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

This motion concerns two separate and distinct orders for the production of documents. The first OPD, No. 27, sought advice relating to the five per cent deposit scheme. As Minister O'Neil made clear at the time of response in November 2025, the government made public interest immunity claims only over documents which would reveal cabinet deliberations or otherwise prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states. These are well-established and not novel grounds. Governments—not just recently but since the advent of Westminster governments with cabinet processes—have made it clear that production of these kinds of documents would impinge upon the freedom of deliberation of the cabinet and would not be in the public interest.

The second OPD, No. 119, was responded to similarly in 2025. All documents in the scope of the order were produced, laying out in black and white precisely what the order sought. It is completely disingenuous and an abuse of one of the Senate's most serious powers, just like the performance that we observed a few minutes ago, to continue to seek compliance on the production of documents in relation to orders which have already been provided, particularly by grouping together two unrelated orders. That demonstrates a couple of things from this opposition.

Firstly, I think there is some confusion in those who have sought this process. Senators clearly are completely confused, while the orders for production of documents are two distinct orders. Maybe that goes to the heart of their reluctance to support the government's approach on housing. They are utterly confused because, if your approach is so relentlessly negative, you sort of forget what you've been saying no to, and these policy propositions and the orders in your mind—not in your mind, Acting Deputy President; in their minds—are only united by their own negativity, and they can't quite see through this to the other side.

This performance, which I understand we're going to see now on a weekly basis, is a lot like the censure motion that we just saw. Censure motions, these kinds of ministerial appearances—I can just tell you that when we were in opposition we were actually effective on these questions. You escalated to this point. You had a serious set of political arguments, you mobilised that over weeks and months, and this was the crescendo of an approach. Instead, what we have here is a kind of haphazard, disorganised, incoherent approach to opposition which is shining through. If all you've got is to say no, if you don't understand what you actually stand for, if you can't bring yourselves to a disciplined approach, then you will continue to pursue these kinds of procedural stunts to zero effect.

The government has complied with both of these orders for the production of documents. It's a symbol, I suppose, of an opposition that doesn't know what it stands for.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

In taking note of the minister's explanation, if you could call it that, I make the point that six times this Senate has sought the production of these documents. Sure, I can make an argument that a document has been provided, but if it's redacted in the main, as these documents have been, where almost everything on the sheet of paper is covered up, then it's hardly complying with the order.

That really goes to the point that the Centre for Public Integrity have made—that this is the most secretive government since the Keating government, as measured on its compliance rate on freedom of information but also in relation to orders for production. Yes, there have been a lot of orders for production. That's because this government is so secretive. We have sought to get access to basic information about public programs because that is the job that we have here in the Senate.

Now, I make the point that the government only sought to model its five per cent deposit scheme changes after the election. During the election campaign, their proposal was that they would uncap the five per cent deposit scheme and remove all the means testing. Then, subsequent to those announcements, they asked the Treasury to model the price impacts of this particular policy. They get at least some marks for acknowledging that this could cause a price impact, but, of course, what really matters is what the Treasury said in the detail. The government say that the Treasury showed that there would be a 0.6 per cent increase over six years. What happened was a six per cent increase in just six months for the entry-level house or apartment.

The reason that we have sought that these documents be provided without redaction is that we want to know what exactly the government was told in relation to these documents. In the main, they are redacted. We have no idea what the Treasury said in terms of their supply response. We have no idea about the risks and sensitivities the government was warned about. I'm sure the government was warned that uncapping the places and removing the means testing was going to create price problems, as we have now seen.

The five per cent deposit scheme was initially designed for low-income earners, but this government has removed the means testing and removed the price caps, and that has caused prices to bubble. The callousness of the responses from the Minister for Housing—when she's asked, 'Are house prices too high?' she says, 'No, the government don't think that house prices are too high.' I think that is just a callous response. When you're living in Melbourne or Sydney and you're looking at a house price that's going to be 10 or 15 times your salary, it is clear that prices are too high, and the government have a policy to pump-prime prices at the bottom end.

At the end of the day, all this government has had in the housing space are gimmicks. They brag about the billions of dollars that they're wasting on housing. They brag about their five per cent deposits, which have made things worse, not better. They brag about their silly housing scheme that doesn't build houses. And now they're going to brag about their tax changes, which are going to reduce supply. Who could believe that the government of Australia would have a policy to reduce supply by 35,000 houses by virtue of its tax policy and then add another policy, in their SMSF policy, which further constrains supply? They have no idea how many SMSFs are involved in presales. The Leader of the Government in the Senate said on Thursday she thought it might have been 4,000 a year; the industry report that just eight lenders do more than 4,000 a year.

The reason that we are seeking the production of these documents without redaction is that our job is to get to the bottom of things. That is our job, whether the minister likes it or not. And the fact is that this government was warned by the Treasury that this five per cent deposit scheme change was going to be a stinker. It was going to inflate prices. It was going to make life harder, not easier, for younger people. That is the reason that we want to see the Treasury advice unredacted. It is not a credible response to say to this parliament, 'We have provided to you a document which is completely redacted and nonsensical.' The documents that have been provided in relation to the five per cent deposits are unreadable. That is why, on six occasions, we have asked for these documents to be provided, that is why the Senate has compelled this minister to provide the answer, and we will not stop until those pieces of information are provided, because that is our job. Otherwise, what's the point of wasting all the taxpayer funds to come here? I have no idea. Goodbye.

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

I rise to take note of Minister Ayres's answer on behalf of the Minister for Housing. Until the Senate agrees that OPD Nos 27 and 119 have been complied with, Minister Ayres is going to have to keep showing up at the start of every sitting week and attempting to explain why.

The minister says we are confused. Well, we are not confused. You have not complied, Minister, with what was sought, and we are clear eyed. In a housing crisis, the Senate deserves information.

We've been here many times before asking for this information. We still don't have it. Senator Bragg's OPD No. 27 asked for two things. It asked for any advice provided by the Treasury to the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the HAFF for the construction of 100,000 new homes for first home buyers. Second, it asked for any advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the government's plan to enable first homebuyers to purchase a home with a five per cent deposit. This information was first requested in July last year, and what did the Senate receive? Two emails. That's it. One of these emails was just a list of options for names for the government's commitment to build 100,000 homes. That is not advice.

The Senate has further agreed to nine further motions concerning the minister's failure to comply with the orders, rejecting a public interest immunity claim and requiring the minister to attend the Senate to explain the failure to comply with the order on five separate occasions. This is just not good enough. We are in a very serious housing crisis. I am holding hearings around the country with other senators, looking at the inequity that this housing crisis presents intergenerationally. It is not enough for Labor to make the crisis worse and fail to provide us with the documents we need. It is failing.

Labor is failing to build enough houses. The HAFF has built just 1,432 homes since it was enacted. It's too slow. It's too complicated, and it is not big enough for what we need. No matter how many photo opportunities the minister has with every person who moves into a HAFF home—which we support, and we're happy those people get into a HAFF home—it is nowhere near what we need. Even if the HAFF manages to build 55,000 new houses as a result of the implementation of the HAFF, it'll be too slow, too small, and it won't touch the sides of the housing crisis. We've got 640,000 Australians looking for social and affordable homes out there. The HAFF will meet eight per cent of that need. It is nowhere near what we need in this crisis.

That is not to mention the 31 per cent of Australians who are out there trying to rent—trying to find a rental in a regional town or in any city in our country at present. Rents are up two and a half times faster than wages. People are struggling. We have heard from so many people in our inquiry who are struggling to find a rental, then struggling to pay for groceries when they have to meet the average rent in a city like this of $600 or $700 a week. People cannot meet the rapid increases in rents that are coming about as a result of the failure to act on our housing crisis.

People are being pitched in their thousands into homelessness. There's been a 10 per cent increase in homelessness on Labor's watch. That is a housing crisis that deserves the full attention of this Senate. It deserves the full attention of the minister—bringing us the information we request—and we will insist that the minister comes here until he brings forward the information we seek.

It doesn't have to be like this. We know how to address a housing crisis. We did it in the postwar years, and we've done it historically. Many countries around the world are not facing the same kind of housing crisis we are facing. They are building public houses. They are insisting on rent regulation. They are making sure that homelessness services are wrapped around people so that they don't find an increase in the number of people who are sleeping in our streets, in their cars and couch surfing. There are many, many women pitched out of their homes because of domestic and family violence, and they are finding themselves homeless.

Labor knows how to fix the crisis. It lacks the commitment to do it, and it won't even do the Senate the respect it deserves by bringing forward information to fully inform our consideration of this crisis. Shame on you, Minister. You need to come forward with this information, and, further, your government needs to take a much larger effort to deal with the housing crisis that is affecting millions of Australians and millions of young people. There are many people looking for their first home to purchase in this massive housing crisis. It's time to act. It's time to bring us the information we are seeking.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I've been listening to these contributions, and it strikes me that there has been a profound change in the way that information is being sought in this place. I'm all for transparency. I'm part of a government that set up the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We've strengthened the ministerial code of conduct. We've strengthened protections for whistleblowers, but there's more work to do there. We've increased funding for the Australian National Audit Office. We've restored transparency to the ART appointments. We've reinstated standalone privacy and FOI commissioners, and we've implemented the Bell inquiry recommendations. We haven't been standing still on transparency; we've been getting materials out. But, in the end, Australians want us to do a job here to make stuff happen for them, to make stuff happen for the Australian people who are represented by the people who are here in the gallery right now, witnessing the parliament in action.

What we are debating here while there are histrionics going on over there—they are not happy that these questions they've asked, which go to cabinet-in-confidence material so that cabinet can actually discuss what's going on in the country, haven't come back with what they want. Senator Bragg is not happy because he hasn't got what he wants back. But this whole thing of calling for documents is getting completely out of control. Every time an unreasonable request for documents is put to the chamber and put to the Public Service, that's time public servants are spending getting paperwork together to satisfy some sort of egomaniacal requirement for every single document that has ever been written.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, resume your seat. Senator Scarr?

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

That's a personal reflection. Senator O'Neill should withdraw that term in relation to my good friend Senator Bragg.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. Between 2013 and 2022, which is a pretty reasonable sample, this technical order for production of documents was running at one order per sitting week, right? So one request for documents per week to find out what's going on. Between 2022 and 2025, that increased from one per week to one per day. And in this 48th Parliament it has just become a joke. It has gone up to 4.8 requests for documents per day. And remember that when those questions are asked somebody, who could be doing great work building up the capacity to get houses built, is sitting somewhere in an office complying with what I now consider an extraordinary overuse of this tool of the parliament. They are trying to get documents that in no way, shape or form are going to build the houses that this country needs.

The reality is the practical task that lies before us is being really advanced by this Labor government. We put $47 billion into housing investment. That is 10 times what the coalition put in—10 times the investment they made when they were in office for nine years. We've got a bit problem—yes, we have. The problem is that building houses and getting on with the job is not being assisted by this inane continuation every week of trying to bring in this minister, who you saw standing there earlier, to answer questions about why the documents those opposite have got back have redactions in them. They've got redactions in them because when cabinet looks at stuff, they don't tell the whole world about what is going on. That has always been the case. But those opposite just can't seem to get over it. They need to get over it and they need to get on board with Labor's investment in building housing.

We know that too many Australians, too many ordinary Australians, feel like housing is stacked against them, especially our youngest Australians. That is why we have built the most ambitious housing agenda in generations—and we're building on the plan in this budget with some recent changes—to make sure that Australians have a fair crack at getting a house. Having a roof over your head is a big deal. I have been in this parliament for 16 years. In the days when I was handing out in the seat of Robertson for the current member for Robertson, Dr Gordon Reid, people came up to me and said they'd voted Liberal all their lives but they were voting Labor this time because their kids, and their grandchildren particularly, can't get into housing. That should be our focus, not this inane search for documents that won't reveal anything. (Time expired)

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

Why are we here? This motion exists for one simple reason: this government won't show us its homework. Two orders of this Senate for Treasury's advice on first home buyers and for the documents behind the Home Guarantee Scheme have remained unanswered for nearly a year. That's the exact same MO that this government had with the NDIS. If they don't want to tell you something, they will run, hide and obfuscate until time runs out.

This is the hallmark of this government. It's not transparency, it's not integrity, and it's not competence. It's hiding. The hallmark of this government is to keep information away from the Australian Senate and force people into silence. The hallmark of this government are NDAs, where people can't speak about the discussions they have with this government. That is the hallmark of the Albanese Labor government. They don't care about the information that Australians want. All they care about is ensuring that their vested interests are protected—vested interests like the corrupt and criminal conduct of the CFMEU. They are silent about that too, blocking inquiry after inquiry after inquiry.

Senator O'Neill made a comment about histrionics from this side of the chamber, and that's probably the contempt with which the Albanese government sees Australians and other senators in this chamber. Any request for legitimate information is 'histrionics'. Demanding transparency is not histrionics. She made the comment that the request for information on this side of the chamber is out of control. What is actually out of control is the refusal of the Albanese Labor government to actually comply with orders of the Senate. They continue to hide. Why? Why are they doing that? It's because they know that something there will harm them. That is why they won't give us the information.

It's similar to what occurred last week in terms of the Treasury bills. The government cut a deal with the Greens in relation to that, and we have a scenario now where the Treasurer himself has no idea about the detail within elements of that bill. We have a scenario where the Albanese Labor government and their friends, the Greens, worked together last week to pass legislation that taxes widows and widowers. It taxes anyone whose partner has died where they have a shared property together that had tax treatments under negative gearing or CGT. They're going to put something forward to fix that. But just stop for a moment and consider the fact that they passed it anyway. They didn't care that it was wrong. They didn't care that it was going to harm people. They didn't care that it was unfair. They wanted their day in the sun. They wanted to say, 'Look what we did,' so that they could tell their vested interests that they delivered. We should all be appalled by that act from this government and from the Greens.

One of the biggest issues that we have with housing supply in this country is the cost of construction. The cost of construction in this country has gone north as a result of the infiltration of the CFMEU into infrastructure projects. And you may say: 'Well, what difference does that make to a house? They don't build a residential house.' Well, I'll tell you what difference it makes. It means that they lift the cost. It's an artificial increase in the cost of that labour, and then that labour will move to those infrastructure projects, away from residential housing. In order to match that and bring workers over to residential housing, residential housing also has to increase its costs. I was told in estimates that that increase in cost is between 15 and 30 per cent. Last night, on 60 Minutes, we saw information that suggested it was around 25 per cent. That is what the Albanese Labor government is protecting.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

What a start to the week we've had. In addition to some of the comments made by Senator Ayres about the antics that we've seen this morning already, we are now seeing an abuse of one of the Senate's most serious powers to continue to seek compliance on the production of documents—documents which have already been provided—particularly by grouping together two unrelated orders.

Senator Kovacic just then talked about what this government cares about and what it doesn't care about. I'll tell you what we do care about: we care about getting young people into affordable housing. That is what we care about on this side of the chamber, and we know that Australians don't want us to be playing politics over getting people into housing. We on this side of the Senate know that housing is one of the defining issues facing Australians today.

The housing pressures facing Australians, however, didn't emerge overnight. There is no single solution, and there is no single quick fix unfortunately. On this side we know this and we, rather than playing politics, have simply been trying to get on with the job of getting people into housing, of building housing, of taking a comprehensive approach to tackling the housing challenge. That is what we have been doing on this side of the chamber—not playing politics but getting on with the job.

Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has transformed the role of the Commonwealth in housing from that of a passive observer by introducing the most ambitious national housing agenda that we have seen since the postwar era. We've commenced the largest housing build in Australia's history, with the goal of building 1.2 million homes, including 55,000 new social and affordable homes for Australians who need them most.

But increasing supply is, as we know, only one part of the solution. We are also making homeownership more accessible. Since coming to office, more than 260,000 Australians have purchased their first home through the government's five per cent deposit scheme, allowing eligible buyers to purchase their home with a five per cent deposit without paying lenders mortgage insurance. That's taking action. That's delivering real action on housing for Australians. For many Australians, the five per cent deposit scheme means years off the time required to save for a deposit while saving tens of thousands of dollars in lenders mortgage insurance. We're getting on with the job, not talking about it, not blocking it, not delaying it.

We've also launched Help to Buy, our shared equity scheme, enabling eligible Australians to purchase a home with as little as a two per cent deposit and a smaller mortgage. And, just last week, as we know, the parliament passed our housing tax reform package, and these reforms have three clear objectives—first, to create a balance between the taxation of income earned through work and income gained through capital gains; second, to help more Australians achieve homeownership; and, third, to improve productivity by directing investment towards more productive uses across the economy. We are focused on action, not playing politics. Negative gearing for residential property will, from 2027-28, be limited to newly built homes, encouraging investment where Australia is needing it most: more housing supply. The current 50 per cent capital gains tax discount will also be replaced by an inflation discount, from 1 July 2027, ensuring that tax concessions apply to genuine capital gains rather than inflationary increases. These reforms are expected to help around 75,000 additional first home buyers enter the market over the next decade. That will also help fund further tax relief for working Australians.

Alongside these reforms, we are investing a further $2 billion in enabling infrastructure, accelerating planning approvals, reducing red tape, expanding the skilled construction workforce and extending the ban on foreign investors purchasing existing homes until mid-2029. All of these things are about action. They're not about playing politics. They are about delivering for Australians who need housing. It's a comprehensive housing agenda addressing supply, addressing affordability, addressing homeownership and rental pressures simultaneously.

The contrast we've just seen this morning could not be clearer. Their policy solution to supply is 'let's block and delay'. They opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund and promised to abolish it altogether. They delayed the Help to Buy program, delaying assistance for up to 40,000 Australians looking to get into homeownership. They opposed our build-to-rent reforms and have now proposed scrapping the tax incentives that would support around 80,000 additional rental homes.

That is what action looks like on this side compared to what we see on that side—delay, delay and block.

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

Acting Deputy President Grogan, and I will, first, congratulate you on your contribution to this debate, before you took the chair. I'd just like to explain about the documents we're seeking. Just to explain to everyone who's watching this debate, the government doesn't have a majority in the Senate—so the coalition, with the crossbench, including the Greens, called for the government to produce information modelling to the Senate. A majority of the Senate, representing a majority of the Australian people, asked the government to produce certain information. That information relates to the modelling the government produced based on which it introduced the first-home-buyer scheme and based on which it asserted that the introduction of that scheme would only increase housing prices by 0.6 per cent over six years. That didn't make sense to the coalition, to the crossbench or to a range of experts in relation to economics and property prices. It didn't make sense that the introduction of this scheme would only have a 0.6 per cent increase impact on home prices, so we asked for the modelling: 'How did you come up with that figure?' In response, the government has produced a few pages where the vast majority of each page is blanked out—'redacted'; that's the term of art.

Why did we want that information? We wanted that information because the government said housing prices would only increase in that segment of the market by 0.6 per cent. But the actual statistics tell us that, in that segment of the market for first home buyers, prices increased by 6.7 per cent in six months, compared to the 0.6 per cent over six years that the government asserted. And now the government's refusing to provide us the modelling. Why? Because no doubt the modelling will demonstrate, if they were to produce it, the weak foundation upon which the government asserted the 0.6 per cent figure over six years.

We have a situation here where a majority of the Australian Senate, representing a majority of the Australian people, is asking for certain information to be produced to assist it to hold the government to account and to discharge its role as a house of review—and the government refuses. That's the situation we have here today. And it isn't the first time. As Senator Bragg said, the Centre for Public Integrity—a nonpartisan organisation that doesn't involve politics, and I'll quote their mandate:

The Centre for Public Integrity is an independent research institute dedicated to restoring integrity to the foundations of Australia's democracy.

They issued a report card on the Albanese Labor government. This is what they said about transparency—exactly what we're talking about today. They said the Labor government was 'leaning into a culture of secrecy'. We see that culture of secrecy when we see this information produced to the Senate, which is all redacted and blanked out. We can't see the data which has been blanked out. Why? If you've got nothing to hide, why don't you provide the documents not to us but, through us, to the Australian people? If you've got nothing to hide, why not produce the documents?

The government asserts cabinet-in-confidence. We're not asking for the minutes of the discussions that occurred between the ministers around the cabinet table; we respect that confidence. We're not looking for that discussion. Cabinet ministers need to have the ability to discuss openly and, hopefully, vigorously in relation to proposals that come before cabinet. We're asking for the foundational modelling based upon which the government said, in the public sphere, that house prices would only go up by 0.6 per cent—yet the data tells us they have gone up 6.7 per cent in six months. This is a question of integrity. It's a question of transparency. It's a question of respect for a majority of the Senate, representing all parties across the chamber. The government has shown disrespect for the Senate, and, through that, disrespect to the Australian people.

Question agreed to.