Australians suffer relative interest rates rise as Australian Banks siphon off the cream for themselves.

It's an Australian pastime to bag the banks I know, but they deserve a special mention for their conduct over the past few interest rate drops where they have sought to siphon off rate cuts meant for customers for their own profit margins.
Yes, they are able to pass on the full rate cuts. They can't be trusted and should not be placed in a position where they can decide not to pass on rate cuts if they choose not to.
The problem is twofold.
Firstly they are answerable to no one. Where's this regulation they talk about?
Secondly that they don't have the competition they used to because:

• Second tier lenders can't get the same rates they enjoy due to drops in State Credit ratings, and thus regional lenders ratings.
• Many of their competitors in the securitised mortgage market can't get funds like they used to.

What Australia needs is a Government sponsored mortgage manager such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the US so that they can get Government backed funds at competitive rates so that competitive funds can be controlled by the Government and a healthy regulated Mortgage broking industry.

This would produce more jobs and make the construction industry less uncertain and give Australians a better deal to buy their own home.

The Four Major Banks have had to too good for too long. Its time to cut the fat.

Banks selling people into unstainable debt

Buying a home is the best investment you can make, and it may seen like the right thing to do for the economy, but what is the best for you?
Homes are still high in value, maybe too high, and just because your bank will lend you big bucks [nearly $500,000] on small incomes of as low as [$80,000] does the 30 year mortgage make sense to you in these times?
First time home buyers are being warned that generous loan criteria offered by banks could land them in mortgage stress for many years to come.
Buying a low cost home is the better option with joint incomes under $100,000.
Use the Rule of Three
Try to use the rule of three. If you earn $100,000 as a gross income, then you can aford a $300,000 mortgage even when interestrates reach 9%. If you earn $200,000, then you can easily afford a $600,000 mortgage [even if you wisely decide that you don't want this much financial burden]. The solution to buying a more expensive home should be greater earnings, not loose lending.
Buying the biggest home you can afford during the lowest interest rates in history ever is foolish nad may come back to bite you, and the banks should know better, and in my view they may be taking advantage of young inexperienced home buyers without letting them know the consquences of interest rate rises, their other financial commitments that are hidden inside each mortgage document, and the banks foreclosure policy should they fail to make repayments.
Buying a home on the basis that prices and demand will surely rise may be a myth from the past echoes of the baby boomers last gasp.