Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very grateful for the opportunity. I just indicate, in relation to this attendance for compliance with OPD 208—which I'm informed was originally 119; thank you—that Minister O'Neil provided documents in response to Senator Bragg's order 119 on 19 December. Some information was redacted as it disclosed cabinet deliberations. That's the way that the Westminster system works, Senator Bragg. I want to be clear here. We as a government have complied with more orders for production of documents in one term than any Australian government in the history of the Commonwealth. That includes an order moved by Senator Bragg, who was requesting a congratulatory letter. I am very happy to provide Senator Bragg with a congratulatory letter on ministerial letterhead. I'm happy to say to him, 'Congratulations, Senator Bragg, for staying on the coalition frontbench over the course of the last period.' Not everybody was afforded that opportunity in that sort of game of snakes and ladders with no ladders, except the ladder of opportunity that Senator Bragg ascends.

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

A point of order. I think everyone knows this is a very long bow. I don't think these issues are germane to the—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I won't do is move onto Senator Sharma and his extraordinary rise through this process—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I remind you to put your remarks through the chair, please.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't reflect upon all of the sorts of snakes and ladders, snakes and snakes, games that have gone on over there and the dramatic reversals of fortune that have happened for some and not for others. But I would say that, in Ms O'Neil's portfolio of housing alone, in this term of parliament alone, in response to orders of production of documents, the government has provided 3,995 pages worth of documents. In terms of the number of pages, that is 62 times the number of pages that there were in the Liberal Party review, which was conducted by Sir Nicholas and Pru, who tried to speak truth to power—

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

Are they all redacted? How many were redacted?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the number of pages, Senator.

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

A point of order. I fail to see how the minister canvassing another political party's internal review has anything to do with the matter before the Senate.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do reflect upon the number of pages that we have provided and the direct relationship to the number of pages that there are in the Liberal Party review that Mr Taylor sought so hard to stop you all seeing.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order. The minister is obliged to speak in a way that's directly relevant to the matter before the Senate, and I would ask you to draw him back to the matter that is being debated.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think I need to remind the minister of the subject before us.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, that same review said that the Liberal Party needed to have 'serious reform in housing'. So, fewer orders for production of documents and less secrecy from the Liberal Party machine—we know where you stood on this question.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I think we have another point of order.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are far-sighted, Acting Deputy President. A point of order on relevance. These debates can be wide-ranging, but the minister is nowhere near the topic at hand. I'd ask you to bring him back to the debate, please.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a wide-ranging debate, as it always is in this place. I will give the call back to the minister and ask him to continue with his contribution.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, the first part of learning that you've got a problem is being able to tell yourselves that you've got a problem. Instead of learning the lessons, we see more negativity, more extremism—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don't you just release the documents?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator! Why didn't the Liberal Party release the documents? Why didn't they do that? Look, I don't want to spend any more time this afternoon on this question, because we have years in front of us on this review. We'll all learn lessons from it. We will. I'm not sure you will, but we will. We will learn. We'll adapt. We'll moderate our approach and we'll get right into it.

This order for the production of documents was complied with in December. It has been complied with. Senator Bragg notes in this motion that he believes, he says, that 'the Prime Minister has previously referred to the conducted modelling in public forums'. He should have said 'fora'. I was criticised for my syntax earlier on. It's probably 'fora'. 'Fewer' instead of 'less'—that's true. And Senator Bragg claims that this makes the minister's PII claim irrelevant. I'll help him out here: it's about contingent liability and not the home price impact model. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators on the left: with continual interjection, you are then going to get a response for that.

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

I'm happy to have interjections if they're going to aid debate, but I make the point, in taking note of the minister's explanation—if you could call it an explanation—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you moving to take note?

I'm moving to take note of this explanation, if you can call it an explanation. What it really was was a continuation of the government's obfuscation across the board. It doesn't matter whether it's FOI, answers to questions on notice or orders for production. The government is refusing to provide the information. Frankly, it is offensive to the taxpayers to hear the minister come in here and spend most of his time on the explanation making jokes—which may in some ways be funny—about the Liberal Party's review. It has nothing to do with the matter before the Senate.

The reason that we have this ODP before the Senate is that the Prime Minister of Australia has been citing data to support his position—according to the Treasury, he says—that prices would go up by 0.6 per cent as a result of Labor's massive expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme, also known as five per cent deposits. The minister apparently says that compliance is a series of blank pages, but the modelling, of course, is not blank pages. The modelling would be a series of numbers with a series of assumptions and risks, and this modelling was, of course, an afterthought. This policy of five per cent deposits, open to anyone, without any means testing, without any place caps, in a supply constrained environment, was announced during the election campaign in May 2025. It was only in July that the government decided, 'Oh, maybe we should get some modelling to see whether or not this idea is going to force prices to change.' Apparently, the Treasury came back and said it will by 0.6 six per cent over many years. But the problem with that is that the 0.6 per cent was eclipsed with a 3.6 per cent increase in the December quarter alone—the first quarter of the operation of the scheme. So it was wiped out, and the community feels it. If you look at the Cotality data, you can see that entry-level house prices are massively increasing compared to houses that are more valuable. This is a policy which is making life harder for younger people. Ninety-five per cent mortgages are already going to be hard work, but this is pushing the prices up in this supply constrained environment to the point where people can't afford to get a mortgage and will never get a mortgage even with this five per cent scheme.

This point of this exercise is to get to the bottom of this. It started in August. The Senate passed a motion asking for the modelling. In September, I wrote to the minister, asking for the answer. We finally got something in December that was mainly a redacted piece of paper. It was four or five pieces of paper, 95 per cent of which was totally redacted or covered up. Of course we have asked for those redactions to be removed, because it is not true—and this is the main point—and it is unreasonable for the minister to argue that the modelling is cabinet-in-confidence. The modelling is produced on a piece of paper by the Treasury. If you don't believe me, go and refer to the Hansard for economics estimates, where you'll see the person from Treasury who actually did the modelling, and he will say: 'Yes, we did the piece of modelling. It was on a few pieces of paper, and we provided them to the government.' That is not a cabinet document. It's not. The idea that, according to Minister Ayres and Minister O'Neil, they've complied with the thing and they're not going to provide any more information because it's cabinet is incorrect. It is not correct.

Effectively, if the government think this is the end of the road on this process of trying to get to the bottom of the five per cent modelling, then they are mistaken. We will never give up on using the powers of the Senate to get the documents we are supposed to get. We're not doing it for ourselves; we're doing it because that's our job. Our job is to get to the bottom of things, to expose maladministration and to consider the documents that are given to the executive to make decisions. In this case, the executive had made the wrong decision. The policy is flawed and wrong, and it may have been based on modelling that is completely flawed and should be released. It is not a cabinet document; it must be released. I thank the crossbench for their forbearance and their support, and I indicate that we will continue working on this until we get to the bottom of it, so stay tuned.

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

I rise also to speak on this attendance motion. I've got to say I really hope people out there in housing-crisis land did not watch the minister's appearance, because I felt like I was in a very sad front bar with a set of worn-out senators after a hard week in the Senate, where he blew off a really significant crisis that is affecting so many millions of Australians. We got that kind of jokey, dismissive, contemptuous response. I must say, as a senator, I am absolutely outraged at that response. It was inappropriate. It's the most significant economic issue in this country, affecting millions of people—young people, their parents, older women who can't find a rental house, who are on the street and who are tipped into homelessness.

There has been a 10 per cent increase in homelessness in the four years of this Labor government. Shame on you to come in here, Minister, and be so dismissive and so contemptuous of a very legitimate request. This is a request for modelling on one of the government's central programs in its appalling array of programs which are failing to meet the crisis in front of us and are, in fact, a series of responses, including the five per cent deposit scheme, which are pouring fuel on a housing crisis like we have never seen in this country in the postwar period.

It's a crisis that is tipping people into living in tents in the parklands in my city and in every city. There is not a city in this country where someone who is looking for an affordable first home can afford, on average, a house. We see people in every city in our country, as they purchase their first home, entering automatically into housing stress. This is a really serious issue, yet we see this minister come in here and fail to treat it with any kind of seriousness. I am distressed by it. I am disgusted by it, and I think he should be doing better and his government should be doing better.

This OPD was passed in the Senate six months ago, and it asked for the total budgetary costs of Labor's expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme. We've pursued this issue in estimates. We get told, 'Chase it in estimates.' We've chased it in estimates over and over again. They are serious questions about an expensive and significant program, and we get these appalling—I'm not allowed to use them as a prop—five blank pages as a response to us in the Senate. It is disgraceful. It is treating us with contempt. More importantly than treating us with contempt, as senators elected to this place, it's treating people out there with contempt—people out there who are trying to raise a deposit, people who are trying to get into housing. They are failing to give us the information we need to look seriously at a significant program.

Even though the government would like to think this OPD is completely complied with, it's the opinion of the Senate that it's not complied with. It's clearly not. It's a blank response. That is contemptuous. The Senate has rejected the government's public interest immunity claim, and we need the full costings. Labor's five per cent deposit scheme is turbocharging prices at the very entry-level point in the housing market where young people are trying to get in. Almost every economist in the country, including the economists in Treasury, said it would push prices up, and—hey presto!—it has, and they're up much more than the Treasury modelling predicted. We need to look at that modelling and understand it, and it is a completely reasonable request to seek it out.

As I said, there are no affordable houses for first home buyers in any city in our country, and the prices of houses at that lower entry level of the market have grown 68 per cent since 2020. That is an impossible circumstance for people trying to get into housing. Last year alone the price of entry-level homes grew at a rate of 12.3 per cent, and in recent months, since the five per cent deposit came into being, they have accelerated at a rapid rate. It was predicted by economists and recognised by Treasury, and all we say is: 'Show us the modelling. Let us understand what is happening. Show us the budget that is implied here.'

What we see here is a failure by Labor to be straightforward with the Senate about the information it received to analyse a significant program—in a housing crisis, a crisis that is affecting so many people. That response was a disgrace. The Senate deserves better, the minister needs to do better, and Labor has got to do better for Australians.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I associate myself with Senator Barbara Pocock's remarks in this regard and also with Senator Andrew Bragg's remarks. This is simply not good enough. Earlier in the week the Prime Minister used the forum of federal parliament to table the review into the Liberal Party's performance at last election. The Australian people aren't interested in the internal machinations of the opposition. They're interested in the government actually addressing the matters of concern to the Australian people, and, as Senator Pocock and Senator Bragg said, one of the No. 1 issues is access to affordable housing.

The minister came into this place, and in terms of his explanation as to why, in response to an order for the production of documents from the Senate, we were given five or six redacted pages—and, for those who don't know what the practice is, it's just pages covered in black ink. This Senate legitimately asked for the modelling of the home deposit guarantee program because the Senate was concerned, as nearly every reputable economist in the country was concerned, that it would lead to an increase in the cost of housing for first entrants into the housing market, and that's what we've now seen, as Senator Bragg said.

The latest figures for the first quarter in which the program was in operation show that the cost of housing went up 3.6 per cent for first home buyers. So we want to see the modelling from Treasury that was provided to the government to form the basis of the decision to implement this scheme, and the government is refusing to provide it to us. It's not good enough. They're not just refusing to provide it to us; they're refusing to provide it to the Australian people.

I'm genuinely and desperately concerned for those first home buyers who have entered into the market with the burden of a debt I could not have imagined undertaking when I was buying my first property, and I'm also concerned with respect to future first home buyers, those who are seeking to enter into the market with this escalation in housing prices. The Senate—the house of review, the house of scrutiny, one of the great checks on executive power in Australia's political system—is seeking the information to do its job, and the Senate is being treated with absolute contempt by this government.

The second point I want to make in this regard—and I've referred to this report from the Centre for Public Integrity on numerous occasions, so this isn't a one-off—is about the contempt for orders for the production of documents, which are issued by the Senate; the failure to answer legitimate questions in the Senate estimates; and the failure to respond in a timely fashion to FOI requests. This is part of a pattern of behaviour. I want to quote from the Centre for Public Integrity's report. The Centre for Public Integrity was established by outstanding Australians. It's non-political, non-partisan; it simply wants to see better government in this country. This is what they say about the performance of the Albanese Labor government:

In July 2025, the Centre for Public Integrity released two reports assessing the Government's record on transparency. In respect of freedom of information …

They warned of 'a worrying increase in FOI application refusals.'

They also say:

Instead of fixing the problem, the Government doubled down. The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 represents a serious and alarming step backward—expanding exemptions, re-introducing application fees, and banning anonymous requests. These changes are almost universally opposed …

That bill was withdrawn this week by the government in embarrassment, because they couldn't get the support of the majority in this place, because all the parties in this place who aren't in the government and those on the crossbench weren't prepared to support that erosion of FOI. The government had to withdraw that bill.

This is how this culture of the Albanese Labor government has been described: 'leaning into a culture of secrecy'. These aren't my words as a Liberal National Party senator from Queensland; these are the words of the Centre for Public Integrity that's established on a nonpartisan basis to hold governments of all political persuasions to account.

Question agreed to.