Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities has provided the Senate documents in scope of the order of production No. 27. I'm not sure why, but I have been asked to table those as well. I think they have been provided, but I am happy to table them.

I note for the Senate's awareness that these documents were received by the minister only a few days ago following a careful review by the Treasury of its systems for documents that may be in scope. A number of documents identified as being in the scope of the order with respect to both programs were developed as part of the deliberative processes and decisions of cabinet. The minister has made a public interest immunity claim over the release of these additional documents, as they would have the effect of publicly disclosing the deliberations of cabinet. These documents are informing the work of the government, and, until certain decisions are taken, the documents must remain confidential. Additionally, the nature of the 100,000 home programs in particular and the work required with states and territories mean releasing other documents captured in the order would have the potential to cause prejudice for future consultation and harm relationships with states and territories.

It may assist the Senate and Senator Bragg to know that orders for the production of documents regarding housing are best directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities, rather than the Minister representing the Treasurer.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.

In taking note of this explanation, I make the point that the Senate ordered these documents back in July. The order was quite clear. The Senate was seeking advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing in relation to the government's expansion of the five per cent deposit scheme. Subsequent to that, we've seen the Prime Minister canvas publicly that fact that there is Treasury advice which did anticipate that there would be an increase in house prices as a result of the government's five per cent deposit scheme expansion.

The Senate ordered the production of these documents in July. Here we are on Melbourne Cup Day in November, and we do not have those documents. The government cries a river about the Senate seeking access to documents properly ordered by this chamber on behalf of the Australian people, but this is yet another example of the government refusing to apply the normal applications that we would expect that they would comply with.

The point I make here is that the five per cent deposit scheme, which has been deployed into a supply constrained market without any income test, means testing or place caps, has shot prices up. Independent economist Nicholas Gruen of Lateral Economics predicted a 10 per cent increase in house prices as a result of this change. That was his prediction—a 10 per cent increase. We now have the first month of data from 1 October to 1 November, and that bears true. Nicholas Gruen's prediction is coming to life. We've seen a 1.2 per cent increase in October, the biggest increase in years for entry level first homes. When you look the complete set of data, what you see is no change to the houses of the wealthiest Australians. But you see a big surge in prices for entry level housing. The policy that was apparently designed to make it easier for prospective first home owners is making it harder. The prices are shooting up.

I make the point that house prices are too high at the entry level point. They are too high and they need to come down because this government has deliberately or recklessly increased the prices in that range when they knew that they had failed on supply. They inherited a housing system which had given the country 200,000 houses a year on average, and they've crashed that down to 170,000 houses a year on average. They have crashed the supply side of the market. We have the biggest population we've ever had, and here they come along with this demand side gimmick which shoots up house prices.

That's why we've sought this document. We sought this document because we know that briefings and modellings were doing by the Treasury. The Prime Minister's confirmed it, but, apparently, we're not allowed to have it. The Senate's not allowed to have the documents it asked for. You have to wonder what sort of country we're living in. All we want to see are the modellings and the briefings that were done. I am sure that Treasury would have flagged the huge risks the Australian people would have to bear if the government was going to uncap and open this scheme up to the children of billionaires. I am sure.

Anyway, we'll play this game a bit longer. The government can keep on covering up and obfuscating, not giving us the documents which have been legally ordered by this chamber, but in the end we'll get the documents. In the end, the government will have enough of extended question times and have enough of the other things that we'll do with the crossbench to ensure that we get transparency. The government can threaten to cut the pay and conditions, like a union bully would, of the people in the House of Reps, and I don't think anyone gives a rat's arse, frankly—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bragg, that language is unparliamentary. I'd ask you to withdraw it.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw of course. But I don't think anyone gives a rat, frankly, that the government is threatening members of the House, because we're trying to get documents which belong to the Australian people.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the attendance, if I could, this is a continuation of a disturbing culture of secrecy we continue to see from the Albanese Labor government. Don't just take my word for it. The Centre for Public Integrity released a report card on the Albanese Labor government's failure to be appropriately transparent. The first point they raised in this abysmal report card of the Albanese Labor government is directly related to the document which Senator Bragg is seeking—not for himself but for the Australian people—and that is the government's failure to commit to transparency.

The Centre for Public Integrity said the government is 'leaning into a culture of secrecy'. They aren't my words. They are the words of one of the most esteemed non-government organisations in this country with respect to the performance of the Albanese Labor government in terms of responding to orders for the production of documents, responding to requests for freedom-of-information documents and being open and transparent with the Australian people. When we seek these documents and when senators from all around the chamber seek these documents, we're not seeking the documents for us. We're seeking the documents for the Australian people.

Senator Bragg has given the example of the document he sought, with respect to the government's five per cent deposit scheme, to find what advice was given to the government with respect to the impact of this scheme on house prices—an absolutely key issue in terms of implementation of this scheme. Senator Bragg asked for this document in July. We're now in November. That's extraordinary! And we have seen that all the senators in this place except for the government senators—so all of the senators on the crossbench and covering more than 50 per cent of the senators in this place—have had to take the extraordinary step of taking action to try and get the government to respond to orders for the production of documents. It shouldn't be like this.

If the Senate requires a document for its deliberations, it should be provided unless there's a really, really good reason. I listened very carefully to Senator Gallagher, Manager of Government Business in the Senate, with respect to her explanation and I did not hear a coherent, sensible reason as to why the documents could not be produced. The scheme is already in operation. As Senator Bragg said, we're already seeing the inflationary impact on prices, so what we wanted to see was the basis and the modelling that was undertaken to actually support the implementation of this policy, and the government refuses to provide it to us. In doing so they're refusing to provide it to the Australian people and, once again, they're underlying the report card that was issued by the Centre for Public Integrity that this is a government that is leaning into a culture of secrecy.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the attendance motion. There are two concerns in relation to this. One concern relates to transparency and one concern relates to the housing crisis in our country, and both are significant. My colleagues have spoken about secrecy. This Labor government is the most secretive government since the Keating administration. That is not something that you want to aspire to be. We need to call out the fact that this government continues to operate under a banner of secrecy. This would not be necessary if this government provided the information requested.

My colleagues, Senator Bragg and Senator Scarr, both referenced 25 July as the date when Senator Bragg requested this document. That was 103 days ago. This government has had 103 days to provide the document that Senator Bragg sought. Instead of handing that document over to the Senate on behalf of the Australian people—as Senator Scarr eloquently stated—this government has decided to hang onto this document and not provide it. They've decided not to provide this information. We have to ask why. Is it because the modelling they've received in relation to their five per cent deposit scheme will confirm what we all already know—that it would drive up house prices? Is it that they don't want us to know that they knew it would drive up house prices but did it anyway? Is that why? It doesn't take an economist and it doesn't take somebody from Treasury to tell you that, if you put more buyers into the market and don't increase supply-side measures, you're going to get increased demand, and increased demand increases prices. It's as simple as that. Or is it because the modelling revealed that their housing policies would do nothing to fix the very housing crisis that they created? Is that why they don't want to provide the document that was rightfully requested by this Senate?

The Senate has the right to request documents, and, when it does, the government should hand them over. We have to ask why this veil of secrecy continues. It is not just limited to OPDs; it is broader than that. I have tried a number of times in this chamber to seek a Senate inquiry into the administration of the CFMEU. This government refuses to allow it. They have blocked that. Why? If it is operating as it should, what is the problem with scrutinising that? Then there would be nothing to see, but clearly there is. No-one really knows the reasons. We can only assume what the reasons are, because this government won't tell us.

This is a failure to release a document for 103 days—over three months after the Senate agreed to its release. Let me be clear about that: the senators in this chamber agreed to that document being released, yet the government refuses to hand it over. That isn't democracy. That's not how things are meant to work. If the senators in this place have collectively agreed, by a majority, that the government should hand documents over to another senator, then that is exactly what should happen. In my view, the failure to do so is a contempt of this Senate and is a complete disregard of the people that we represent. Each senator in this place represents people in a state or territory of this country.

The other day we had some theatrics around senators on the government side not being able to ask questions for people in their state. Well, these are very serious questions that not just the people in New South Wales but people in every single state in our country want answers to, and the Albanese Labor government continues to refuse to hand those documents over. They should be ashamed.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the explanation by the Minister representing the Treasurer. We've just had a question time where we've seen repetitive questions about the housing crisis. We saw repetitive questions throughout last week as well. Australians are worried about a housing crisis that is on fire. It is driving up prices, and we need information to have a proper, informed debate in this parliament. Senator Bragg requested that these documents be produced on 28 July 2025, but he's been fobbed off.

The minister has asked for additional time. Three months have passed without an update until today, and we need a full release of these documents. We are in a housing crisis where demand is out of control, and we need the analysis so that we can look at what Treasury is saying about the impact of the government's policies on prices. We are denied that and we need that information to have a sensible debate and to really understand what is going on that's driving a crisis out there affecting so many Australians.

Why is the government taking so long to release this information? This is a government obsessed with ducking accountability and transparency, particularly in relation to housing. The OPD compliance rate in this parliament is dismal, and I'm still waiting on an answer for my OPD from August about direct spending on public and community housing. Why is this government allergic to telling us what the data and analysis are on housing?

Australians deserve to see Treasury's modelling of the five per cent deposit scheme. Treasury advice says that scheme would raise prices by 'only' 0.5 per cent nationally over six years. Let's assume that prices will rise by 'only' 0.5 per cent as a result of these changes. The ABS data out of the Parliamentary Library tells us that this will add $55 billion to property prices over the next six years. Tell a first home buyer that that's what's happening as a consequence of these policies. At the most optimistic analysis, this amounts to $9 billion a year. This scheme is turbocharging housing prices. It is causing despair and a really deep concern out there in the community, locking out first home buyers, plunging them deeper into debt. We need to see a change in policy and analysis that underpins what we are facing in policy from this government.

Many experts and stakeholders warn that Treasury's 0.5 per cent is actually incredibly conservative. Lateral Economics's Nick Gruen found that the expanded scheme 'could drive national property prices by up by 3.5 to 6.6 per cent in 2026 and for several years afterwards. A home valued today at $800,000 must cost a first home buyer an additional $28,000 to $52,000. Lots of first home buyers find this incredibly hard to hear. They hate opening the paper every day, because the bad news is bad news day after day. The Reserve Bank also said that the five per cent deposit changes may mean 'a little more upward pressure on house prices in the short term'. In the midst of a national housing crisis, this scheme will add billions to property prices. Taking out a 95 per cent mortgage when property prices are eight times the average household income doesn't create stability; it sets first home buyers up for financial hardship while banks make superprofits—and this is widening intergenerational inequality at a rapid rate.

This motion also goes to Labor's policy to invest $10 billion to deliver 100,000 homes for first home buyers. This isn't a horrible policy; it's an admission from the government that they can directly fund housing construction for first home buyers, not just for US defence personnel in relation to AUKUS in Perth but also for Australian citizens. We can build directly. We can fund directly. We can do solutions that are effective, efficient, cost-effective and timely. Everybody's Home said that, while building 100,000 homes is a good step, they aren't guaranteed to be affordable. There's a missing piece of that spend. Don't build 'anything'; build something that people can actually afford.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about this policy and its implementation, and Australians deserve the detail. It's contemptuous not to provide to this parliament the detail that we expect to have to understand and to ask questions out of, and it is our job as a Senate to pay attention to what this analysis says. We are denied that capability by this reluctance to share information, and it is a critical question for so many Australians.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There used to be a social contract in this country. That social contract was that, if you worked hard and you contributed, you could get ahead. Getting ahead included owning your home. That social contract has been obliterated by a housing system that is now designed to serve the interests of the already very wealthy people in this country.

Labor came to office 3½ years ago promising change, and they've spent that time deliberately, knowingly, making the housing crisis worse. The housing market has become a machine for transferring wealth upwards, and Labor keeps that machine running because, in Labor's view, the line must go up. House prices must continue to rise, according to the Labor Party. Rents must continue to rise, according to the Labor Party. Profits must continue to rise for property speculators, according to the Labor Party. That is Labor's economic plan—endless growth for the wealthy, built on the misery of millions who can't afford their own home and who can't afford to make ends meet.

Labor defends the obscene tax breaks given to property speculators—negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount—that funnel public money into private fortunes. They pour billions into these subsidies, and they pour billions more into schemes that inflate demand instead of building homes. They refuse to freeze rents, and they refuse to build enough public housing because they don't want to upset the property class and property investors. Every policy Labor touches is designed to benefit the property class. Every dollar of so-called housing investment is carefully directed to keep prices high.

It is not a market. It is an absolute racket. It is a racket of the highest order, and ordinary everyday Australians are paying the price. The great class divide in this country today is now between those who are wealthy enough to own real estate and those who are too poor to own real estate. That is the great class divide in this country, where the path to security is owning property. If you can't afford to buy, you're trapped paying off someone else's mortgage forever. The social contract is falling apart.

The truth is that Labor needs the housing crisis. They need house prices to keep climbing so they can keep claiming the economy is strong. One of the great triumphs of neoliberalism has been to convince people that a better life is not possible. A better life is possible because it is all about political choices. I say to young people who believe—because the forces of neoliberalism want them to believe—that poverty and insecurity are somehow their fault: that poverty and that insecurity that you are feeling is not your fault. It is the result of political choices made by the political duopoly in this place, the Labor Party and the LNP. The housing crisis was created by governments, it is built on greed, and it will only end when we stop treating people's homes as an investment class or an asset class and start treating them as a human right.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister representing the Minister for Housing has been asked to attend the Senate to explain why the government is hiding from scrutiny of its housing policy. The answer is simple: the Albanese government's housing policy is a shambles of ill-considered measures, written for social media moments. When implemented together, the measures have driven up housing prices and rents and have ensured young Australians will never afford their own home unless they come from a wealthy family. Over and over, this government pursues policies that assist the rich, assist foreign multinational merchant banks and assist superannuation companies—not Australian superannuation companies, though. The government has just decided to send $2.13 trillion of Australian money to the United States to make America great again. The mask is off. The Albanese-Chalmers Labor government is not a government of the Australian working class. Instead, it is beholden to multinational, mostly American controlled, crony corporations.

Imagine what could have been built with that money here in Australia. Imagine the breadwinner jobs that $2.13 trillion could have created. Imagine the opportunities for traineeships, apprenticeships and entry-level jobs for young Australians starting out in life. Imagine the employment for tradies and small businesses with that level of investment. Imagine the life being given back to struggling rural and regional communities. What a betrayal of young Australians from the Albanese Labor government—yet another betrayal. President Trump must be laughing at us right now.

Senator Bragg has rightly pursued the government over their disastrous housing policies. The Australian National Audit Office, ANAO, has joined in, announcing an audit of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. The fund was supposed to deliver 40,000 homes for new buyers and for the disadvantaged. One Nation pointed out at the time that this wasn't enough and that there weren't the materials to build those houses. We were right as usual. The average cost of the government's social and affordable homes was more than $750,000, with some reaching more than $1 million—three to four times their budget. Auditor-General Caralee McLiesh recently revealed the Housing Australia Future Fund disbursed—wait for it—just $13.6 million in 2024-25 out of the $10 billion fund. That's 0.136 per cent, barely one-tenth of one per cent. The Housing Australia Future Fund is now exactly two years old. Minister, where are the houses? Where are the construction contracts, the earthworks the materials purchases—anything at all? The Housing Australia Future Fund was only ever a social media program, an election illusion.

I look forward to the Australian National Audit Office finding out where taxpayers' money has gone. I understand it's gone to union superannuation funds to fund net zero. Let's see. I understand part of the government's problem. Australia is already building new homes at the fastest per capita rate of any country in the world and has been for years—not the government but tradies in private enterprise. Construction is down from 219,000 new homes in 2015-16 to just 179,000 in 2024-25 because the things that are needed to build houses are in short supply: materials, land availability and qualified construction workers. With closures in aluminium and steel smelting, these shortages and our reliance on China will get worse. Do I hear 'net zero'? Employment for everyday Australians will get worse thanks to net zero.

One Nation's housing policy will make a major difference to the lives of young Australians. It will turn the useless Housing Australia 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 payments and increasing their borrowing ability so they can get in early. We'll overcome the deposit gap by allowing Australians to use their 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. It's a great investment. We'll limit negative gearing to two homes.

As a result of the Albanese government's low-deposit scheme, home prices have gone up six per cent. It's made the housing shortage worse—a stupid mistake. Offering incentives to help young people own their own home increases demand, forces up prices and leaves younger people worse off than before the government helped. We will remigrate—deport—200,000 people who deliberately broke their visa conditions, who completed their study and simply stayed here, or who lodged spurious asylum claims. We'll send them home—deport, remigrate—and reduce demand. (Time expired)

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.

Question agreed to.