It's a genuinely frustrating situation as an individual the options are limited. But there are a few things worth knowing

What you can do as an individual

Shop around and actually switch — most people stay with their bank out of inertia. Lenders like Athena, Tic:Toc, and credit unions regularly offer rates 0.5-1% lower than the big four. On a $500,000 mortgage that's $2,500-$5,000 a year. The big banks count on you not switching.

Negotiate — banks will often drop your rate if you simply call and threaten to leave. They'd rather reduce your rate slightly than lose the loan entirely. Most people never do this.

Use a mortgage broker — a good broker has access to dozens of lenders and can find genuinely competitive rates. Just make sure they're fee for service rather than commission based, so their incentives align with yours.

Join a credit union or mutual bank — these are members owned, which means profits go back to members rather than shareholders. They're not perfect, but their incentives are structurally more aligned with customers.

But here's the honest truth

Individual action only goes so far. The system itself is the problem, and individual choices don't change the system. The real levers are political and structural.

What would actually make a difference systemically

Open banking done properly — Australia introduced open banking, which in theory makes it easier to switch lenders by allowing your financial data to be shared. In practice, it hasn't delivered the competition it promised yet, but the framework is there.

Government backed long term fixed rates — some countries have government sponsored mortgage agencies that make genuine 25–30 year fixed rates possible. Australia has never seriously pursued this. It would require political will to take on the banking lobby.

Stronger merger controls — stopping the big banks from buying competitors in the first place. The horse has largely bolted on this one but preventing further consolidation matters.

A genuine public banking option — some economists argue for a government owned bank that offers mortgages at cost, forcing the private banks to compete. It exists in other countries. In Australia, it's considered a radical idea, but it's not unprecedented — the Commonwealth Bank was originally a government bank before it was privatised in the 1990s.

Reigning in negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts — these tax policies artificially inflate property prices by making investment properties extremely attractive to wealthy investors. First home buyers compete against investors, who have significant tax advantages. Reforming these policies would cool property prices, but it's politically toxic because so many voters are property investors.

The more in-depth problem

In Australia, homeownership has become so culturally and financially central to people's lives that the entire system is built around protecting property values rather than making housing affordable. Politicians are reluctant to do anything that might reduce property prices because the majority of voters are homeowners who don't want to see their asset values fall.

So there's a fundamental conflict of interest at the heart of Australian housing policy — the people who vote are largely the people who benefit from high property prices and expensive mortgages being the norm.

The most honest answer

As an ordinary citizen, the system is stacked against you and individual action has real limits. The only way it changes meaningfully is through political pressure — voting for parties that prioritise housing affordability over protecting bank profits and property values, and making your voice heard. The fact that more young Australians are being locked out of homeownership entirely is slowly shifting the political conversation, but change is frustratingly slow.

It's one of those issues where the system isn't broken — it's working exactly as the people who designed it intended. That's what makes it so difficult to change.