Australians must ask whether migration targets, housing policies, and property investment incentives are being coordinated in the public interest.
Over the past 25 years, Australian house prices have reportedly increased by approximately 413%, raising serious questions about housing affordability, wealth inequality, and the effectiveness of government housing policies. Comparisons with countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand highlight the need to examine why Australia's property market has experienced such substantial growth. If Australian house prices have risen significantly faster than those in the United States over the same period, the differences in housing policies, migration levels, supply constraints, and investment incentives deserve close scrutiny.
Both Labor and Liberal governments have repeatedly spoken about improving housing affordability. However, many ordinary Australians are struggling to purchase their first home, while existing property owners have benefited from rising asset values. This raises legitimate questions about whether successive governments have done enough to protect home-buyers or whether their policies have inadvertently reinforced a system in which property ownership increasingly determines wealth and financial security.
One of the key concerns is the relationship between population growth and housing supply. Successive governments have maintained skilled migration and international student visa programs, bringing large numbers of people to Australia. While migration and international education can contribute to economic growth, these policies must be matched by adequate investment in housing, infrastructure, transport, healthcare, and other essential services. When population growth outpaces the construction of suitable homes, competition for housing can intensify, placing additional pressure on prices and rents.
There are also legitimate questions about the financial interests of political leaders and the broader political establishment. For example, reports concerning former Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton's substantial profit from selling a property raise questions about the relationship between politicians' personal property investments and the housing policies they support. Such transactions should be assessed on the basis of verified financial information, while any potential conflicts of interest should be examined transparently.
Housing is a human right and a core foundation for human survival, health, and dignity, it should be a basic foundation for financial security, not an increasingly unattainable dream for ordinary Australians. Governments must be held accountable for the long-term consequences of their decisions, including the effects of migration settings, property taxation, investor incentives, planning restrictions, and housing construction.
Australians deserve policies that prioritise access to affordable homes, increase housing supply where it is needed, and prevent the growing divide between property owners and those locked out of the market. The public also deserves greater transparency about whose interests housing policies ultimately serve. The fundamental question is simple: Are Australia's housing policies designed to make homes more accessible to ordinary Australians, or are they perpetuating a system in which rising property values disproportionately benefit those who already own real estate?
If we want to change the direction of Australia, decent Australians must become actively involved in politics and civic life.
Many Australians may not fully understand the aggressive political tactics and alleged behind-the-scenes activities that can undermine democratic debate. There are serious concerns about the use of disinformation, particularly through social media, to discredit political opponents, silence critics, and undermine individuals who expose alleged dishonesty, incompetence, or corruption.
There are concerns about disruptive and intimidating behaviour at other political parties’ events and rallies, where members of major political parties allegedly pose as members of the public and deliberately disrupt proceedings to prevent opposing parties from expressing their views freely. Such conduct weakens democratic values and undermines the fundamental right of Australians to participate in political debate without fear or intimidation. Allegations of covert involvement by political operatives or intelligence-linked groups in such activities deserve proper scrutiny, independent investigation, and transparency.
Sadly, many decent, honest Australians have become disillusioned with politics and have chosen to stay away from it. This disengagement leaves the door open for individuals who prioritise power and personal interests over public service to gain influence and shape the nation's future without sufficient public scrutiny.
We cannot afford to leave the future of our country in the hands of those who misuse their positions or put political interests ahead of the public good. Democracy can only function effectively when ordinary citizens remain informed, ask difficult questions, demand accountability, and hold their elected representatives to the highest standards.
Australia needs principled leadership, transparency, integrity, and a political culture that respects truth, fairness, and the rights of every citizen. These changes will not happen if good people remain silent or assume that someone else will take responsibility. It is not too late to make a difference. The sooner decent Australians stand up, become involved, and work together to restore integrity and accountability to public life, the better the prospects for our nation's future.
The time to act is now. If we want a better Australia for future generations, we must stop standing on the sidelines and start helping shape the country in the right direction. Otherwise, political disengagement will continue to leave a vacuum that those seeking power without accountability may be all too willing to fill.
A bitter truth: Australia has no leaders.
Senator Pauline Hanson does not seem to understand her opponents well enough. She needs to recognise how quickly they can organise protests and political campaigns to undermine her whenever she makes a controversial statement. It is difficult for anyone to become an effective leader if they do not think carefully before speaking. Before saying something, she should ask herself: Do I really need to say this? And if I do, who will benefit from me saying it?
For example, I would not talk about abolishing SBS during the World Cup. Is SBS the biggest issue facing the average Australian? Absolutely not. If she focused instead on controlling immigration and developing policies that make housing more affordable, that would be more than enough to put the issues that matter most to many Australians at the centre of the political debate.
Secondly, I would not support giving everyone unrestricted access to their superannuation. I would only consider such access for people who can demonstrate that they are genuinely struggling to save a deposit for a home. If everyone were allowed to withdraw their superannuation to purchase property, many people would do so, potentially increasing demand and pushing property prices even higher. In that situation, a policy intended to help people buy homes could end up making housing less affordable and causing more harm than good.
Thirdly, I would not necessarily cut the student visa intake. Instead, I would focus on strengthening the integrity of the application system. I would retain non-refundable application fees to discourage people from submitting fraudulent applications, while making sure qualifications and financial documents are properly verified.
I would also consider issuing an initial six-month visa, with renewal dependent on applicants providing evidence that they have genuinely brought sufficient funds into Australia and are meeting the requirements of their studies. Measures like these could reduce fraudulent or non-genuine applications without simply targeting the overall number of international students.
There is also a broader issue to consider. India has a very large young population, according to India's Finance Ministry, 87 million Indians between 19 and 29 face difficulties finding employment or accessing full-time education and vocational training. That creates a strong incentive for some to seek opportunities overseas. Policymakers therefore need to be mindful of the pressures driving people to leave India and make sure Australia's migration system is designed to distinguish genuine students from people using student visas primarily as a pathway into the country.
Lastly, describing Indigenous Australians as the “most primitive race on Earth” is unnecessary and, in my view, foolish. If Hanson wants to question how government funding allocated to Indigenous communities is being spent, that is a legitimate question. I welcome scrutiny of whether these funds are being properly managed and whether they are actually reaching the people they are intended to benefit. I have questions about those issues myself. The key to increasing the vote bank is to challenge the government's policies with evidence and specific questions to expose its incompetency, rather than making inflammatory statements.
Foreign leaders care about their people more than our leaders.
The Chinese and Malaysian leaders care about their people more than the Labor and Liberal politicians.
In Malaysia citizens are protected. Foreigners generally cannot buy affordable "low" or "medium-cost" houses, town houses or apartments. Each state sets its own minimum value for foreign purchases, which typically ranges from RM 1 million to RM 2 million, depending on the state and location. Can a foreigner buy a property in China? Foreigners can buy property in China, but with strict national regulations and city-specific restrictions. Purchases are typically limited to one residential property for personal use. You generally cannot buy it as an investment to rent out. I have Chinese friends who have multiple houses and make money by renting those properties.
Foreign-owned companies' CEOs are too smart for Labor and Liberal politicians.
Most mining companies are foreign-owned. Approximately 83% to 90% of the industry is foreign-owned. Official statistics show there are around 474 foreign-owned mining businesses operating in Australia. The Australian iconic companies are largely owned by offshore investors, BHP is over 70% foreign-owned, and Rio Tinto is over 80% foreign-owned. According to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), there are over 1,700 large foreign-owned companies operating in Australia, each earning more than $100 annually. A large portion of these major multinational companies pay no corporate income tax due to available legal deductions, concessions, and exemptions. Uber initially operated in Australia before regulatory approval, whereas it would be much more difficult for a company to launch in the United States in violation of the law. In my opinion, American policymakers tend to enforce regulations more consistently and are more accountable to the public than Australian politicians.
People who live in slums think that they are smarter than Labor politicians.
Young people in the developing countries are paying money to their agents to get visas to Western countries. Their agents pay money to buy fake bank statements and qualifications, including IELTS exam results. Once they arrive in Australia, they drive Uber, Taxi or Uber eats. In 2025, around 20,000 Indian students went to Canada on student visas but didn't show up to class after arriving in Canada. But the Albanese government is not publishing how many students don't show up to class after arriving in Australia. There are no industry specific interviews before issuing skill migration visas or student visas. The government must issue visas based on the amount paid, if they just paid the first semester fees, so they should receive only six months visa.
I believe the housing crisis is only the tip of the iceberg, Australia and its allies face much greater economic and social challenges ahead.
I've often been told that because I wasn't born in Australia, I shouldn't expect to be involved in politics. Yet in the United States, Henry Kissinger, who was born in Germany and spoke with a noticeable accent, rose to become Secretary of State under President Richard Nixon. To me, that contrast highlights different attitudes toward immigrants participating in public life and has motivated me to speak out about what I see as unfair treatment.
When I exposed the Australian politicians' corruption and incompetence, the Rudd government deleted my citizenship without a legal proceeding and traumatised me as an illegal immigrant. I continue to expose them. So, under the Albanese government, I am blocked from pursuing a professional career and from owning a home or renting an apartment. I was pushed to become a taxi driver, and my opportunities to earn were repeatedly constrained as a taxi driver by blocking clients' phone calls and placing a cap on my earnings, so the dispatch system wouldn't allocate long fares to me. Yet none of this has stopped me from exposing the truth. My legacy will not be defined by the work I was forced to do as a taxi driver, but by my determination to challenge those I believe abused power.
I am not apologetic about my ability to acquire knowledge and help others. I have been informing my hardships as a writer to the world leaders, especially to the Chinese Communist Party and Russian leaders. By doing so, Western powers are facing significant setbacks. The labor leaders not only undermine Australia but the entire Western countries. If the United States starts the 3rd World War to keep its world dominant power, it will use Australia as a base to attack China. If that happens Australia will be punished by the dragon beyond anyone's imagination. If the United States decided to surrender to the dragon, Australia would be the first country to fall under Asians economically.
The brutality of Labor and Liberal politicians.
In the United States, ladies who exposed Jeffrey Epstein's vast sex trafficking network involving underage girls weren't forced to claim bankruptcy. But Brittany Higgins became bankrupt because she exposed a member of brutal Aussie politicians. I don't think anyone who worked hard to come up that far would tell a lie to jeopardise her career. I believe 100% she was raped inside the parliament. Ghislaine Maxwell was Jeffrey Epstein's closest associate, convicted of sex trafficking for actively recruiting, grooming, and abusing minor girls with him. Likewise, Linda Reynolds has done a similar job as Ghislaine Maxwell to please powerful Aussie politicians.
Brittany Higgins was ordered to pay former senator Linda Reynolds a total of $341,109 in damages and interest following the defamation ruling. She was also ordered to pay 80 percent of Reynolds’s legal costs, which were estimated to exceed $1 million. Higgins later abandoned her appeal against the decision, telling the court that she did not have sufficient assets to meet the financial obligations. Last December, she was formally declared bankrupt during a Federal Court hearing. Honestly, I believe Higgins has reached a point where she has given up fighting what she sees as the brutality of Australian politicians.
I exposed Aussie Politicians' wrongdoings, so they also made me go bankrupt.
In 2007, through my university classmates, I received inside information of WorkDirections' audit information. So, we exposed the irregularities of WorkDirections, a part of Thérèse Rein's $175 million employment placement contract. Once we exposed the truth, Kevin Rudd's wife Thérèse Rein, voluntarily repaid $300,000 to a government department after picking up irregularities in her company records. However, I wanted to have a Royal Commission inquiry because the irregularities were in the millions. But the Rudd administration decided to conceal the government's wrongdoings but targeted me and attacked personally.
The Romans respected their citizens that's why it was widely considered the longest-lasting empires in history, enduring for nearly 1,500 years from 27 BC to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD.
In 2008, the Rudd administration deleted my citizenship without due process, labelled me an "illegal immigrant." For months they refused to confirm my status in writing but constantly threatened me over the phone that the detention centre manager would contact me shortly to detain me and deport me to my birth country. I had spoken to a number of human rights lawyers during the ordeal, but they couldn’t do anything because the Rudd government refused to confirm my status in writing.
During this ordeal, the government barred me from working as an accountant, forced me to sell my house—unable to pay the mortgage without an income. They deliberately blocked me from profiting from the sale of my house, knowing it would prevent me from hiring a competent lawyer to expose their undemocratic actions. Eventually, I sold my house for a loss and claimed bankruptcy for the remaining loan. Finally, I reached out to the United Nations, and foreign diplomats, then only the Rudd government reinstated my Australian citizenship secretly.
As a writer, I have faced numerous hardships.
I have observed certain aspects that have challenged my perception of true democracy in Australia. A disagreement with the toxic political elites has become a lifelong battle. However, I just can't walk away from it. We simply can't allow them to insult humanity. Australia is in Australasia, close to Asia, it should have allowed Asians to become prominent leaders well before the United states or United kingdom. Sadly, still they are not doing the right things, even after the US and the UK appointed people of Asian descent to become Vice President and Prime Minister.
It begs the question: Can those who have historically invaded and committed genocide in other lands truly be trusted to act with integrity? If they genuinely value and respect all races, why do we witness the continued marginalisation and struggles of Aboriginal People in Australia? Additionally, if they are sincerely committed to addressing the hardships faced by average Australians, why did they revoke my citizenship and subject me to financial ruin when I attempted to raise awareness of these issues? These experiences have left me questioning the sincerity and effectiveness of Australia's approach to addressing the challenges faced by marginalised communities.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is not being honest with the people.
What we urgently need is genuine accountability, transparency, and meaningful action—not a referendum that risks creating further opportunities for third parties to benefit from Indigenous peoples' resources without delivering tangible improvements to their lives. Unfortunately, there appears to be a lack of genuine political will to resolve the deep-rooted issues affecting First Nations communities. Too often, political proposals seem to strengthen the position of government agencies and other organisations rather than empower Indigenous peoples to exercise greater control over their own affairs, resources, and future.
A thorough and independent examination of how funding intended to support Indigenous communities is allocated, managed, and spent is urgently needed. We must ask difficult questions about why, despite decades of government funding and numerous policy initiatives, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities continue to experience significant social and economic disadvantage.
Meanwhile, many Asian countries have made substantial progress in economic development, education, infrastructure, and living standards, even in circumstances where resources may be limited. Yet, many of Australia's First Peoples continue to face persistent disadvantage despite living in one of the world's wealthiest nations and receiving substantial government support. This contrast demands serious scrutiny and an honest assessment of why the intended outcomes have not been achieved.
The central question is whether public funding is genuinely reaching Indigenous communities and improving their lives, or whether too much of it is being absorbed by the government-funded organisations established to support them. There must be clear evidence of where the money goes, who benefits from it, and what measurable improvements it delivers to the people for whom it is intended.
It is unacceptable for government-funded systems to continue operating without sufficient transparency, independent oversight, and demonstrable results. There is a legitimate need to investigate whether existing funding structures and institutional arrangements are contributing to dependency rather than self-determination, and whether Indigenous peoples' resources and interests are being adequately protected.
The First Peoples of Australia deserve more than political promises, repeated policy announcements, and bureaucratic responses. They deserve meaningful progress, economic empowerment, genuine self-determination, and full accountability from every institution entrusted with their welfare and future.
The time has come for an independent and comprehensive review of Indigenous funding, government agencies, and the organisations responsible for delivering services to First Nations communities. The objective must be clear: to ensure that public resources serve the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, rather than the interests of the institutions administering those resources. Without transparency and accountability, the cycle of disadvantage will continue, and the promise of a fairer future for Australia's First Peoples will remain unfulfilled.