Push for details as much as possible. I think you will find it’s more risky then there are being honest about .

So risky. Great government that puts new home owners under this pressure 😡

Surely these 5% deposit loans are also paying a higher interest rate to factor in too

Senator Malcolm Roberts What exactly are we watching closely?

banks will win taxpayers to pay for it

2% for single women, the same it's been for indigenous loans for a long time. How is that working out? What happens when the single woman isn't single after a couple of months?

Blind Freddy knows 5% deposits are a bad idea. 20% minimum to safeguard everyone. Of course with inflated property prices pushing $600,000 plus, that's a minimum $120,000 which is almost impossible when renting. Or as a young first home buyer.

Keating had no deposit loans of course when the interest went to 18% our young friends lost their homes if they did not have someone to go guarantor for them.

The question is who owns the major four banks, who in government have shares in these money laundering operations

The subprime financial crisis 2.0 in the making?

Australia is rapidly becoming Europe’s energy insurance policy because Germany’s post-2022 pivot away from cheap Russian gas has exposed deep vulnerabilities in its heavily industrialized economy. To combat factory shutdowns and industrial decline, Germany and the EU are building diversified supply chains, positioning Australia’s massive reserves of critical minerals and natural gas as the cornerstone of Europe's long-term resource security

So true , Labor closed the previous LNP government's policy allowing access to your own superannuation to fund a 10 or 20 percent deposit which makes low risk financial scence for first home buyers , yet they encourage 5 percent deposit which is much higher risk 🤔

Labor push up the rents and then blame everybody who held down a job

and how come THIS is allowed????? Approximately 48,000 non-citizens have accessed the Australian Government's 5% Deposit Scheme to buy or build a home since it was opened to permanent residents in July 2023. These buyers account for roughly 16% of all guarantees issued under the scheme. Why is it even allowed than NON CITIZENS can buy Australians assets, especially houses?

How can that be a government scheme? Thats wrong! You should ask what one plus one equals, they will say a window!

Well done, Senator Malcolm Roberts we need more like you like Pauline Hanson my Bernardi. We need these people to ask the hard questions. Liam Bartlett is a great reporter I only mentioned him off the top of my head because I find nearly all of the Fox News team exceptional. Any others just really good. I suppose we need real questions asked and real answers given answers cannot be given in some form of retribution has to be taken against these people that withhold public information.

No matter what they say, One Nation all the way 👍

havin u lot anywhere in the government is high risk

Many more default now which works to the banks & governments advantage 🙄

That's what the govt guarantee provided in lieu of LMI is for 🤦

You always ask the good questions Malcolm

ON a helping young home buyers again - NOT

It am banks have a 3% buffer on top of the loan interest rate at the time to allow for changes in rates. Does the government do the same ?

Well said one nation 💯 I be voting for one nation before we lose our country like UK

Come catch Malcom! By design everything is by design! These people are going to get caught out! The government will bail them out with a catch! They get equity and spare room access! It’s been written for years, it will happen and most likely a spare bedroom tax on the rich! Just like digital ID, currency and ai surveillance and it will prob happen before 2028.

Got to give him credit for actually answering the question… unlike others who” take it on notice “ but sounds like a word salad that says we are looking after our mates..

A circus made to go around, circle the wagon until the money cannot be traced.

another 1 being questions is taking it out on his pen..been a few lately doing this.

There needs to be an independent audit performed.

They have a fiduciary duty to the people - transparency being 1 of 11.

Thank goodness you are here Malcolm Roberts!!

They write the rules so they can rort the system

Remember the insulation policy? You know, the one overseen by Peter Garrett? Sounds pretty familiar only amplified

Smells of brown paper bags full of cash. Jobs for the mates

Senator Malcolm Roberts. RCP 8.5 is being dropped from climate modeling because it is no longer considered a plausible scenario for future greenhouse gas emissions. Developed more than two decades ago as part of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), RCP 8.5 represented an extreme high-emissions trajectory, assuming a world heavily reliant on coal with minimal climate policy intervention, projecting around 5°C of warming by 2100. Over time, however, empirical observations and energy trends have diverged from these assumptions—renewable energy, natural gas, and nuclear power have grown, while coal use is not expanding at the levels assumed. Research demonstrated that such a coal-dominated, high-emissions pathway was unrealistic from the outset. The scenario became embedded as the "business-as-usual" case in climate research, policy, and financial planning, despite being implausible. Its persistence led to a significant overemphasis on worst-case outcomes in both scientific publications and public discourse. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project's seventh phase (CMIP7) officially eliminated RCP 8.5 (and its CMIP6 successor SSP5-8.5) from the standard set of climate scenarios, acknowledging that high-end emissions projections are now inconsistent with observed trends and modern energy transition dynamics. This change reflects a major correction in climate modeling to align scenario inputs with realistic socio-economic and energy developments, rather than policy-driven effects. In summary, RCP 8.5 is retired because it was never a likely future: its assumptions about energy use and emissions have been empirically invalidated, so continuing to use it risks misleading research, policy, and public understanding.

"Why did the school ask the maths teacher to mark the maths tests?" That's basically the question. The Clean Energy Regulator still runs the scheme. It didn't hand control to the Clean Energy Council. It appointed them to maintain the approved product lists because they've already been assessing solar panels, batteries and inverters for years and have the technical systems in place to do it. The Regulator still sets the rules and audits compliance. � Clean Energy Council +1 Malcolm's question only sounds suspicious if you leave out the part where the Clean Energy Council has literally been doing this type of product assessment work for years.

The moment they mention “under the law”or “is entirely legal” or in the “legal framework”, it quickly translates into; They’ve spent a ton of money with lawyers exploring the very edges of the grey areas of the legal framework and formed their “policies” in those dark corners, definitely not in the good faith of the law, but a poofteenth of a maybe it’s legal and they’ll use even more taxpayer dollars to tie it up in court forever if they get caught out (While that is happening they’re getting their own way)

Excellent work Senator Roberts

Sounds like jobs for the boys.

If the ah and ums were taken out of this ,it would of only taken 30 seconds

Keep up the good work!

Join the government it’s the only way to get super rich In a few months

What a handball

The whole thing is there’s nothing clean about renewable energy. In fact it’s worse than all the other energy sources that we had previously.!!!🙄

Very fishy 🧡🧡🧡

Yep and tariff only applies once a year now , redundant

Is a job for the boys

Thank you 🙏 again Malcolm for letting us know what’s going on!!

What the hell, what do these guys actually do

Aar..are..umm.arrr..um..arr..arr..uum..ummm..arrr...arr..arr.. none of these people would get jobs in private sector