It's splashed across yellow billboards and grabbing people's attention.
Clive Palmer's United Australia Party (UAP) has made a bold pledge to voters that it will cap home loans at an interest rate of 3 per cent for the next five years.
On the UAP website, the party claims that a 4 four per cent interest rate would see over three in five Australians default on their mortgages and lose their homes. At six or more per cent, it would be four in five Australians, the UAP claims. No evidence was provided to support this.
"The real estate market will then collapse and foreign buyers will flood our real estate market as they will have the money to buy up our properties," its 'national policy' reads.
"We have to stop Australians from losing their homes."
With the Reserve Bank Of Australia (RBA) lifting its official cash rate to 0.35 per cent in the first hike in more than a decade on Tuesday, a cap might seem more enticing to some.
Although details on the UAP's 'economic plan for freedom and prosperity' are scarce, here are some of the challenges that may arise if Mr Palmer got his way.
1. Loans only for the wealthy?
As Mr Palmer - and many others - will know, it is the RBA that sets the cash rate, not the government. Banks follow the RBA's baseline, setting their own rate which is competitive with other lenders, while also trying to make a profit.
In a media release, the UAP says it will use "the power of the Constitution" to cap lending rates - although it's unclear how this would be done.
Legal hurdles aside, Dr Zac Gross, a lecturer in economics at Monash University, tells The Feed the policy relies on "pretty faulty economic logic".
Dr Gross says capping the home loan rate would make it trickier for banks to make a profit if, for example, they are borrowing at four per cent and charging for three per cent.
"If the banks can't recover their costs when they make mortgages, they are only going to lend to the wealthiest households," Dr Gross says. "That's their safest bet."
This would cut off new homebuyers or lower-income buyers from the market, leaving them to be replaced by overseas buyers or none at all, Dr Gross says.
And if demand drops, this could send the market crashing, devaluing the price of your property, he adds.
"Even if you get a little bit off your mortgage, if your house is 10 per cent less valuable, then you've probably lost more on the crash than what you make up with a slightly lower mortgage repayment."
2. Banks could hike up the rates on other loans
Dr Janine Dixon, an associate professor at Victoria University’s Centre of Policy Studies, says it would also be bad for others businesses and institutions.
"If banks are finding it harder to make a profit out of mortgages, you may find that they actually jack up their interest rates on other types of loans," Associate Professor Dixon says.
"And so that may come at the expense of employment and wages."
3. Even without a blanket law, it would be a lot of money to generate
Details are scant, but Dr Gross says theoretically the interest rate gap could be paid for by the government, generated through taxpayer money. This, would too, come with a big price tag.
"It would be ridiculously costly. We're talking $50 million a year," Dr Gross says.
"If we are going to keep interest rates low, someone else is going to have to pay for it."
The verdict
Ultimately, Dr Gross says a stable market is more desirable.
"So while no one likes paying back their mortgage to the bank, having a profitable and safe and stable banking system is much better than having a banking system that's close to crisis and prone to crashes."
"And that's exactly what you would get if you choke off the bank's primary business model.
"I guess that's the advantage of being in a minor party. No one is ever going to really have to put you to the test to enact your policies. I suspect that allows you to be a bit more outlandish."
Associate professor Dixon says it's a "shortsighted" policy that only seeks to benefit those already with property to their name.
"And you got to ask why do we need to protect them? And at whose expense will that come?"
The Feed is seeking comment from the UAP.
