No, it's not our money anymore

SirRumpole said:

I suppose its the nanny state again.

People have sued banks for failing to protect them from their own mistakes so there could be another side to the story.

Click to expand...

Yep. Aside from AUSTRAC reporting.


all financial institutions are very wary of having to carry the can for stupidity such as a person attempting to hand over around $100k to his overseas "girlfriend." Or preventing a transfer of $6m to a supposed conveyancer in a property transaction where it was noticed by the bank teller the person was transferring the money to a strange account and asked the customer to ring the conveyancer to verify.

For sure it'd be annoying being asked about personal matters associated with your funds and I can understand the dude being pi***d at missing out on a profit but I guess overall it's better he losing out on a profit than another person losing $6m if these questions were not asked.

Bellcose said:

Yep. Aside from AUSTRAC reporting.

https://www.austrac.gov.au/business/core-guidance/reporting

all financial institutions are very wary of having to carry the can for stupidity such as a person attempting to hand over around $100k to his overseas "girlfriend." Or preventing a transfer of $6m to a supposed conveyancer in a property transaction where it was noticed by the bank teller the person was transferring the money to a strange account and asked the customer to ring the conveyancer to verify.

For sure it'd be annoying being asked about personal matters associated with your funds and I can understand the dude being pi***d at missing out on a profit but I guess overall it's better he losing out on a profit than another person losing $6m if these questions were not asked.

Click to expand...

Is it better that he loses anything so that a xxx does not lose $6m?
I strongly disagree, we are already taxed to the hilt to recompense mostly irresponsibility in both government and private lives, enough
And if i want to blow my assets on cheap champagne, whores and weed..in Canberra, where it is legal .why not?

qldfrog said:

Is it better that he loses anything so that a xxx does not lose $6m?
I strongly disagree, we are already taxed to the hilt to recompense mostly irresponsibility in both government and private lives, enough
And if i want to blow my assets on cheap champagne, whores and weed..in Canberra, where it is legal .why not?

Click to expand...

And where in any of this are you prevented from getting your funds to do that if you want? Also it isn't a taxation matter to withdraw your funds. It's use may be tracked however and if that results in a tax issue or some illegal aspect, that's your problem.

qldfrog said:

I just checked, it s not their ABC, you must be confused...rol
Even moving the investment just received back from an Australian money lender into a new investment into same company was not possible with CBA after hours (, literally) on the phone, i would believe anyone my upset neighbour included telling me how they can not access their money.
I am reducing..well crashing my CBA relationship for that reason.

Click to expand...

beat you to that by over a decade AND i took it in CASH ( after that interaction i would NOT trust a bank cheque )

and more importantly earned CBA a permanent slot on my AVOID list ( of what to invest in )

i haven't had an account with WBC , but have heard tales over the years of their customer relations

maybe it is my social circle but have heard less negatives about ANZ and NAB ( i hold neither share currently )

Bellcose said:

And where in any of this are you prevented from getting your funds to do that if you want? Also it isn't a taxation matter to withdraw your funds. It's use may be tracked however and if that results in a tax issue or some illegal aspect, that's your problem.

Click to expand...

that will happen , eventually , some big emergency where withdrawals will be suspended for a while , or all transfers need to be done electronically

there has been a trend of closing 'uneconomic ' branches for over a decade ( by several banks )

Bellcose said:

And where in any of this are you prevented from getting your funds to do that if you want? Also it isn't a taxation matter to withdraw your funds. It's use may be tracked however and if that results in a tax issue or some illegal aspect, that's your problem.

Click to expand...

I just gave you a precise concrete example of fully clean activity.
I repeat for your guidance
Received $50k from money lender X, i know it is risky, etc
But the next day was not able to send these same 50k back from my cba account and after hours on the phone with india, i had to give up and do it via HSBC etc..i have a collection of accounts with several providers
The funding was delayed by a day but i was not locked out completely
So a very precise case of not being able to access my money from CBA.
I also explained the issue with crypto exchange funding.
No it is not taxation issue, it is control and access.i do no fraud
Your above post is interesting:
You do not want to read about inconvenient factuals , and voluntarily or not, bypass the inconvenient bit and are angry against the truthteller...
A bit like those protesting DOGE revealing frauds or corruption
You are in good company in the west, especially in Australia which is nailing a habit of jailing whistleblowers..the covid period was a telltale so you are right all the other voices are naughty conspiracy spreaders, nazi if you vote ALP, commies if you are LNP?

more food for the chooks:

CBA, AUSTRAC and our Orwellian privacy laws​

• Louis Christopher
• 21 May

Last Tuesday, I was blindsided by an email from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) demanding intimate details about my financial life. They wanted to know how I built my wealth, why I made certain transactions, and whether I hold cash at home—all within seven days, or they’d freeze my accounts.
I first thought it was spam. But no, it was real.

Citing AUSTRAC, Australia’s anti-money laundering regulator, CBA’s demands felt like an invasion, a dystopian overreach that left me reeling. This wasn’t just bureaucracy; it was personal. Here’s what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what it means for our privacy.

Know your customer​

AUSTRAC’s Know Your Customer (KYC) rules, under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, require banks to identify and verify customers to prevent financial crimes like money laundering and terrorism financing. Banks must collect and verify identity details, monitor transactions, and report suspicious activities. For higher-risk customers—like those in cash-intensive businesses or certain industries—enhanced due diligence applies. CBA’s email aligns with these obligations, as banks must ensure customer information is current and accurate, or risk penalties like the $700 million fine CBA faced in 2018 for Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) breaches.

But the way CBA enforced these rules felt like a sledgehammer. Demanding I justify how I made my wealth. Demanding to know if I keep cash at home and why; with threats to lock my accounts, isn’t just compliance—it’s intimidation and a potential security risk for me and my family. It should be noted that AUSTRAC released a statement to the media surrounding my experience that they do not require the banks to freeze customer accounts in order to meet their KYC rules.

Nevertheless, banks are under pressure to avoid AUSTRAC’s wrath, so they cast wide nets, collecting more data than necessary to cover themselves. This overreach raises ethical dilemmas: where’s the balance between security and personal autonomy? My financial history is mine, not a bank’s to interrogate at will. The Privacy Act 1988 requires businesses to limit data collection to what’s necessary, yet CBA’s demands felt speculative, as if I’m guilty until proven innocent.

It should be noted the call ended with the bank demanding they can share this very personal information about me to other third parties including other commercial credit providers.

What's next?​

This experience signals a troubling future for community privacy. If banks can demand such intrusive details under AUSTRAC’s banner, what’s next? The global shift to ISO20022 for international fund transfers, implemented in 2022, means even more personal data is collected and shared with regulators. Cash, a last bastion of private transactions, is under threat – the query about my holding of cash at home felt like a nudge toward a cashless society where every move is tracked. This erodes trust. If banks treat customers like suspects, people may turn to unregulated channels, ironically undermining AUSTRAC’s goals by reducing transparency.

What’s next for personal information requirements? Expect tighter regulations. AUSTRAC’s push for robust AML/CTF frameworks means banks will likely demand more frequent updates to customer data, especially as fintech and digital currencies grow. The Consumer Data Right, already active in banking, could expand, giving consumers some control over data sharing but also normalizing constant data flows. Yet, without stronger privacy protections, this risks a surveillance state where personal freedom is sacrificed for security.

This isn’t just about me—it’s about all of us. CBA’s demands, driven by AUSTRAC, highlight a system prioritising compliance over ethics. We need clear boundaries on data collection, robust oversight to prevent overreach, and a public conversation about privacy in a digital age. I’m not a criminal, and neither are most Australians. We deserve better than to be treated like suspects in our own lives.

Louis Christopher is Managing Director of SQM Research.

... there is a comments section after the article, and worrh a read

CBA, AUSTRAC and our Orwellian privacy laws

Imagine receiving an email from your bank demanding to know if you keep cash at home and threatening to freeze your accounts if you don't respond in seven days. This happened to me and it raises disturbing questions.

www.firstlinks.com.au

Dona Ferentes said:

more food for the chooks:

CBA, AUSTRAC and our Orwellian privacy laws​

• Louis Christopher
• 21 May

Last Tuesday, I was blindsided by an email from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) demanding intimate details about my financial life. They wanted to know how I built my wealth, why I made certain transactions, and whether I hold cash at home—all within seven days, or they’d freeze my accounts.
I first thought it was spam. But no, it was real.

Citing AUSTRAC, Australia’s anti-money laundering regulator, CBA’s demands felt like an invasion, a dystopian overreach that left me reeling. This wasn’t just bureaucracy; it was personal. Here’s what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what it means for our privacy.

Know your customer​

AUSTRAC’s Know Your Customer (KYC) rules, under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, require banks to identify and verify customers to prevent financial crimes like money laundering and terrorism financing. Banks must collect and verify identity details, monitor transactions, and report suspicious activities. For higher-risk customers—like those in cash-intensive businesses or certain industries—enhanced due diligence applies. CBA’s email aligns with these obligations, as banks must ensure customer information is current and accurate, or risk penalties like the $700 million fine CBA faced in 2018 for Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) breaches.

But the way CBA enforced these rules felt like a sledgehammer. Demanding I justify how I made my wealth. Demanding to know if I keep cash at home and why; with threats to lock my accounts, isn’t just compliance—it’s intimidation and a potential security risk for me and my family. It should be noted that AUSTRAC released a statement to the media surrounding my experience that they do not require the banks to freeze customer accounts in order to meet their KYC rules.

Nevertheless, banks are under pressure to avoid AUSTRAC’s wrath, so they cast wide nets, collecting more data than necessary to cover themselves. This overreach raises ethical dilemmas: where’s the balance between security and personal autonomy? My financial history is mine, not a bank’s to interrogate at will. The Privacy Act 1988 requires businesses to limit data collection to what’s necessary, yet CBA’s demands felt speculative, as if I’m guilty until proven innocent.

It should be noted the call ended with the bank demanding they can share this very personal information about me to other third parties including other commercial credit providers.

What's next?​

This experience signals a troubling future for community privacy. If banks can demand such intrusive details under AUSTRAC’s banner, what’s next? The global shift to ISO20022 for international fund transfers, implemented in 2022, means even more personal data is collected and shared with regulators. Cash, a last bastion of private transactions, is under threat – the query about my holding of cash at home felt like a nudge toward a cashless society where every move is tracked. This erodes trust. If banks treat customers like suspects, people may turn to unregulated channels, ironically undermining AUSTRAC’s goals by reducing transparency.

What’s next for personal information requirements? Expect tighter regulations. AUSTRAC’s push for robust AML/CTF frameworks means banks will likely demand more frequent updates to customer data, especially as fintech and digital currencies grow. The Consumer Data Right, already active in banking, could expand, giving consumers some control over data sharing but also normalizing constant data flows. Yet, without stronger privacy protections, this risks a surveillance state where personal freedom is sacrificed for security.

This isn’t just about me—it’s about all of us. CBA’s demands, driven by AUSTRAC, highlight a system prioritising compliance over ethics. We need clear boundaries on data collection, robust oversight to prevent overreach, and a public conversation about privacy in a digital age. I’m not a criminal, and neither are most Australians. We deserve better than to be treated like suspects in our own lives.

Louis Christopher is Managing Director of SQM Research.

... there is a comments section after the article, and worrh a read

CBA, AUSTRAC and our Orwellian privacy laws

Imagine receiving an email from your bank demanding to know if you keep cash at home and threatening to freeze your accounts if you don't respond in seven days. This happened to me and it raises disturbing questions.

www.firstlinks.com.au

Click to expand...

To summarise in
It is inefficient with significant costs for companies and even more so for individuals,and is adding risks of cyber attacks.
Has it got any real purpose?

qldfrog said:

To summarise in
It is inefficient with significant costs for companies and even more so for individuals,and is adding risks of cyber attacks.
Has it got any real purpose?

Click to expand...

To answer my own question, i believe it is ultimately a self washing for the banks so that government can pretend to be happy with them, both seen as caring and harsh against drug/pedophiles/you name it and control the main Australia but turn a blind eye to the real nasty back office deals.

SirRumpole said:

I suppose its the nanny state again.

People have sued banks for failing to protect them from their own mistakes so there could be another side to the story.

Click to expand...

That other side to the story being the insane legal system which should not be able to hold a bank responsible for the bad financial decisions of an individual? The whole concept of personal responsibility being lost in our community? Yes, there is that side to it.

I have a friend who works at a high level for Comm Bank, she tells a lot of interesting stories about people coming in, wanting money for everything from stupid financial decisions to paying scammers (almost literally as stupid as classic Nigerian prince type scams), tellers have to navigate this minefield carefully, and of course grunt level tellers often defer these issues to higher level management and sometimes my friend ends up dealing with them personally, including dealing with conflicting laws making her guilty if she does or doesn't allow them to have their money. Can you imagine a system where the law just ****ed off, made people ultimately responsible for all of their own decisions, and allowed people like bank staff to just freely give advice without any fear of legal repercussion? Of course, the boat has sailed, but imagine (or for those old enough, remember) a country where the people had a unified identity and cared about the welfare of the community so that where it was obviously for the best, bank staff could do things like refusing to give money to a person because it was absolutely obvious they were being scammed, and no one would hold it against them even though it was technically illegal. Nah, diversity is our strength, diversity, division, divided, no shared community identity, even patriotism itself is demonised, just follow the exact letter of the law to cover your own arse, it's not like it will destroy the country in the big picture where everyone will ultimately lose out...

...I'll be in Australia next month, it has been about a year, the rapid decline started around 15-20 years ago (was slowly happening for longer) and has only accelerated since then. Difficult to exactly quantify, but using those rough quantities, that means I can expect things to be about 10-20% worse (as a percentage of total decline since the rapid decline started) every time I visit, which is about what I've observed on the last couple of visits. There are plenty of tangible things you notice when you've been away for 6-12 months or more, which people living there constantly don't seem to notice. It's honestly becoming horrific. One thing I'm noticing is the rapidly-growing number of Australians talking about wanting to get out and asking me about my experience of doing so. That one has really accelerated over the last year or two.

Sdajii said:

...I'll be in Australia next month, it has been about a year,

Click to expand...

leave your nice watches at home , wear a cheap copy ( on no watch at all like i do )

sure there will be video of the burglary or mugging , but the law has so much to do ( like ugly social media posts )

divs4ever said:

leave your nice watches at home , wear a cheap copy ( on no watch at all like i do )

sure there will be video of the burglary or mugging , but the law has so much to do ( like ugly social media posts )

Click to expand...

I'm a larger than average man and don't generally fear for my personal safety in Australia (In some of the most sketchy areas of WA and the NT, or very rarely in the worst parts of Melbourne or Sydney at 2AM it might happen, but it's super rare despite exploring almost literally every region of Australia including extended stays in some of the worst parts), but yeah, it is definitely more dangerous than it was and if I was a smaller than average man or a female I'd actually be scared of travelling in some parts of Australia these days and even the streets of Melbourne or Sydney aren't reliably safe in more than a few parts.

Thank goodness the police are chasing the real criminals such as those posting online against the official political narratives, and those who step in to stop burglars and thugs. I saw a guy at a train station in Melbourne terrorising everyone, he had already knocked an old lady off her feet, I went in and when he got in my face and yelled abusively I figured his head required a rapid introduction to the floor. I restrained the guy until everyone was safe, spend some time reassuring the elderly lady, and after everyone shook my hand and thanked me I left just in time to see police rushing into the station (I acted like I had no idea why and quickly made myself scarce). After that I looked into what would have happened had I stayed for two more minutes and apparently I'd have been charged with assault, despite literally everyone present thanking me and clearly seeing me as the good guy. No doubt they'd have found some excuse for the violent guy, but they very harshly punish anyone who does anything to make the community safer - this very consistent trend in Australian policing my seem counterintuitive and it's certainly utterly destructive to the country, but from a police perspective it makes perfect sense - if police policy reduces crime, fewer police are needed and the police force shrinks, meaning they're reducing their wages and many of them will lose their jobs. For the police force to be larger and more powerful, it needs more crime. This same pattern is seen in police forces in many countries, and in many other departments and industries, such as the obvious pharmaceutical/healthcare industry. If it sounds like I'm making this up or my conspiracy theory (yes, it is a conspiracy and yes, that makes me a conspiracy theory and that term needs to be destigmatised because actual conspiracies are a plague and it's not a bad thing to objectively see reality), take a look at statistics and see that any form of vigilantism, such as assaulting or killing a burglar or something like what I did or any form of community protection, consistently gets punished far more harshly than a simple bad person doing a bad thing for bad reasons. If you went out and killed someone at random you'd be treated far more lightly than if you went out and killed someone who had already killed others or raped children etc and everyone knew they were going to do it again and that's why you did it. It's statistically a very consistent trend and the reason is obvious. The community is deliberately prevented from protecting itself, and the punishment system is deliberately designed to produce more criminals (lock someone in prison for a while and they come out with a social stigma, legal restriction on ability to work legitimately, and they've just spent time in crime school establishing a network of illicit associates... what do you think is often going to happen? It's not rehabilitation, it is crime school, it's a criminal factory turning potentially productive members of the community into career criminals).

But, hey, we have a negative term, 'conspiracy theorist', for anyone who sees the reality of what is going on, to facilitate the deliberate destruction of the system.

In case you're wondering, no, I don't have a solution, other than on a personal level, which is to leave. In the 90s as a school kid I was jumping up and down talking about what was going to happen if we didn't wake up quickly (and I was suspended from school for doing so, not surprisingly). As a young adult it became obvious I was right and that there was no solution other than to leave.

Sdajii said:

I'm a larger than average man and don't generally fear for my personal safety in Australia

Click to expand...

LOL

that doesn't stop them

i remembering when touring Italy , a tour member was a victim of a pick-pocket , he felt a slim hand go into his pants and with one hand grabbed a small female by the neck lifted her shoulder high ( for a six foot six dude ) , and used the other hand to recover 7 wallets and 6 watches .. later the former Rugby Forward spent sometime urging the local police they should return all this stuff that wasn't his , to the owners

conversely i rarely display any signs of wealth , on a train ( in Brisbane ) on my way home from work .. very early in the morning , this guy comes from the other end of the train sits across from me and says ' i ought mug you ' ..

well i rubbed my stubbly chin looked him up and down , and quickly pointed out that his shoes were better than mine

he jumped off at the next station leaving me in peace

divs4ever said:

LOL

that doesn't stop them

i remembering when touring Italy , a tour member was a victim of a pick-pocket , he felt a slim hand go into his pants and with one hand grabbed a small female by the neck lifted her shoulder high ( for a six foot six dude ) , and used the other hand to recover 7 wallets and 6 watches .. later the former Rugby Forward spent sometime urging the local police they should return all this stuff that wasn't his , to the owners

conversely i rarely display any signs of wealth , on a train ( in Brisbane ) on my way home from work .. very early in the morning , this guy comes from the other end of the train sits across from me and says ' i ought mug you ' ..

well i rubbed my stubbly chin looked him up and down , and quickly pointed out that his shoes were better than mine

he jumped off at the next station leaving me in peace

Click to expand...

I'm certainly not saying I'm invincible, I'm not particularly big and against a group I'm absolutely useless if push comes to shove, but like you I don't display signs of wealth; it's a strange common human compulsion to do so, makes sense if you're trying to pick up a young thing to play with or impress in a business meeting, but it's not a great move if you're on the train etc. But you don't have to be the largest guy in the room to avoid trouble, you just have to avoid being either the easiest available victim (anything larger than average is generally sufficient) or the highest prize. Not flashing wealth makes me monetarily unappealing, not being female means no one wants my body, and being larger than average makes me not worth the effort for the assumed low payoff... despite the fact that I generally carry a lot more cash etc than the typical person, but as you say, it's better not to advertise some things.

Sdajii said:

One thing I'm noticing is the rapidly-growing number of Australians talking about wanting to get out and asking me about my experience of doing so.

Click to expand...

Here is another one.

So where do you spend most of your time?

What are the pros and cons?

SirRumpole said:

Here is another one.

So where do you spend most of your time?

What are the pros and cons?

Click to expand...

My personal adventures are a bit beyond the scope of this thread and would get quite off topic. I also wouldn't suggest my personal preferences would align with most Australians or most people reading this thread. But just briefly, I personally I like Laos. Without a doubt it has plenty of its own problems, and ironically, if I was Lao I would be keen to move to Australia as most of them are, which in the short term is a fantastic move for most of them in terms of tangible prosperity, although in terms of happiness it is a move backwards other than in the very short term. Thailand is very popular for reasons I understand but don't personally relate to (though right now I'm renting a big, beautiful house in a non tourist area of the north east of Thailand and am loving it here, partly because the native language, ethnicity and culture here is Lao and it hasn't been fully converted to Thai since Thailand conquered it, and I can walk 1km to the river and look across at Laos any time I like).

In terms of a country where a typical Joe Average can settle and expect a good future for himself and his family for the next couple of generations, that's a very different story. You'll find wealthy people living like kings and losers rotting in the gutter in any country, so any country can work for the right person and some people will rot wherever they are, but Australia is set up to be the next Venezuela with some extra nastiness on top, in a way most Australians, especially multigeneration Australians, are much less mentally and practically prepared for than Venezuelans were. Few will see it coming or believe it possible until it happens, despite the writing on the wall being clear and illuminated with spotlights at this stage.

Sdajii said:

My personal adventures are a bit beyond the scope of this thread and would get quite off topic. I also wouldn't suggest my personal preferences would align with most Australians or most people reading this thread. But just briefly, I personally I like Laos. Without a doubt it has plenty of its own problems, and ironically, if I was Lao I would be keen to move to Australia as most of them are, which in the short term is a fantastic move for most of them in terms of tangible prosperity, although in terms of happiness it is a move backwards other than in the very short term. Thailand is very popular for reasons I understand but don't personally relate to (though right now I'm renting a big, beautiful house in a non tourist area of the north east of Thailand and am loving it here, partly because the native language, ethnicity and culture here is Lao and it hasn't been fully converted to Thai since Thailand conquered it, and I can walk 1km to the river and look across at Laos any time I like).

In terms of a country where a typical Joe Average can settle and expect a good future for himself and his family for the next couple of generations, that's a very different story. You'll find wealthy people living like kings and losers rotting in the gutter in any country, so any country can work for the right person and some people will rot wherever they are, but Australia is set up to be the next Venezuela with some extra nastiness on top, in a way most Australians, especially multigeneration Australians, are much less mentally and practically prepared for than Venezuelans were. Few will see it coming or believe it possible until it happens, despite the writing on the wall being clear and illuminated with spotlights at this stage.

Click to expand...

Rea Australia, agree. It is as plane as the nose on your face and probably much the same across the West.

As per my other thread, we are examining our options and there are many considerations for us in the autumn of our life. Language, culture and whatnot.

Overarching all of this is geopolitical/racial/religious considerations. I see massive changes in the next decade or two and trying to predict that is no mean feat.

SirRumpole said:

Here is another one.

So where do you spend most of your time?

What are the pros and cons?

Click to expand...

high on your list should be access to health-care , it might not be fancy machines and sterile wards , but some other types of health-care are effective and affordable , i believe Thailand appeals to those who need private but affordable healthcare , but other areas should be acceptable , assuming you are fit enough to travel ( by air )

next on your list should be the life-style you want to have , quiet and laid-back without the finest of everything should give you many choices , only the best might limit you to several Arab nations/kingdoms

divs4ever said:

high on your list should be access to health-care , it might not be fancy machines and sterile wards , but some other types of health-care are effective and affordable , i believe Thailand appeals to those who need private but affordable healthcare , but other areas should be acceptable , assuming you are fit enough to travel ( by air )

next on your list should be the life-style you want to have , quiet and laid-back without the finest of everything should give you many choices , only the best might limit you to several Arab nations/kingdoms

Click to expand...

Healthcare is an important one, and absolutely, it's a big part of the appeal of Thailand for many people. I'm personally not a big fan of Thailand (at least the Thai part of Thailand) as a package deal but in terms of health care it's difficult to beat.

Just over the river (about 1km from where I am right now, which is also about the same distance to the nearest high quality hospital/healthcare), is a third world country where the healthcare could generously be described as... well... it's third world. I love Laos but if I ever had a serious health issue I'd want to be able to access better healthcare than they offer. Fortunately, it's just a quick trip across the bridge to brilliant standard healthcare with great prices, which is what most people in Laos with any money do. For anything serious which isn't a this-minute-emergency, it's good to know world class free healthcare is still available a plane ride away in Australia, probably at least for another 5-10 years before the system collapses and out here has better options even for Australians. We're already at the stage where plenty of people from countries like Australia come out here specirically and solely for health care, and of course that trend is only growing year after year. You can't systematically destroy a country and indefinitely provide brilliant quality healthcare for free, and the trend showing where it's all heading is already very clearly observable.

It should be said though that the absolute best health care is preventative. Eat exclusively unprocessed foods and avoid anything atificial, alcohol, excessive caffeine and other drugs especially pharmaceuticals unless absolutely essential (eg temporary antibiotics to prevent death from infection), and get plenty of exercise. I'll never be a Mr. Universe or win a marathon, but I regularly hike and climb, swim etc so that when I'm an old man I'll still be able to walk rather than be in a chair or bedridden, and a healthy lifestyle eliminates the vast majority of the likelihood you'll need significant healthcare support before you're on your way out as an elderly person.

Would I be correct in assuming that the problem that most see with Australia is continuing budget deficits caused by increasing welfare spending (NDIS etc) , reliance on government for healthcare and social services and not enough incentive for private enterprise in entrepreneurs?

This sounds like a page out of the Liberal party songbook, but there are relevant questions about how big government should be, and whether those that can afford to pay for their own healthcare, child care, education etc should be required to do so.

All sorts of issues would arise from these questions, it's the eternal battle of ideology, but us usual the practical considerations are often overlooked and buried under the ideological vomit.