Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I'm giving this attendance on behalf of Minister Ayres, who is returning from Queensland this morning. This order, as originally agreed, is for documents relating to the contingent liability of the Home Guarantee Scheme. I'm happy to advise the Senate that this modelling has been provided. I draw the Senate's attention to page 4 of the documents tabled on 23 December 2025 relating to this order. The document produced contains 10-year projections of contingent liability across all aspects of the program, including the First Home Guarantee, the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, the New Home Guarantee and the total Home Guarantee Scheme. As I'm sure Senator Bragg is aware, the contingent liability of the Home Guarantee Scheme is not the same thing as the home price impact modelling.

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 explanation.

It's very clear that the government has decided that it does not want to give the public access to the Treasury modelling and the detail surrounding the five per cent deposit scheme. That explanation from Minister Farrell on behalf of Senator Ayres on behalf of Minister O'Neil was a random set of words about the contingent liability in relation to the Home Guarantee Scheme, which has nothing to do with the five per cent deposit scheme price modelling, which the government know is the purpose of these motions. It has been the purpose of these motions going back to August 2025, when we first had the Senate adopt our motion that the price disclosures needed to be made.

The government will say that they have complied, as well, on the five per cent modelling. The five per cent modelling is largely redacted—in fact, almost entirely redacted. So we don't know, in fact, what was advised by the Treasury to the government. I make the point that it is clearly a huge affront to the public, after the Senate has ordered multiple times that these documents be produced, for the executive to say: 'We're refusing to give them to you, and we're refusing to acknowledge the fact that they even exist now. We'll change the subject and pretend that all the other senators and everyone else who's listening are too stupid to follow the debate.' That's effectively what their position is now. Last time Minister Ayres gave his explanation, he talked about the Liberal Party. That was his explanation in relation to five per cent deposit nondisclosure. Today we have Senator Farrell say that his explanation is about the contingent liability, which has nothing to do with five per cent deposit price modelling.

The substantive point here is that the Treasury did modelling for the government on the five per cent deposits as an afterthought. They did it in July, almost three months after the May 2025 announcement. The pieces of paper they've given us, which are mainly redacted, actually detail the work that Treasury had done. We just don't know what they actually said. For example, the Treasury says that they expected there were going to be 16,000 additional first home buyers in the first year, but we already know, based on the projections from the Home Guarantee Scheme after it was expanded on 1 October last year, that we're on track for over 66,000, an additional 30,000 people. So the numbers that were in this heavily redacted piece of paper from Treasury, which we're not allowed to see the rest of, are clearly wrong. The Prime Minister of the country has been going around saying that the changes that they're making to five per cent deposits will only result in a 0.6 per cent increase in prices. We know that's wrong, based on all the market analysis. We know it's massively wrong. It looks as if the reason they don't want to present this piece of paper without redactions is that they also know it's wrong. So they have massively misled the Australian community by lying and saying that their changes to this Home Guarantee Scheme or five per cent deposits will not increase prices, when they have and they knew about it before.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bragg, please resume your seat. Minister.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order goes to imputation. I think that it has been generally understood in this place that accusing other senators of lying is not appropriate language for the Senate.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask you to withdraw, Senator Bragg.

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

I'm happy to withdraw, but I make the point that it's clear that the government had information back in July last year that was given to them by the Treasury that they knew was bad but they went ahead with the 1 October five per cent deposit scheme anyway. They knew that there were problems. It says here that there was factoring in of the supply response. That's all been redacted. They would have been told that there were problems and risks, but they went ahead anyway, without any warnings.

I feel for the people who've taken out these 95 per cent mortgages and who've now had to withstand two rate rises under this government because of its economic mismanagement and are looking at more. There were always going to be risks with a massive expansion like this, but you cannot have a country that calls itself a democracy where the Treasury department is doing modelling and risk analysis for the government and the government says, 'It's a secret; we're never going to give it to you.' This is a democratic chamber. It's asked for this information to be provided. I'm sure there were warnings. Why, otherwise, would it be that the government won't give us these pieces of paper? There must be a political reason, and we won't give up on this.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the explanation, or non-explanation. Senator Bragg has been seeking the modelling of the five per cent deposit scheme since August of last year, and the government still won't give it up, but I commend Senator Bragg's persistence. At least in his case he's got a response, or somewhat of a response. In a motion that I moved, the Senate sought more information on the five per cent deposit scheme in November of last year, and the Minister for Housing hasn't even responded to it yet. In 142 days, the only documents the Minister for Housing has provided are letters which ask for more time. Can you imagine going into work and giving your boss some 'dog ate my homework' excuse for a task that is 131 days overdue? It isn't as if the Minister for Housing has to do all the work by herself. Leaving aside the hundreds of public servants at Treasury at her disposal, the minister has 13 full-time advisers. It's just astounding. While the government tries to hide their modelling from people like me and Senator Bragg, this policy is clearly driving up house prices all across the country.

We're not trying to bring down house prices.

The minister said that on radio last year. The government is merely trying to achieve sustainable price growth. They've said it themselves. They're not here to bring down prices.

Let's get this straight. This government implemented the five per cent deposit policy, which it knew would increase house prices. It did not believe house prices were increasing fast enough to be sustainable. In January, it was reported that the median price of a house in Perth had more than doubled since 2019. This government looked at that and said, 'That can't be sustainable; prices need to be growing even faster, so let's add more fuel to the fire!' How does that make sense? How can this government say with a straight face that it is working to get people into their first home as it deliberately pushes entry-level homes further and further out of reach? Becoming a homeowner will soon change from a thing to be celebrated to a thing being mourned, as more and more Australians become homeowners as a result of their parents dying. We hear about how the government has its foot all the way down on the supply pedal. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund has built less than 1,000 homes. If Australians are going to see serious changes to housing affordability, then this upcoming budget in May must make bold changes that go to the heart of the housing crisis, with negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount right on top of that list. We've seen the doublespeak report of the Select Committee on the Operation of the Capital Gains Tax Discount, but Australians need to see actual movement of these tax rorts that are advantaging the investors who keep first home buyers out of the market.

The numbers are here. You don't need to read the budget. You could pass these reforms through the Senate today, and you would have our support. The major parties are always rushing things through this chamber without thinking, without scrutiny, so why not rush something good through for a change? When people have the security and the stability that owning their own home provides, it truly allows them to do more than just survive. They can plan for their future, they can start thinking about starting a family, and they can start to innovate. If we want to address this country's productivity woes, we need to create an environment where people feel safe enough to take those measured risks, not just make ends meet. In the meantime, it's super important that the minister complies with this particular order.

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

I rise to take note of Minister Farrell's response on behalf of Minister Ayres. I begin by expressing my continuing disappointment with the appalling response and the disrespect shown to the Senate on this repeated request to give us something fairly simple but very important—that is, the basic case and the estimates arising from a model about how the five per cent deposit scheme would impact on the critical question of house prices. We heard Minister Farrell this morning completely and deliberately misunderstand the nature of the request made repeatedly in this place, give us data on contingent liability, refer to that and not go to the key issue here, which is: What did the modelling show? How did it assess risk? What were the bounds of possibility for house price increases? This is not a trivial question. This country is in a serious housing crisis, and the Senate here is seeking information about the basis for decision-making.

We have a government which has contributed to the housing crisis through this five per cent deposit scheme. Of the scheme's modelling out of Treasury, the bottom line showed a 0.6 per cent increase or an additional $55 billion to property prices over the next six years. That in itself is a significant increase, but we know the reality has been way more significant and large and a real pouring of fuel onto a crisis in housing across our country. A record high $40 billion was given to property investors, taken out in loans by property investors, in the last three months of 2025, a absolute record take by investors, who poured it into investing in property, many of them already wealthy property investors, pushing that price up in advance, in their thinking, of the consequences of what this five per cent deposit scheme would do to house prices and rushing to get in ahead of that price increase and fuel their own wealth at the cost of first home buyers. So this scheme has actually been a disaster for house prices, as it is widely seen. What this Senate wants to know is what the thinking there was. What was the modelling? We have a clear right and an important responsibility to take that issue seriously.

Labor has to take its responsibility for making this crisis worse much more seriously. House prices have increased by 25 per cent in the last term of Labor over the four years. That is appalling. We need policy action and remediation of that crisis, which Labor is ducking. Mortgages have increased by $70,000 on average in the last 12 months. We've got people out there suffering with successive interest rate increases that are piling on stress to households already living in mortgage stress, not to mention the crisis of rental affordability. We're at record levels of rental unaffordability and low rates of available properties. Through the CGT and negative gearing, $53 billion has been wasted on tax concessions over the four years of a Labor government. There are policy instruments available to Labor to do better than to make the crisis worse.

So we want to know what's going on and how that modelling panned out. We want to see the workings of it, the assumptions, the impact and the risk assessments. The Senate's responsibility is to ask for those documents. To be treated in this way with this appallingly redacted document today is shocking. In a crisis, that Labor think they can come here repetitively, minister after minister, and give us a failed response, a nonresponse, to treat us like mugs is not on. In a crisis, we need better, and Australian people want us to do it. To refuse to acknowledge that the modelling exists and to fail to take our request for it seriously is a real breach of serious government action. The Senate is right, and the Senate needs to keep coming back and requesting the key documents and the arguments underpinning critical housing interventions that are having extremely negative effects on so many Australians who are trying to buy property, trying to deal with their mortgages and trying to find their way in an appalling rental circumstance. Labor has not taken the Senate seriously. It is a shame. It is shocking. It's on their conscience. We will be back seeking information to illuminate the crisis we're in, how to get out of it and the stats and modelling that underlie Labor's position.

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note also. This Labor government has made the 48th Parliament tough sledding if you're looking for truth and answers. It's a closed shop as they drive the country towards an economic cliff. The secrecy around Housing Australia is a huge concern to One Nation, not just from the perspective of young people that Labor have put in harm's way by selling them 95 per cent mortgages before two interest rate rises but from a wider economic perspective, where the huge liabilities from defaulting loans will fall directly on the Australian taxpayer.

Let's start with young people and first home buyers. In November, I asked during question time if Labor had done any modelling on what the default rate of people on the 95 per cent mortgage scheme would be in the event of two rate rises. In typical Labor fashion, I got no answer. I got the inside of a doughnut again. Sadly, we won't have to hold our breath for the modelling. We are now living that scenario, with more rate rises on the horizon. Young Aussies won't have to wait to see the consequences; they will feel them in real time. First home buyers have stretched themselves thin to take out these enormous mortgages on Labor's promises that interest rates were on the way down. They're getting good at saying the opposite of reality—'There's no fuel crisis'—but just like every other economic shock, like when inflation spiked as One Nation said it would or when rates rose as One Nation said they would, Labor is caught completely unaware and unprepared. I always give people the benefit of the doubt—when people get it wrong, it's ignorance, not malice—but when I watch Labor walk first home buyers straight into financial crisis after selling them massive debts to prop up their real Ponzi scheme?

I wrote a question on notice last year asking for the age of the participants in the five per cent deposit scheme. The response I received from the government of transparency deliberately excluded the very scheme I asked for. It is an outrage that Labor is hiding from the public exactly who they have thrown under the bus. When the defaults start, when people are crushed by mortgages that they were sold under false pretences, we will know. So why doesn't Labor come clean now and release this information? The people they have claimed to help have become an inconvenient secret to sweep under the rug.

This has been a complete disaster for first home buyers, but what about the broader economy? Under the scheme, Labor has put the Australian taxpayer on the hook for 15 per cent of mortgages that the government guaranteed to avoid lenders mortgage insurance—full liability uninsured. This is tens of billions of dollars of guarantees backed by only the Australian taxpayer. In the MYEFO, the only liability recognised is a meagre $35.7 million provision. One Nation will be watching this figure like a hawk, as I'm sure the international credit raters will. You might not want to answer our questions, but at some point the chickens will come home to roost on your balance sheet and on your deficits. More liabilities mean a sickly balance sheet. A sickly balance sheet hurts our credit rating. Worse credit ratings mean more expensive borrowing. This is a diabolical situation you've put the Australian people in.

Successive Labor governments have completely forgotten the concept of responsible fiscal management, so now we face down record debts. In the MYEFO, we have the following debts expiring in the next seven years: $40 billion at 0.5 per cent, $87 billion at one per cent, $43 billion at 1.25 per cent, and hundreds of billions at under three per cent. Our 10-year bond rate is now above five per cent, with massive inflation on the horizon under Labor. We're going to be paying over four per cent more on our debt for hundreds of billions of dollars just as the Labor government creates a subprime lending crisis with their ridiculous five per cent deposit scheme, and today we see more appropriation bills full of taxpayer funding for Labor's green fantasy—more debt, more damage to the economy.

Australia's debts are not an abstract concept. These debts need to be repaid. They need to be refinanced, and the interest payments will continue to pile up. Every dollar that goes towards these debts is a dollar taken from the Australian people. It isn't going to fund schools, the police or emergency services, and when Labor runs out of money they will be going after everyday Australians like they do every time to pay for their mistakes. Not answering questions doesn't get us out of this nightmare. Come clean for the people being hit hardest by this economic disaster. But I won't be holding my breath for an answer. The last time I asked Senator Ayres a question, he was more interested in talking to a baby in the gallery.

Question agreed to.