DOCUMENTS

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (10:39): 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.