RBA Governor Bullock: “Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing.”
– Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand that household inflation expectations have a big impact on inflation itself. At the economic roundtable, Treasurer Chalmers said: Real wages are growing at their strongest rate in five years, inflation has a two in front of it and interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months. People are still talking about high grocery bills and inflation in insurance premiums and all kinds of insurance. What does that do to people’s expectations of inflation?
Ms Bullock: Well, all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2½ per cent. That’s what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2½ per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have a quick question before I go to a separate topic. What does having 4.5 million visa holders, non-citizens, in the country do to demand for houses and to the price of houses?
Ms Bullock: Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing you have.
RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits
Labor’s ‘Big Australia’ mass migration project, designed to shore-up Albanese’s vote at the next election, has created a catastrophic housing shortage.
Everyone knows it.
Even if the media and self-interested uniparty choose to deny the facts.
Young people across the country know it too. They are the ones standing in rental lines behind 50 people who cannot speak English, trying to decipher rental signs written in a foreign language and clearly pitched to everyone except Aussie kids.
They feel upset. Betrayed. Left out. And ignored.
These Australians know they are competing against Labor’s migration agenda, not organic competition like their parents and grandparents faced. This is not, in any way, a ‘fair’ housing market.
When these young Australians decide to ditch the soul-crushing rental queue and take on the dream of home ownership that changed their parents’ lives – they discover an even worse situation.
The price of homes, including small city apartments in the areas they need to live to keep their jobs, are unattainable.
Some of this price increase is to do with greedy government fees and charges, while the rest is a consequence of too much demand from people who live outside the Australian economic cost-of-living crisis. Foreign buyers often have the means to push prices well above what they should be.
In Australia, house prices have advanced much faster than the average wage. Even those earning $100,000 per year – once considered a mark of success – feel that home ownership is financially impossible. These people are no longer considered to be ‘doing well’. They are struggling.
Not to mention that the average worker has a considerable amount of their wage taken as ‘super’ and given to union funds to play the stockmarket. This makes union super funds rich and pushes huge volumes of investment money into projects – usually in the green industry – that otherwise would never receive private funding. $4.5 trillion has been taken out of people’s pockets and locked away. This money remains untouchable until someone turns 65. 8-10% of Australians will die before they access their super (or 56% of Indigenous Australians). That money used to be used for home investment and there is good reason to believe that compulsory super is one of the contributing factors to a major drop in home ownership amongst the middle and working classes.
There are ways to immediately improve the housing situation – the most obvious being the deportation of visa overstayers and a severe cut to migration. This would immediately free up hundreds of thousands of properties for domestic buyers and renters.
That would benefit Australians and massively hurt the political class and their major financial backers.
Instead of doing the right thing, Chalmers & Co have designed a system to turn a profit from the hardship and desperation of young Australians.
In August of 2025, the Labor government introduced their 5% deposit scheme for first home buyers. There is also another version of this for single parents to buy a home with a 2% deposit.
Labor described this as ‘helping more Australians realise their dream of home ownership’ where the government (taxpayers) ‘guarantee a portion of a first home buy’s home loan with a lower deposit and not pay Lenders Mortgage Insurance’.
Their argument is this:
‘All first home buyers will have access, with no caps on places or incomes limits. Property price caps will also be set higher in line with the average house prices, providing access to a greater variety of homes.’
Predictably, this did not unlock more desirable homes – it created an almost immediate increase in home prices. Labor said it would be 0.6% over the medium term. Instead, it was 3.6% in the first quarter. The developers win. Ministers in Canberra with property portfolios win.
Finder says the average loan amount for first home buyers in December 2025 was $607,624. This is a huge sum of money. In 2015, you could expect a first homebuyer to take on $333,500. Westpac says first homebuyers are typically over 40. This shows you how much harder it is to get enough financial security to consider buying a home.
And while the ‘average wage’ is listed as $104,000, it’s suspected that this figure is skewed and the real average is probably closer to $88,000. After tax that’s around $69,000.
If you think this whole thing sounds like a bad idea, you’re right.
To translate it into economic reality, Labor is encouraging and actively changing the rules to allow young Australians to take on loans they cannot realistically afford (and would not be normally given) right when the RBA has warned it will continue to raise the cash rate – which it has done multiple times since the scheme began.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said he did his degree in ‘Paul Keating’ – now he is in danger of re-creating Keating’s gravest mistake.
A person with a normal mortgage that they attained under strict rules is already suffering under the RBA rate rises. Individuals who took on a 95% mortgage are at a very serious risk of defaulting. It only takes a small rate rise on a sum of money this large to lead them into disaster.
An entire generation of vulnerable, trusting Australians have been led into imminent economic ruin by a government that thought 5% deposits were nothing more than a vote-buying game.
It isn’t a game.
It’s people’s lives.
People’s futures.
This isn’t about ‘votes for Labor’ for people who think the government is ‘gifting’ them a house, it’s about Australians watching their savings burn and homes taken off them in a time of economic uncertainty.
It’s rare to find a government that cares so little about young people – although we know exactly why they did it.
Mass migration is a vote buying operation for the Labor Party. They cannot give it up, even though home ownership is the leading election topic among their rising young demographic that is in danger of being taken by the Greens. Labor has made a wager on a short-term vote winner with no regard for the coming disaster.
Even the Daily Mail warned of an impending catastrophe after the latest RBA cash rate rise highlighted a significant rise in risky mortgages (4% of the total market!)
To quote:
‘While the banks are insulated by the government guarantee, which covers the first 15% of any losses from these loans, households are exposed. The banks are fine. The main risk falls on individuals.’
It’s widely expected war in Iran, and the high petrol prices and fuel insecurity that flow on from this scenario, will increase inflation and lead to even more rate rises in the near future.
Government debt – also known as Chalmers’ spending spree – is the main driver of inflation and the interest repayments on this blackhole are climbing every day.
When debt passes $1 trillion – which it is expected to do shortly – interest payments will cost $60 million per day or $41,667 every minute.
Every Australian – whether they are an infant or retired – owes $806.65 every year in just interest. And that’s if Chalmers stops spending right now. And to pay off the $1 trillion debt tomorrow, it would require every person to cough up $36,850.01.
If fuel prices increase (or fuel rationing starts), we can expect a catastrophic loss of businesses and, therefore, jobs. How many young people will lose their jobs and be unable to service these mortgages?
The uniparty doesn’t care. The government never loses.
It raises taxes. It tightens your belt so it can eat more money.
Remember, if you think the LNP are any better, they have their own reasons for supporting ‘Big Australia’. The Howard government marked the start of mass migration. All Coalition governments since have done nothing to change it and they never will.
One Nation are desperately worried about the future young people face.
We have a comprehensive policy to cut immigration by over 570,000 and to deport 75,000 migrants visa over-stayers, illegal workers, and unlawful non-residents who threaten our national security. We also have a housing policy to ensure unnecessary fees, charges, and taxes are cut to get homes built without destroying our green spaces or cultural heritage.
One Nation is here to make a genuine difference for you, not Canberra.
Labor TRAPPED young people by Senator Malcolm Roberts
RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Housing.jpg?fit=654%2C657&ssl=1657654Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-26 10:14:112026-03-26 10:14:24Labor Trapped Young People
During Estimates, I tabled a graph from the ABS, showing that electricity prices surged by 23% over two years. While the Government used temporary subsidies to mask the pain, those subsidies have now ended, leaving millions of Australians to face the brutal reality of a 16% “catch-up” spike in their bills.
During our exchange, I pointed out that while subsidies briefly brought headline inflation down to 7%, the underlying cost of power never actually fell and that once the relief stopped, the inflationary shock would be incredible.
The RBA admitted that headline inflation would rise as rebates expired, yet they continue to “look through” these costs to focus on their own definitions of underlying inflation.
I discussed with Governor Bullock on how these soaring energy costs are gutting our national productivity. While the Treasurer talks about “strong real wages,” everyday Australians know the truth when they see their grocery bills and insurance premiums.
The RBA believes inflation expectations are “anchored,” yet you can’t anchor a household budget when the lights cost 23% more to keep on.
You cannot subsidise your way out of an energy crisis. You only delay the pain.
During this session, I also asked some questions on Central Bank Digital Currency, quantitative easing, credit creation and funding the deficits., and I thank Governor Bullock for her well informed and honest answers.
– Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I have circulated a graph from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Ms Bullock, I certainly appreciate your direct and concise answers. I think you have talked quite a bit about how the RBA is looking through the energy bill subsidies and impact on headline inflation. What are you seeing in the underlying increases in the price of electricity? As I show in that graph, it has increased 23 per cent in two years. That seems like an incredible shock to the economy. How do you think about that? What is the impact of your management of inflation?
Ms Bullock: So there are two aspects to that. What you will see from this graph that you have pointed out is that it rises in June 2023. That was the delayed energy price shock that many other countries saw following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Basically, then, it’s a new price level. The price level has risen, but you haven’t seen inflation because the level has just been the same.
Senator ROBERTS: Flat?
Ms Bullock: So there is a step up in the level. There has been a more recent increase, as we’ve seen the default market offers rates come out. Basically, the way we would think about it is that, in a direct sense, if you’ve got a supply shock, you’ve got a new price level. That doesn’t necessarily lead to ongoing inflation and an impact on inflationary expectations. We can afford to say that’s a level shift and we will look through it. The extent to which it has indirect impacts through cost impacts on businesses, that’s where we would watch to see that it wasn’t feeding through into consistent and persistent inflation. So far, it doesn’t seem to be driving persistent inflation, the increase in the price level for energy.
Senator ROBERTS: What are your thoughts about when the energy bill relief stops?
Ms Bullock: Well, the energy bill relief, obviously, is government policy. They put it in place to address the cost of living. Your graph shows why—because energy prices rose quite a lot. It has moved the inflation figures around quite a bit. As I’ve discussed in many other contexts, we’ve therefore looked at the underlying inflation to get an idea of the underlying pulse of inflation. That is what we have been focusing on in order to base our interest rate decisions.
Senator ROBERTS: We saw the government’s economic roundtable was supposedly focused on productivity. What do rising energy costs do to productivity? What is the impact, then, on the standard of living?
Ms Bullock: I don’t know if there’s a very direct impact of rising energy costs on productivity. There’s a much more fundamental thing about productivity, and that’s dynamism in the economy and dynamism among businesses. What we have been observing for decades is that productivity growth has been declining not only here but overseas. To some extent, at least, the evidence suggests that lack of dynamism in business is part of the reason for that.
Senator ROBERTS: So the underlying inflation on the electricity index is at 23 per cent. Including subsidies, it has been brought back to seven per cent. Many consumers still have about a 16 per cent increase to catch up with. What will that do to inflation numbers in the future?
Ms Bullock: Well, headline inflation, as you’ll see from our forecasts, will rise as the energy rebates come off. But the more important thing is what is happening to the underlying pulse of inflation. We are continuing to see that decline.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand that household inflation expectations have a big impact on inflation itself. At the economic roundtable, Treasurer Chalmers said: Real wages are growing at their strongest rate in five years, inflation has a two in front of it and interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months. People are still talking about high grocery bills and inflation in insurance premiums and all kinds of insurance. What does that do to people’s expectations of inflation?
Ms Bullock: Well, all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2½ per cent. That’s what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2½ per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have a quick question before I go to a separate topic. What does having 4.5 million visa holders, non-citizens, in the country do to demand for houses and to the price of houses?
Ms Bullock: Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing you have.
Senator ROBERTS: It has been six months since the new board arrangements started. How is that working so far?
Ms Bullock: I think it is working well. The monetary policy board now has more time to focus on monetary policy decisions. The governance board, I think, is adding significant value in helping me. I was the sole accountable authority for the institution. Now the governance board is the accountable authority. My own view is that the people on that board are adding significant value.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there going to be a review of these changes?
Ms Bullock: The governance board is going to do a report, I think, by the end of the year. It is going to talk about all of the recommendations from the review, where we’re at with meeting them and what our plans are to meet those that we haven’t yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You actually have three boards—the monetary board, the governance board and the payment system board. Have there been any developments coming from the work the Reserve Bank is doing on electronic payment systems, whether that’s some form of central bank digital currency, which I think your predecessor acknowledged was done, or a unified digital currency the banks have been talking about? Is anything happening there in either the domestic market or international settlements?
Ms Bullock: A few things. We have done some experimentation. Back in 2023—we might have talked about this before—we did a pilot of a central bank digital currency. We asked people to come with use cases and so on. The main headline out of that was that the predominant use cases were not what I would call retail CBDCs. It wasn’t about putting central bank digital currencies in the hands of you and me and using them at shops. It wasn’t about that. It was about wholesale digital currencies—how you can potentially use central bank digital currencies in markets for wholesale assets. We’ve got another experiment going on now which is looking specifically at that issue. If you tokenise assets—you put them on a chain, a ledger—how can you use not only central bank digital currencies but stable coins, tokenised bank deposits and standard payment systems to settle tokenised asset sales. That is the current experiment that is going on. We are working with a number of organisations to do that. That will give us a bit more information about the sorts of issues that might arise in moving towards tokenised asset ledgers.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. During COVID, the Reserve Bank pursued a policy which had the effect of creating money through electronic journal entries and using that to buy securitised mortgages from Australian banks. How many securitised mortgages originating in the Australian property market is the Reserve Bank now holding?
Dr Kent: We have to take this on notice. I suspect it’s close to none. We don’t accept them as part of our regular operations. Most of them we would have held would have been a result of the term funding facility, which has now rolled off and completed.
During this session with Housing Australia, I call out the lack of transparency and the questionable math behind the home deposit guarantee schemes.
I asked Mr Langford why it took nine weeks to get an answer to a simple question: how many borrowers have exited the scheme? They finally admitted that of the 185,000 guarantees issued since the scheme was launched, over 45,000 have already been discharged.
I’m highly sceptical of their reported “success” rates. They previously claimed that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000. The actual arrears rate on bank loans is around 1% – 227 times higher than the claimed arrears rate of 0.0044%. Therefore, it’s statistically impossible!
My point is simple: they don’t actually track people once they exit the scheme, so they’re essentially flying blind when it comes to the data.
Despite Minister Ayres’ attempts to paint every exit as a “success story,” the data proves it’s not that simple.
As at the end of December 2025: ❌ 0.3% or 336 of borrowers are 90+ days in arrears, ❌ 0 .8% or 1000 are currently under hardship arrangements and ❌ 347 are in early-stage arrears (30–90 days).
While they boast that many are ahead on payments, I’m concerned about the “cliff” ahead.
When I asked for modelling on what happens to these 95% mortgages if interest rates rise three more times this year, they admitted they have no modelling for that scenario.
Ms Jarman has committed to providing me with a copy of the information guide for first-home buyers. I want to see for myself if it properly warns Australians about the massive risks of a 95% mortgage in a rising-rate environment.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
CHAIR: I’m going to rotate the call. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing again today, Mr Langford. You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. That should be a number you have to hand very easily. You haven’t answered it in the nine weeks since the hearing. Why not?
Mr Langford: I’ll ask my colleague Ms Jarman, who has just come to the table, if we have that information to hand. As to the delays, we apologise. There may have been some delay if we didn’t have that information to hand.
Ms Jarman: Sorry, Senator—can you repeat exactly what information you’re after?
Senator ROBERTS: You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two per cent and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. I’d like the number, please.
Ms Jarman: Yes, we do have the number that have exited. Of the 185,000 guarantees that have been issued since the launch of the scheme, 45,837 of those have discharged.
Senator ROBERTS: You told me at the last hearing that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000 guarantees issued. The actual arrears rate on banks’ loan books is around one per cent. That’s 227 times higher than your claimed arrears rate of 0.0044 per cent. Do you accept that your number is almost statistically impossible and only appears good because you don’t actually track the people who exit the scheme? Once they’re gone, they’re gone.
Senator Ayres: Exiting is good.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t track them once they’re gone.
Senator Ayres: These are people who have bought a home—
Senator ROBERTS: Don’t try and change the topic. I’m asking the question. I want to know—
Senator Ayres: under the scheme, then sold their home and moved on to their next home. That is the foot on the ladder that the scheme is designed to provide.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister Ayres, at the last hearing, you said—
Senator Ayres: That’s what it’s for.
Senator ROBERTS: that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance. Do you know that that’s false?
Senator Ayres: What do you mean?
Senator ROBERTS: ‘People who are facing hardship can’t refinance,’ you said. That’s false.
Senator Ayres: I said that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what you said.
Senator Ayres: I don’t know what context I said that in. You’re moving—
Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on—
Senator Ayres: from one proposition, demonstrably not the case—
Senator ROBERTS: And you’re changing my proposition. I’m trying to get on with it.
Senator Ayres: which is that it’s a bad outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you running from this, Minister Ayres?
Senator Ayres: No. I’m running to this. I’m running to this. This is a good outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: You changed my first proposition.
Senator Ayres: This is a good outcome. I’m sorry if you’re confused about it. This is a good outcome for young Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re misleading.
Senator Ayres: Buying a home, selling a home, buying a new one—this is a good outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on your latest percentages for in advance, on schedule, in arrears and hardship?
Ms Jarman: I can do that. As at the end of December, 0.3 per cent of the portfolio were 90 days plus in arrears, 0.8 per cent were under hardship arrangements, 26 per cent of the portfolio were on schedule with payments and 73 per cent were in advance of their repayment schedule.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you also have the actual numbers each of these percentages represent?
Ms Jarman: I do.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them please?
Ms Jarman: Sure. We had 33,134 on schedule, 93,104 in advance, 336 ninety days in arrears and 1,000 in hardship. There is another category, for completeness. If you’re adding up to the total number of guarantees, in arrears of 30 to 90 days—so early arrears—there are another 347 customers there.
Senator ROBERTS: How many total guarantees are those percentages of—is it less than the 250,000?
Ms Jarman: The 250,000 is the number of Australians supported under the scheme. We’ve only ever issued 185,000 guarantees, but only 127,000 of those are active in the book at the moment. The rest of those have already discharged out of the scheme.
Mr Rimmer: I gave evidence earlier in the day that the 0.3 per cent 90-day arrears rate is better than the other relevant arrears.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I heard that.
Senator Ayres: I also should have said, Senator, again for the sake of completeness, that people exit the scheme if they sell their home. They also exit the scheme when they hit the 80 per cent loan-to-value ratio. That is, they come in at five per cent and make repayments that pay the 15 per cent gap over time, and then they’re considered to have exited the scheme. That’s also a good thing.
Senator ROBERTS: How many five per cent mortgages that you got first home buyers into do you expect a default if interest rates are raised three times this year?
Senator Ayres: Your One Nation colleague asked the same questions about an hour and three-quarters ago.
Senator ROBERTS: He actually said ‘if we are entering a cycle’. I want to know what would happen with three interest rate rises.
Mr Langford: I don’t believe we have modelling for that proposition that you’re putting forward.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you, as the administrator of the five per cent deposit guarantee, provide first home buyers with any warnings about the risk of a 95 per cent mortgage?
Ms Jarman: Yes, we do. As part of the application process, we’ve got an information guide. That guide clearly outlines what the guarantee is and how the guarantee is there to protect the lender and not the borrower. It also outlines the obligations of the borrower in terms of repayment of the mortgage and the circumstances in which the borrower is still liable.
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have a copy of that on notice, please?
I have expressed grave concerns that we are signing our young Australians up to be “debt slaves” to the big banks. It’s one thing to offer a “leg up” onto the property ladder, but it’s another thing entirely to push them into a lifetime of unmanageable debt.
During my questioning of Housing Australia, I pointed out a massive flaw in how they report their success. The department “brags” about a low default rate — only 11 claims out of 250,000 — yet admit that they stop tracking borrowers the second they refinance or exit the scheme. Think about that. If the families under the most financial stress are the ones forced to refinance or leave, they vanish from the government’s data. We’re essentially flying blind, ignoring the very people who might be “going backwards.”
I’ve said it before on the Senate floor, and I’ll say it again: this scheme is “smoke and mirrors.” Pumping more low-deposit buyers into a market where there aren’t enough houses to go around, the government is just upping the price of entry-level homes. This completely ignores the root of the problem—supply, caused by mass immigration. We’re watching house prices increase and the very people this was meant for— the younger Aussies — can’t even afford the ‘starter’ homes.
I’m not going to let this rest. We need to see the real numbers, not just the cherry-picked stats that make the government look good.
Australians deserve to know if their “dream home” is actually a debt trap.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll try to be brief. I refer to data on how people who are taking on these 95 per cent mortgages are actually faring, because I have grave concerns that the government is just signing up first home buyers to be debt slaves to the banks. Firstly, does Housing Australia track participants who later refinance or discharge their lower deposit guaranteed loans with a different lender?
Mr Rimmer: I’ll pass that question to Mr Langford in a minute. The five per cent deposit scheme has been in place for five years now. Over 250,000 guarantees have been issued. Only 11 of those 250,000 have been paid, at a total cost of about $500,000, a relatively small amount of payment per claim. Out of all 250,000 Australians who were supported into purchasing a house through this program, 11 have fallen into very significant arrears.
Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t track participants who later refinance, how do you avoid a survivorship bias in your arrears metrics if the borrowers most at risk of stress are those who refinance?
Mr Langford: We only have a relationship with the borrower until the point they exit the scheme. There is no ability for us to track what happens to them beyond that.
Senator Ayres: For everybody who enters the scheme, it’s their first home. It’s not unusual for somebody to refinance. They have their foot on the ladder, so they might go and buy a larger home, a different home, a home in a different country town or whatever it is. If you are apprehensive that there might be something in addition to the 11 out of 250,000 people experiencing difficulty, everybody who has a mortgage, every Australian has challenges from time to time meeting their mortgage—
Senator ROBERTS: We certainly do.
Senator Ayres: That’s right. These people are no different from everybody else. It’s just that they’ve got a leg up because they fit the criteria of the scheme. Of course, we want them to have that first step on the ladder, to grow—to grow families and to grow in opportunity. That’s a good thing.
Senator ROBERTS: My concern is if we’re tracking to see whether they’re getting a leg up or a push down. That’s what I want to track.
Senator Ayres: The evidence in this scheme is that—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m trying to go through this quickly for the sake of everyone. Could you please provide on notice counts by year since 2020 of scheme backed loans refinanced or discharged?
Mr Rimmer: We’ll take on notice what information we have that could be useful to answer that question.
Senator ROBERTS: And where possible, with any available reason as to what they’re doing?
Senator Ayres: Yes, they’ll do their best to provide that to you.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s all we can ask for.
Senator Ayres: But don’t take it from that those are bad outcomes. Those are overwhelmingly good outcomes.
Senator ROBERTS: My office and I want to get the data to understand this.
Senator Ayres: We’ll do our best to provide what can be provided.
Senator ROBERTS: Your reports show the share of loans ‘in advance/on schedule/90-day plus arrears’. But you explicitly state you do not receive participants’ current income or valuation data and rely on lender hardship programs. Why is Housing Australia not collecting borrower-level hardship outcomes?
Mr Langford: In the way that the scheme’s designed the relationship is between the borrower and the bank. We are providing a guarantee ultimately to the lender. For a range of reasons, including privacy, we don’t get updated information from the applicants.
Ms Jarman: Further to that, each month we do get from the lenders the actual number of borrowers under the scheme in 90-day-plus arrears or in hardship.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you table or give me on notice the number of scheme participants flagged as in hardship by panel lenders by state and lender?
Ms Jarman: Yes. I don’t have the state breakdown here. I do have the overall number. We can take the state breakdown on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: And the resolution number? I don’t expect you to have the data here. How many scheme backed loans have progressed from arrears to default and resulted in a Commonwealth guarantee call?
Ms Jarman: Some 11 claims have been paid under the scheme since its start in 2020.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide the number and value of claims against the guarantee by financial year, and the cohort in terms of which guarantee scheme they are and geography?
Ms Jarman: Yes, we have that data.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve previously told me that roughly 61.5 per cent of scheme loans are ahead, 38.4 per cent on time and 0.1 per cent in 90-day-plus arrears at a point in time. Do you have an update on those figures?
Ms Jarman: We do. As at the end of October, the in-advance number is 75 per cent of all loans, the on schedule is 23 per cent, the arrears number is 0.6, and the hardship number is 0.8.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the cohort composition behind those figures—loan age, borrower, income band?
Ms Jarman: I don’t have that breakdown in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we get that on notice?
Ms Jarman: Yes, we could provide further detail there.
Senator ROBERTS: Debt-to-income and loan-to-value at origination versus latest?
Senator Ayres: Just at an aggregate level.
Senator ROBERTS: Per year.
Mr Langford: Do you mean per year of origination?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Langford: We’ll do our best to provide what information we have on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Without longitudinal borrower data, these metrics really are incomplete. Can you provide distribution tables for scheme borrowers by debt-to-income bands, loan-to-value ratio bands and income quartiles at origination and latest available?
Ms Jarman: We can take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The Reserve Bank finds that highly leveraged borrowers are most likely to fall into arrears in the current environment. Of your five per cent deposit borrowers, how many are in the bottom income quartile? That’s the one that the RBA refers to as going backwards.
Mr Rimmer: I’m sure Housing Australia will do their best to find that. My understanding is that the arrears rate for loans under this scheme is lower than the arrears rates in the market as a whole. My colleagues may wish to correct that if it’s wrong.
Ms Jarman: That’s correct. When we speak with our panel lenders, the feedback that they provide is that with the cohort of borrowers under the scheme the arrears performance is equivalent, if not favourable, to their other borrower cohorts.
Senator ROBERTS: We’d like to see that in the data.
Senator Ayres: We’ll certainly provide that, but that’s the evidence that’s been given time after time on this question and it fits with our experience. Working people are very disciplined about meeting their mortgage commitments.
Senator ROBERTS: They certainly have good values.
Senator Ayres: And that’s what’s going on here. That is a very good story, and an improvement on the last set of figures; 75 per cent of Australians are ahead as a result of this scheme. That’s a very good outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: What proportion of arrears and defaults sit in the going backwards quartile?
Ms Jarman: Sorry. What do you mean by the ‘going backwards’ quartile?
Senator ROBERTS: The bottom income quartile.
Ms Jarman: I don’t have any arrears data broken down by borrower cohort in front of me.
Mr Langford: If there’s a range of these statistical matters that you’re interested in, we’d be very happy to receive those and see what we can provide.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put them in writing for you.
Mr Langford: That would be much appreciated.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you run stress tests for the guarantee book to estimate how many will go from on time to arrears or default by quartile and debt-to-income or loan-to-value ratio bands?
Ms Jarman: Yes, every year.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we get that?
Ms Jarman: Yes, you can.
Senator ROBERTS: Once a participant refinances or exits, does Housing Australia have any visibility of their subsequent hardship or default outcomes?
Ms Jarman: No, we don’t.
Senator ROBERTS: How can parliament be confident that public reporting is not undercounting stress by removing the most vulnerable borrowers from your data?
Senator Ayres: You can’t refinance if you’re in hardship, right? That’s not a realistic thing to happen. If somebody can’t meet their obligations, they won’t get refinanced; 11 people haven’t met their obligations out of the 250,000. If they purchase a new home, they’re not doing it under the scheme, they’re doing it using the improved equity. People point to bad outcomes out of house prices going up, but there are good outcomes. House prices lift, they get increased equity, they get up the next step on the housing ladder, and then they’re out of the scheme. That’s a good thing. There’s no downside to either of those propositions. We’ll provide what we can. I understand the point you’re making.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide counts on notice of scheme loans exited via refinance and any post-exit arrears or default?
Ms Jarman: We can provide the discharge reason, but I can’t provide information once they’ve discharged. I don’t have visibility of that from the lenders.
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t get it from the lenders?
Let’s call “Net Zero” what it really is: a massive wealth transfer to parasitic billionaires – making you poorer, your bills higher, and our country weaker.
The reality is: ✔️ High electricity prices driving up the cost of food, groceries, and transport. ✔️ Record high closures and insolvencies of established businesses. ✔️ Manufacturing, smelting and heavy industries are struggling to stay afloat while the government chases “green” pipe dreams that don’t work. ✔️ BILLIONS in debt being dumped on our children’s shoulders.
Billions of dollars is being wasted on “carbon abatement” and “green hydrogen” schemes that physics and chemistry tell us are a sham. Meanwhile, mass immigration is being used to mask the true cost, forcing you to cut your standard of living just to meet their impossible targets.
A One Nation government will: ✅ Abolish Net Zero, terminating the net zero transition, scrapping carbon accounting for businesses, and shutting down any project where cutting losses is cheaper for the taxpayer, or environmental damage is too great—running existing assets only until they they inevitably fail in 10 to 15 years. ✅ Repeal fraudulent flood maps being used by mostly foreign owned insurance companies to price gouge consumers, raking in record profits. ✅ Stop the subsidy “gravy train.” ✅ Use our own affordable energy to keep the lights on and the prices down. ✅ And most importantly – stop the mass immigration that’s crushing our housing and infrastructure. Remigrate the hundreds of thousands of people who have broken their visa conditions, limit new arrivals to people holding skills we actually need, especially in housing. REMIGRATE — SEND HOME – DEPORT!
Since 2005, Australia’s population has surged 40%, yet this government is demanding we slash total carbon dioxide production to 2005 levels by 2035 —meaning every single Australian is being forced to pay the price to accommodate mass migration. The more the population grows, the harder you are hit – and it will only get worse until we have the courage to say: enough is enough – not one cent more.
We must stop the madness before there’s nothing left to save.
Australia belongs to us, not the globalists.
Transcript
Let’s call net zero for what it really is: fraudulent, supposed science covering up income redistribution protected with big brother government measures—that’s it—making everyday Australians economically, environmentally and socially worse off. Net zero measures are driving up the price of electricity and increasing prices with flow-on effects throughout the economy—food, groceries, clothing, transport, travel and accommodation. Everything you buy goes up if electricity goes up. Manufacturing, smelting and heavy industry all use electricity and are struggling to stay in business.
In 2024, there were 5,136 closures of established businesses, meaning those in business for five years or more. In 2024, there were 10,497 business insolvencies—up almost 30 per cent on 2023. Has anyone on the Greens benches bothered to ask what these Australians who have lost everything think about what you and net zero have done to their businesses? Has anyone asked? We have. Some of these measures are idiocy—green hydrogen, green steel, green aluminium. This technology does not work. That is proven. It does not work, and it never will. Physics and chemistry tell us that. It’s nothing but a scheme to farm parasitic subsidies, without which the idea would not even be contemplated.
These appropriations bills channel billions of dollars of taxpayer funds into the pockets of crony capitalists, lining up by pigs in a trough, and there’s Minister Bowen, throwing more and more taxpayer money into the trough—wasted, but who pays? The people pay. Small businesses pay. These appropriation bills contain significant allocations for net zero measures.
Firstly, the department of climate change and energy—$1,234,567,890. There’s $1.2 billion for what? Support for net zero emissions by 2050 through renewable energy initiatives and emissions reduction programs. This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound ball. No. 2, $987,654,321—nearly $1 billion for what? Funding for decarbonisation projects and clean energy infrastructure to achieve low emissions targets. Carbon is in every living organism’s every cell. And then No. 3, $456,789,123 almost half a billion dollars. What have we racked up so far? $2.7 billion. For what? Investment in carbon abatement strategies and sustainable development to mitigate climate change impacts—carbon is in every cell of every living organism. This is just one appropriation bill. This gravy train for the government’s parasitic, big-business mates—collecting subsidies, feeding off subsidies—has been going on for years, encouraged by both major parties and the Greens. Yet the Albanese government is projecting deficits in every year of the 48th parliament totalling over $100 billion. That’s money that will be needed to be borrowed and debt that everyday Australians will have to repay—$3,700 for every man, woman, baby and child in this country plus interest, and we’re already paying interest in such a large quantity that it’s almost the single largest line item in the budget.
A One Nation government will abolish the net zero transition. Our policy includes terminating all projects and removing all carbon dioxide accounting requirements on businesses, repealing fraudulent flood maps being used by insurance companies to price gouge consumers and to generate record profits for mostly foreign-owned insurance companies. Think of BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Colonial First State et cetera, the global wealth funds. They own and control our insurance companies. We will terminate any existing project that’s at a stage where termination is cheaper for the taxpayer than the continuing or where the project is too damaging to the natural environment to continue operation. We will, of course, use the generation that has been put in place until they inevitably fail in 10 to 15 years. And, most importantly, our immigration policy will remigrate hundreds of thousands of people who have broken their visa conditions, and we will limit new arrivals to people holding skills we actually need, especially in housing—remigrate, send home, deport.
Remember, net zero is not reducing carbon use per person. It’s supposedly reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide production to 2005 levels in total by 2035—supposedly. Think about this—Australia’s population has grown by 40 per cent since 2005. That means we all have to reduce our carbon dioxide production by an extra 40 per cent, and this figure goes up with every new migrant arrival. The pain is only just getting started unless the Senate has the courage to stop this madness and the integrity to stop this madness. Join One Nation in saying to this government, ‘Not one cent more—you’ve blown trillions.’ I foreshadow my amendment on sheet 3466 to remove net zero funding from this appropriation bill. Thank you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/VJTqSaHX5E4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-15 13:37:552026-01-15 13:37:59Australians Are Being Sold a Lie
The International and Foreign Investment Group is still trying to tell us that foreign ownership of Australian housing is less than 1%. They’re sticking to a figure of 0.8% and say they have “full confidence” in it.
I asked them a simple question: Does any real estate agent or any Australian actually believe that?
The truth is, they’ve never conducted market research to see if the public trusts their data. They track the “flow” of new sales while ignoring the massive amount of housing already in foreign hands.
Australians are being priced out of the housing market, while bureaucrats ignore what’s really happening in our suburbs and rely on data that just doesn’t pass the pub test.
I will continue to question these figures until we get answers that reflect reality.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have the International and Foreign Investment Group, please. Do you still maintain the view that, in Australia, foreign ownership of housing is less than one per cent of the housing market?
Ms Di Marco: I’ll hand most of these questions to Mr Tinning and Ms Sloan, who I think have the statistics in front of them and can speak to any policies of the government. But I just want to caution at the beginning of the session that, if we start to get into questions of application of residential real estate, many of them may need to be taken on notice because that is the remit of the Australian Taxation Office. But I’ll hand over to Mr Tinning.
Senator ROBERTS: The chair will be happy with that.
CHAIR: I will be.
Mr Tinning: We don’t have figures for the total stock of housing, but we do have annual figures for purchases.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you still believe that they’re under one per cent?
Mr Tinning: We have figures for 2023-24, with the latest available figure being purchases at 0.8 per cent, so that is under one per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: You do. Do you honestly believe that any real estate agent in Australia accepts the claim that foreign ownership is less than one per cent of the housing market?
Mr Tinning: These figures are from the ATO, and we have very strong faith in their ability to accurately monitor these figures. They have very strong systems, so we are confident in those figures.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I’ve been on that merry-go-round, and I used to ask you questions. You told me to go to the ATO, so I went to the ATO. Do you honestly think any Australian believes that foreign ownership is less than one per cent?
Mr Tinning: I can’t comment on the views of the Australian populace, but we are very confident in those figures.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you for your views.
Mr Tinning: My views are that those figures from the ATO are accurate.
Ms Di Marco: I’m not sure that it’s for Mr Tinning to provide views on whether he thinks those figures are accurate; however, we do have those figures from the ATO. Also, just to reiterate his earlier point, the figures that we have from the ATO are about the flow, the investment number that’s been made as a proportion over the year and not the total ownership of foreign investment.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about both, but I understand that. He made that very clear. Have you ever conducted any market research or surveys around public confidence in your figures?
Ms Di Marco: No, we haven’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Ms Di Marco: In April or May 2025, the government made a range of announcements regarding strengthening controls around foreign investment in residential real estate. But I would argue that it’s not really for us to go out there and conduct market research on these sorts of matters. The government has made a range of policy decisions, and we’re looking to implement those as quickly as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: Lastly, how many forms have been lodged since the vacancy fee returns foreign owners have come into effect?
Ms Di Marco: I think we’d have to take that on notice. The ATO would hold those details.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s understandable. Could we have them on a yearly basis, please?
Australia was once the richest country per capita in the world. Today, we have the worst poverty I’ve seen in my lifetime—yet we still have abundant resources, farmland, and energy. Successive Liberal and Labor governments have shut down industries that provided breadwinner jobs, strangled farmers with green tape and UN blue tape, and sold out our wealth.
Our GDP is growing, yet Australians are getting poorer. Wealth is being transferred to foreign billionaires and their investment funds—BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street—who now control our banks, retailers, telcos, and energy companies. Prices go up, markets are rigged, and everyday Australians are pushed into poverty while executives take multimillion-dollar salaries for compliance. Housing is worse than ever. Rents in Sydney have surged 40% since 2021, and Melbourne and Brisbane aren’t far behind. Over half of low-income renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Meanwhile, the government floods the country with mass migration, driving up demand and destroying quality of life. They paper over the cracks with debt, money printing, and more public servants, which only makes things worse. One Nation warned this would happen.
Net zero, mass migration, and bureaucratic strangulation are killing our standard of living—and now one in seven Australians lives below the poverty line, including one in six children.
These problems are man-made, and they can be solved. One Nation is right—and we’re fighting for Australians, not foreign billionaires or globalist agendas.
Transcript
Welcome to the latest episode of your favourite TV show: One Nation Were Right All Along. First up, we have the Nationals finally seeing the light of the net zero scam—well, kind of. Their support has gone from unqualified support to ‘how much net zero can we do before we start losing seats?’ In their announcement, Nationals leader David Littleproud said: ‘The Nationals accept the science of climate change and remain committed to emissions reduction. The current aggressive pursuit of net zero is unfairly damaging to regional Australia and economically unsustainable for the country’—he’s waking up—’We need a slower pace aligned with the OECD average’.
That’s a clever sleight of hand. The OECD reduction has stalled for five years. Their accumulative reduction is currently 14 per cent, and Australia’s is 24 per cent. The latest data will show ours at 28 per cent, double the OECD’s. Tying Australia to the OECD will buy the Nationals an election or two before having to restart reductions. Remember, though, that they still believe in net zero and in the need to cut carbon dioxide production. I welcome the Nationals realisation of the damage net zero is doing and wish they had more courage to walk away from the scam entirely.
In contrast, One Nation strongly oppose net zero, and we would abolish all federal government net zero mandates, programs and boondoggles. We would shut down all the schemes and departments promoting this scam, saving taxpayers $30 billion every year. This is not the only cost of course. Parasitic billionaires and corporations sucking on taxpayer subsidies and electricity consumer subsidies, and others in private industry, are taking advantage of this scam to build industrial solar and wind, transmission lines, big batteries and other paraphernalia of net zero. This cost will be as high as $1.9 trillion through to 2050. Remember that industrial solar and wind lasts only 15 years, which means everything that has been built so far will not be in use in 2050 and will have to be built again and again. The government’s Bollywood version of the cost of net zero does not take into account this massive expense—nor do they consider the environmental cost of the destruction of native forests for wind turbines, access roads and transmission lines; the cost of dumping these monstrosities into landfill every 15 years; or the run-off from toxic metals from damaged solar panels. This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.
Electricity is an input cost right across the economy. The price of everything you buy, from physical goods in stores to services and financial products, goes up as the electricity bills of the companies providing those services go up. Everyday Australians are poorer because of net zero, and so is Australia’s beautiful natural environment. The government used to say, ‘Renewables are cheaper, so prices will come down eventually.’ However, after 20 years of the transition—the last three at breakneck pace—electricity bills are not coming down; they’re rising rapidly.
Some of those who are wealthy enough and have an actual house in which to install solar panels and an expensive wall battery are reporting slightly reduced electricity bills. The very few Australians with the money to spend $25,000 on a solar array and wall battery for a home they own are thumbing their noses at the millions that do not have a house and $25,000 to add solar and a battery. Net zero is becoming a case of the haves and have-nots. Those who can’t afford their own electricity generation are left to buy electricity at prices that have increased at twice the rate of inflation since the net zero benchmark year of 2005. It’s a trend that continues, with a nine per cent increase in electricity prices in 2025.
One Nation are right in our opposition to mass migration. Today we learnt that the majority of Australians agree with us—right again. A poll in the Australian yesterday showed that almost two-thirds of Australians want a reduction in the migration rate; 94 per cent of One Nation supporters support reduced migration, which has now been a feature of One Nation policy for 30 years, ever since the Liberal-National coalition under John Howard doubled migration and started mass migration. Significantly, 78 per cent of coalition voters want a reduction in immigration, and so do 71 per cent of supporters of smaller parties and independents, which does include the teals—so that’s very interesting.
What caught my eye with the poll is that two parties who have been pushing infinite immigration are doing so against the wishes of their supporters. Only 10 per cent of Labor’s supporters want more migrants, while 49 per cent want fewer. While 27 per cent of Greens voters want more immigration, 32 per cent want less. Immigration is now one of the biggest election issues in New South Wales, which is not surprising, given the rental crisis in the greater Sydney area, thanks to the Albanese immigration invasion. It is interesting to see there is no gender divide on immigration. Opposition to high immigration is spread evenly between men and women.
It’s a betrayal of the very concept of democracy for this government to continue its globalist agenda to flood Australia with these very high levels of mass immigration against the wishes of the Australian people. Liberal and Labor governments are importing too many new arrivals from cultures that do not readily assimilate and bring with them a religion, Islam, that seeks to carve out a slice of this country to introduce their own system of law—divisive.
At the same time, the government is inhumanely ignoring the tragedy of the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, in Sudan and in South Africa. I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday in question time how many Christian refugees we brought in from these trouble spots. The answer was telling: zero! I asked who’s benefiting from Australia’s humanitarian intake. His answer was that the top five countries for refugee visas, 15,000 in all, are all Islamic countries. This is nothing more than selective discrimination against Christians. In the past, Australians would have considered this sedition. One Nation still does.
Third, One Nation is correct about the standard of living. For years, I’ve been warning the Australian people that the net zero agenda, combined with mass immigration, is destroying business investment in our productive capacity, reducing living standards. Sky News is reporting today just how bad things have become. One in seven Australians now live below the poverty line, and one in six children are below the poverty line. That’s 3.7 million people struggling to pay for food, power and rent in a nation bursting with resources, all a result of Liberal-Labor uniparty policies—mass migration, net zero, housing, overregulation.
In what was once the richest country, per capita, in the world, we now have the worst poverty in my lifetime, yet we still have the natural resources; the abundant hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas; amazing farmland; and a strong tourism industry. For years, successive Liberal and Labor governments have shut down industries that provided breadwinner jobs in steelworks and heavy manufacturing, and value-adding jobs like textiles. They weighed our farmers down with so much green tape and blue United Nations tape that they are struggling to stay afloat. Australian wealth is being sabotaged in a process called ‘managed decline’. It’s deliberate. Yet our GDP is still growing. What’s going on? Australia’s wealth is being transferred from Australians to foreign beneficiaries. The world’s predatory billionaires have used their investment funds, like BlackRock, First State, Vanguard and State Street, to buy not only shares in Australian companies but entire industries. Except for two of our insurance companies, all our insurance companies are foreign owned.
Major retailers Coles, Woolies and Bunnings are foreign controlled. The Australian big four banks are foreign controlled, and so are our telcos and oil and gas companies. Satan’s bankers then put up prices, knowing they control the markets, so consumers become price takers. There’s no market anymore; it’s controlled. Australians working at the top of these companies take extremely high salaries—in many cases, multimillion dollar salaries—in return for compliance, and everyday Australians go backwards into poverty.
The government is making things worse, allowing so many new arrivals that housing prices and rents are forced upwards, while quality of life and standards of living go backwards. In Sydney, median unit rents have surged 40 per cent since 2021, and Melbourne and Brisbane aren’t far behind, climbing more than 30 per cent. For low-income renters, over half now spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing—30 per cent on housing! Our prime minister went to the last election promising to leave no-one behind, knowing his policies were doing exactly the opposite. The government is now increasing spending on housing, on paid parental leave, on child care and on hiring more and more and more public servants on high wages to paper over what is a crashing economy. The government can’t use debt and money printing forever to save its backside. Debt and printing money cause their own severe economic problems and then more poverty.
One Nation has opposed the net zero war on business investment. We have opposed the migration invasion, and we warned that these policies, combined with the red bureaucratic tape, green tape and blue United Nations tape would destroy the standard of living in our beautiful country. And it has. We bloody told you so! We have put forward solutions and practical, effective policies to solve all these challenges—proven solutions. All these issues are due to decades of dishonest Liberal-Labor uniparty policies and laws. As President John F Kennedy said:
Our problems are man made. Therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants.
A few weeks ago, I attended the One Nation branch launch in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, where 140 everyday Australians had plenty they wanted to discuss with me. I was delighted to see so many young people in attendance, yet heartbroken by the lack of housing opportunities they’ve endured under Liberal and Labor governments.
One Nation will turn the useless Housing Future Fund into a low-deposit mortgage fund for young Australians, offering low-interest, fixed-rate mortgages for up to 30 years. We’ll bridge the deposit gap by enabling Australians to use their own super accounts to take a share in their home—not their super fund, but their personal super account, which will continue to grow as the value of the home increases. This policy will be as ineffective as the ALP’s unless housing prices stop rising through demand management.
One Nation will reduce housing demand by deporting 200,000 people who have deliberately exploited our immigration system, making room for young Australians to enter the housing market.
One Nation will restore opportunity for our young.
Transcript
Last week, I attended the One Nation branch launch in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, where 140 everyday Australians had a lot they wanted to talk about with me. I was delighted to see so many young people attending, yet heartbroken at the loss of opportunity they’ve suffered under Liberal and Labor governments. One Nation’s housing policy will make a major difference to the lives of all young Australians. We’ll turn the useless housing future fund into a low-deposit mortgage fund for young Australians, offering low-interest fixed-rate mortgages for up to 30 years. We’ll allow HECS-holders to roll their HECS loan into their home loan, reducing their combined repayments and increasing their borrowing ability. We’ll overcome the deposit gap, allowing Australians to use their own super account to take a share in their home—not their super fund, but their own super account, which will continue to grow as the value of the home grows. We’ll limit negative gearing to two homes. These policies are only half of One Nation’s solution.
As a result of the Albanese government’s low-deposit scheme making the housing shortage worse, home prices have gone up 6 per cent—a stupid mistake. Offering incentives to help young people own their own homes increases demand, forces up prices and leaves young people worse off than before the government helped. The truth is we’re building homes faster than any other country in the world.
Managing demand must include a review of who’s buying all these homes. We will remigrate 200,000 people who deliberately broke their visa conditions, who completed their study and simply stayed here or who lodged spurious asylum claims. Send them home. Deport them. They’re here illegally, taking up the beds of Australians. One Nation’s balanced housing policy will benefit renters and homebuyers, stabilise the housing market and safeguard the family home nest egg in retirement. It will give young people, young families, a fair go—that’s what we need. Bring it back.
Hundreds of thousands of Aussies are homeless. Rents have skyrocketed — up 44% in just five years, adding over $10,000 a year to the average rental bill. House prices are surging as well, pricing homes out of reach of young Australians, who now need an annual salary of $220,000 to afford a home.
The Government lies and claims that this is about supply, yet Australia is building more homes per capita than any other country in the world. The real issue is demand. Right now, there are 4.7 million non-citizen visa holders in Australia. Is mum and dad with one investment property causing this crisis? Of course not. Mass migration is outstripping supply, and big business is profiting — the Big Four banks made $30 billion in profit last year. Every new mortgage adds $750 a month to their profit, or about $200,000 over the life of a loan.
Foreign corporate landlords are another threat. Backed by giants like BlackRock and Vanguard, they’re gouging rents and siphoning profits overseas – after using every tax trick in the book to avoid paying tax. Labor and the Greens even gave these corporations a 15% tax cut. One Nation opposed it because we stand for Australians, not foreign investors.
That’s why One Nation has the most comprehensive housing plan of any party: end mass migration, ban foreign ownership permanently, introduce 30-year fixed-rate people’s mortgages, allow super to help with deposits, cut GST on building materials, overhaul costly building code changes and limit negative gearing to a maximum of two properties.
One Nation will make housing affordable again and protect Australians from predatory practices. Only One Nation has a real plan to fix this crisis.
Transcript
Australia has hundreds of thousands of people who are homeless. Rents are skyrocketing. They are up by 44 per cent in just the last five years. That’s $10,500 a year on top of the average rental bill. House prices in the capital of Queensland increased 1.8 per cent in just one month—a 22 per cent annual pace. Australians have been lied to and told this is only about supply. They can get away with this because no-one tells Australia how bad demand is. With 1.8 million permanent visa holders and 2.9 million temporary visa holders, we currently have 4.7 million non-citizen visa holders in this country. Is mum and dad having one investment property really causing the housing crisis? Come on. Or is having 4.7 million visa holders in the country outstripping supply? Running this program of mass migration is incredibly profitable for big business, especially our big four banks. This week, one of those banks, Westpac, posted a $7 billion profit.
There are some abusers of negative gearing. It could do with some tweaking. On the whole, however, it’s a minor impact in the scheme of supply and demand. There’s a far bigger problem than mum-and-dad landlords with one house negatively geared. There’s a growing and worrying acceptance of foreign, corporate landlords in Australia. These predatory multinational corporations are backed by investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. They only have one goal, which is to extract as much money as possible from the Australian population through gouged rents and siphon those profits out of the country tax free.
Last year, the Greens joined with the Labor government to give these foreign, corporate landlords a 15 per cent tax cut on the profits they’re sending overseas with the build to rent act. One Nation stood strong on principle and opposed handing foreign corporations a 15 per cent tax break. We couldn’t believe it. The fact is, Australia is still in a full-blown housing crisis. It’s an assault from all sides on nearly every aspect of supply and demand. One Nation took to the election the most comprehensive policy to fix the housing crisis of any party. Many Australians agreed, which is part of the reason why we doubled our number of senators.
Here’s our comprehensive plan on housing. End the mass migration program, which places huge strain on housing while only 0.6 per cent of migrants are building workers. We will establish people’s mortgages—30-year, fixed interest rate mortgages issued by the government, similar to government bonds and replacing the government’s Housing Australia Future Fund. We will allow people with HECS debts to roll their debts into their people’s mortgage, allowing them to get into a home loan that the banks would never give them, at a cheaper rate. We will ban foreign purchases and foreign ownership of Australian housing and farmland. The Liberals and Labor have talked about a two-year pause on foreign buyers of new houses. Come on; be fair dinkum! One Nation will extend that to new and existing houses, making the ban permanent while forcing current foreign owners to sell to an Australian within two years. We will implement a GST moratorium on building materials, cutting 10 per cent off the materials cost of building a home. We will conduct a root-and-branch gutting of the National Construction Code, especially changes that force every single new home to be completely NDIS wheelchair compliant, adding an estimated $50,000 to the cost of building each home. We will allow a person’s superannuation account to invest in their home, closing the deposit gap while protecting their superannuation. We will boost the Australian timber industry to make housing materials as cheap as possible. And we will deport—remigrate—200,000 people.
One Nation’s comprehensive plan takes care of all aspects of supply, demand, financing and cost. Only One Nation has a comprehensive housing plan.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/UO0STeRf1zI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-20 16:51:142025-11-20 16:51:18Affordable Homes for Australians, Not Foreign Corporations
