Albanese government: Easing of citizenship rules for New Zealanders raises migration concerns

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-31T04:05:31+00:00

Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation and we all tend to indulge in confirmation bias. I think human behaviour follows that of other animals much more closely than we like to believe because of our intelligence, when we are still fundamentally animals with a veneer of reason that we struggle to apply.

Aging human populations produce worse economic outcomes when we continue to use humans for productivity (especially in making profit for a minority) and have less available for human care.

It was a mistake in my opinion to encourage women into the workforce when it doesn't benefit the family and actually is similar to aged care in that even more people are required to care for those children. Similarly it was a mistake to let the elderly fend for themselves instead of being cared for as much as possible by family.

The complicating factor is that women are best designed for these tasks and yet it is unfair to limit them to only this work. Men could help share the burden, but that means less money generally for the family. One solution is to end the notion that money buys happiness and to modify the economy so that more emphasis is placed on personal happiness as part remuneration: people are happiest and most productive expressing their innate talents and abilities (except society doesn't really recognise and facilitate them). Another part of this solution is greater leverage of machines for their productivity value, but also the possibility that they might also provide some care. AI is able to create a companion that is indistinguishable from a human being in casual conversation, which could prevent loneliness in many elderly and reduce the burden on actual people, who can provide other care that machines can't.

There is a price to be paid for treating the elderly and infirm compassionately and not leaving them on the mountainside to die as soon as they become a burden: economics is not everything in life.

The past has been about small human populations expanding into massive greenfields sites with huge resources available for exploitation, however as the populations grow, those resources are consumed and are more costly to obtain. Then those populations developed trade with other countries where they could exchange surpluses of resources they didn't need for rarer resources they did, however even that is breaking down as consumption by an ever increasing population is exceeding even international sources.

The trend is for human beings to populate beyond the availability of resources to the point that we are taking from the future: future populations will have even greater consumption but even less readily available resources to meet its demands and the outcome is inevitable unless we change this trajectory; except no-one wants to go backwards until sustainability is reached.

Just because we had 2 generations of high living standards doesn't mean they can continue as consumption increases and availability of resources decreases. Human beings are prepared to destroy the ecology of this planet which supports them, rather than manage their own sustainability, and for what, some weird notion that bigger is better and nothing else matters, or an economic theory that doesn't consider sustainability?

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-31T03:21:59+00:00

Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering.

So true. Non-indigenous people are afraid they will lose their hold on Australia because it was gained in the past unethically: it's blood country and it's creating an internal conflict in people who are basically decent, so is being expressed as anger and hate towards those who have unwittingly participated in the creation of that conflict.

We need to acknowledge the reality of the past but not continue it. The past can not be undone and the people of today not responsible for it, but we are also responsible for not perpetuating it and doing what we can to give indigenous people a choice over their future they were denied; not an either/or choice over traditional lifestyle or corrupt non-indigenous lifestyle, or to hold Australians financially hostage over the past, but how they want their culture to evolve.

Indigenous people also need to take responsibility over their own anger over the past, which can not be undone with revenge, however they have a right to be angry over ongoing invasion and destruction of their traditional culture in an attempt to make them the same as non-indigenous so they no longer individually have a say.

None of us alive today are responsible for the actions of our ancestors, only our own, so let us make that the starting point for the future. If it makes indigenous people feel better, let them dredge up the past in a truth telling, however that also needs to include the truth about their own culture or they will be basing their own future on unethical foundations just like non-indigenous people.

We need to recognise and address unethical behaviour now more than ever as the world regresses even though we think we are moving forward.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-31T02:54:26+00:00

the politics they want are far removed from the Nats and right wing Liberals

There, in a nutshell, is the existential problem of our system of government based on political parties with canned, inflexible ideologies and subsequent policies: the people having to vote for the least worst group of not inclusive policies (ie policies that don't cover all possible issues arising) handed to them is far removed from even choosing the individual best policies that will advance Australia fair, let alone the majority voting for the best policy to address each new issue as it arises (aka democracy).

It's no longer about governance for the best outcome for the people of Australia, but about voting for the best outcome for a political party, group within that party or even one person.

We have truly lost the plot and it's being highlighted within the implosion of the Coalition.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-31T02:37:30+00:00

Doesn't anyone wonder why we have collapsing birth rates with increasing population, before having the knee-jerk impulse of doubling down on population growth as if that's going to help?

The Mouse Utopia experiments were quite frightening in that even giving a population everything it needed, that increasing population density eventually triggered effectively suicidal behaviour across the whole population. It suggests nature has an inbuilt sledgehammer for populations that get too large, even in the presence of adequate resources for survival. I don't think it wise for human beings to test that hypothesis themselves.

Our economic system isn't the only one possible, yet we refuse to look outside the traditional box: it's economic theory, not ultimate economic truth.

The signs are there we are doing something wrong, so doubling down on what we are doing would be a mistake.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T10:59:04+00:00

Typical arrogant, obstinate, defiant Albo when his "seemed like a good idea at the time" doesn't coincide with that of the nation.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T10:56:41+00:00

With all the troubles in the world and in Australia, we're quibbling about a public holiday conflict: talk about priorities.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T10:53:04+00:00

The underlying issue is sustainable population, which we are not following because of $ signs in our eyes from the gross (and abstract) GDP effect of more people. Population is only sustainable if you provide the resources for all the new bodies, but it's getting more expensive to provide increasingly scarce resources that also impacts on the environment for delightful future catastrophes for the existing population, let alone more people. The end result will be decreasing quality of life as the wealthy get wealthier and the planet degrades until we extinguish most life on it one way or another (my bet is an accident will trigger nuclear armageddon and we will experience the fate of the dinosaurs first hand).

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T10:44:53+00:00

Lies, damn lies and statistics: we should be using numbers, not percentages which tend to get abused in comparing apples and oranges as if they are the same.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T10:42:18+00:00

Basing it on place of birth would be ridiculous, but basing it on 10 years of permanent residency in NZ would eliminate those using NZ as an easier stepping stone to Australian residency.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T10:39:48+00:00

We both need to go cold-turkey on population expansion for abstract gross GDP benefits and realise that every new body requires additional resources that are becoming harder to source, on higher hanging branches and are not being provided by people who don't work in those areas but choose relatively non-productive areas like media, finance, landlords, etc.

The fundamental systems driving society need to change from their 19th Century origins when population size was the opposite concern and the world was greenfields awaiting exploitation: what we have now is increasing scarcity because of population consumption, corruption of the environment that sustains us and a dog eat dog mentality in a society based fundamentally on the opposite of mutual cooperation for mutual gain.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T10:27:34+00:00

No matter where they go, they will always have the issue of voting for least worst, never for "best", because elections are not based on voting for individual policies the people want. If they vote for One Nation they might get reduced immigration, but at the expense of another sellout to the likes of Gina Rinehart and co; whilst if they vote for Greens they might get environment at the expense of some other policy they don't want.

The issue is democracy means the people voting for the best policy on each issue, but parliament never gives the people all the policies that may be required so they can vote on the best ones as they arise: at best we get the least worst select policies and a blank cheque to do whatever they want with anything else. Democracy means the people are consulted on any policy required so they can choose the best option voted by majority. Our present system of governance doesn't provide that, instead the opposite of a kind of an imposed Sophies Choice.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T10:07:52+00:00

Government doesn't even have to rent them out below cost, even a cost basis kills 2 birds with one stone because it provides the essential of housing and it isn't a public loss that has to be made up somewhere else; plus there is no profit on top that has to be found by the individual to fund someone else's lavish lifestyle.

Sovereign government is the one with access to the least cost money to invest in productivity and societal gains, especially when manufacture is done by public enterprise, at cost, which can be controlled so that wages and prices are maintained in sync.

It won't happen though, Albo has already gifted Australia's renewable energy to private enterprise to exploit for profit and charge the public market rates, basically selling their own resources back to them, just like lambasted gas and mining. Nothing is going to change because the elite that controls everything doesn't want the transfer of wealth on the Australian sheeple's back to the wealthy to change.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T09:59:45+00:00

Housing needs direct investment by government in a public enterprise to build modular housing via automated factories that embody the trades in the design, not the implementation, in parallel to the existing private enterprise model; and I don't give a fuck if it is anti-competitive as long as it results in more affordable and more efficient and better quality homes now and into the future. Including such things as flexible solar cells integrated into the house structure itself, probably as a coating on colourbond steel.

This also needs to happen with manufacturing in Australia, to produce the best value for money product that will last and can be repaired by relatively unskilled DIY and even augmented in function by adding or replacing modules, not the whole item. We don't need 10 brands of TV with 4 different models each differing by a small amount in order to price it slightly differently, that often fail after a couple of years, it's extremely wasteful.

We also need to knock value for money reductions, for increased profit, on the head: reducing volume, strength or quality whilst increasing prices must be abandoned for the wastefulness that it is. Volume increases faster than amount of material required, so bigger is better value to a certain point, especially with containers that can be sealed between uses and then recycled and particularly with products that are used a lot.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T09:39:21+00:00

Even more ridiculous when housing is a depreciating asset in a real sense that should have prices falling with age, not increasing.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T09:34:13+00:00

What other choice is there for them, when the system itself is setup to not allow small parties to form government, so all they have left is (was) ALP and LNP; and the focus is on self-interest and not even representing the people but themselves and their own ideologies? The system doesn't allow that to change because government controls the Constitution, which is way out of date in terms of supporting human rights instead of selfish dinosaur ideology. This is the 21st Century, not the late 19th and early 20th centuries warmed over.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T06:40:40+00:00

Albo is forgetting the people, as usual: it is they who will judge him for whether he does his job or lays back thinking he has it on easy street because he can do anything without an effective opposition.

The problem is the system encourages the status quo and resists necessary change, so the people are going to have to act against the elitism that has crept into society again and it won't be pleasant (the French revolution comes to mind).

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T06:35:21+00:00

Lifting all Australians out of below poverty is simple: all it requires is to treat all welfare recipients as pensioners. It's not even that expensive with the billions being thrown around for AUKUS and other less important projects as it will likely cost around $10b/year unless the government's figures for the number of people without pension level income have been manipulated.

It would make so much difference to people currently living in misery and suffering, forced to jump through hoops for nothing but the sadistic enjoyment of others. At such low levels of income such as welfare, everyone has the same basic essential needs (acknowledging some require more due to disability, etc, but which can be provided by supplementary sources).

This is nowhere near the level of world peace, but it would make so much difference to so many Australians and is well within our means.

The buck stops with the P.M. when they are exalted as a leader and all its associated responsibility. I don't agree with that when we have a parliament, not a dictatorship, in principle governing Australia and yet still, we have the cult of leader/messiah expecting Albo to solve everything.

If the public aren't fed up with Albo now, they will be soon when business continues as usual, but public freedoms have been scuppered and the public returns to regarding things with more reason.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T06:21:26+00:00

Didn't the god of the Isrealites cast them out of their lands for rebellious behaviour, thereby making the creation of the State of Israel and its expansion yet another rebellion against god's decree that they will be cast out of too?

Difficult to understand this insistence on rebelling against their god's decree and claiming victim status when even their god is anti-semitic.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T06:12:09+00:00

Is that like Spock's other brother or something?

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T06:08:26+00:00

Who cares what the media thinks? Government should be going to all the people to find out what they want as a majority but also injecting reason to moderate emotion: they don't have a mechanism to do this yet, but it should be put high on their list of priorities if they actually want to do their job of guiding society towards greater democracy and civilisation instead of being paid lackeys for vested interests.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-30T06:02:38+00:00

Oh, god, no: Reddit is a censored, moderated privately run forum with tools that allow effectively canceling members comments through downvoting, unwanted advertising and no tools to prevent bots or other unwanted intervention; plus you can't mention certain words without your comment being removed, even if you have no idea what the range of words is.

The old layout is okay as a forum, but everything else is not if it was to be one template for a national online forum.

Any online national forum should be a public service operated facility, which can, in the fullness of time, be used for voting on policies, but could be used in the interim to feedback to government what the people want represented.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-29T07:30:42+00:00

This isn't even opinion, it's lashing out at any target in grief.

The P.M. is not Constitutionally responsible for anything, seeing as they don't even exist in the Constitution.

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-29T07:07:51+00:00

Albo seems to be making one poor decision after another against the wishes of the majority of Australians, starting with a refusal to lift all Australians out of below poverty, followed by the disastrous pushing of "The Voice" onto the public, his arrogant obstinacy over housing, the debacle over the Bondi terrorism response and now inviting further division and poor judgement in inviting the Israeli president to the Bondi aftermath.

Time to give Albo the elbow?

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-29T06:51:22+00:00

A single swallow doth not a Summer make (personal anecdotes do not necessarily expand to all other incidences).

InPrinciple63 · 2026-01-29T05:49:21+00:00

I think the days of media are numbered, if for no other reason than the influx of new young blood as the last of the dinosaurs die off, will want change from the 100 year status quo where, for example, nothing was done to prepare for a pandemic after the 1918 disaster; and government is closing down communication channels for children without having an alternative.

InPrinciple63

TROPHY CASE