DOCUMENTS

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (10:43): 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.