustrations in the streets.
We have no constitutionally guaranteed rights that allow full and frank freedom of speech or equality before the law.
We are here to do as we are told, to be guided by our masters whomever they be and provide all the financial ammunition they need to support their political machinations and the indulgent gratification prerequisites of the minorities.
Revolution is an answer, probably not the correct one at the moment. There is a better one.
Simply withdraw from the UN conventions on refugees and social niceties and spend on ourselves.

No Belly, they are nowhere near being oil independent.
Even with the shale oil going flat out, they still import 40% of the
oil they use.
You have been reading the investment propaganda for the shale oil
industry as they are having trouble keeping the finance up to keep up
with the Red Queen phenomena due to the rapid decline of shale oil
well production which averages 60% a year.
Calculations indicate that shale oil production will start declining
either later this year or in the next two years.

Shale oil is properly known as "tight" oil as the pours in shale are
very small and it takes a lot of effort to get the oil to flow.
That is why they frack it, to increase the surface area.
Despite all the money spent on shale the total oil production has
only increased by almost 1 million barrels a day and is only just
keeping up with the old wells decline.
The rate of decline of the old oil is increasing and as old oil is
still about 30 times the shale production you can see the impossible
task shale oil has.

Australian infrastructure is failing because during the Howard years, instead of using the income from mining to repair, maintain and increase infrastructure, it was all blown on tax reduction making the rich richer.
Shale oil is only popular with the oil companies, the locals are seeing their land and water poisoned for the foreseeable future. That isn't preventing State governments here from granting miners the right to poison our soils and water tables.
We're stuffed

Voterland old chap, you can't cap the population of a region.

Now if you suggest we stop all immigration, of all kinds, that would cap the countries population, & do a great deal of good for everyone, but you can't stop people living where ever they chose in a democracy.

I don't know that this is a Labor thing. The NSW Government (Coalition) has new planning legislation being considered that is all about growing the population and we have already insufficient hospital and schools capacity and roads that resemble parking lots. The only way they can afford anything is to sell off the assets we so painstakiingly acquired. Both major parties are at fault, but really it is us the voters who are at fault. After all, we could elect more competent MPs. This is also not a refugee item. Of couorse we shold take refugees, but they should come the right way, not by boat. This is pay back for us invading Iraq & Afghanistan. They never thought of coming before. MOre fools the politicians who led those invasions.
Governments are not really trying to attract boat people, but they are tryingto attract others to Australia. It is not just health. Foreign ownership is pricing our kids out of homes in Sydney. Most counntreis are not silly enough to sell most of their real estate and power utilities to foreigners. We need to get our infrastructure right, then attract people here, but develop inland so that housing is far more affordable. We don't have to block foreigners. We just have to move sensibly to expand our population.

<< …you can't cap the population of a region >>

Hazzabeen, why not?

If things became really bad, why couldn’t the government, state and/or federal, pass legislation to prevent anyone else from moving into a region or city or town, until the supporting resources/services/infrastructure are up to catering for further increase?

Meanwhile, it makes eminent sense for governments to implement disincentives for people moving into R/S/I stressed cities or regions.

Governments SHOULD strive to influence where people choose to live if their choices are likely to cause serious problems.

<< Now if you suggest we stop all immigration, of all kinds, that would cap the countries population, & do a great deal of good for everyone… >>

Yes!

But even if that were to happen tomorrow, the government should still consider policies to slow the rate of population increase into some cities or regions. Afterall, even with no immigration we would still have population growth for perhaps three decades from births before it levelled off of its own accord.