DOCUMENTS

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (10:02): At least in relation to OPD 27, on least half a dozen occasions now, the government has explained as carefully and as slowly and as clearly as we can imagine would assist the shadow minister—for housing, is it?—to understand what has been provided and how the government has well-established grounds for making the public interest immunity claims over some documents within the scope of OPD 27.

I don't believe that after those half-a-dozen or so explanations it's possible to conceive that the proponents for this continued campaign around the OPD don't understand what is going on here. I can only believe that it is a wilful and puerile use of the Senate processes in a way that shows that there is no respect for this institution and no understanding of the value of ministerial appearances.

Sit down, son—honestly! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Hodgins-May ): Senator Bragg. Senator McKenzie: Did you just say sit down?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please. Senator Bragg was on his feet first, so I'll go to Senator Bragg. Senator Bragg: I'd just like to raise a point of order with you, Acting Deputy President.

Somehow, the minister has been able to concoct a scheme where the clock hasn't actually been timed, so he may actually go on for many hours. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you, Senator Bragg.

Senator AYRES: In 20 November 2025, the minister wrote to the Senate and explained very clearly that disclosure of some documents in the scope of this order would be excluded where they disclosed the deliberations of cabinet or prejudiced Commonwealth-state relations. Those are utterly reasonable and completely normal bases for public interest immunity claims.

The government has made clear to you what the outcome of this modelling was—a home price impact of around half a per cent over six years. Over the course of the last 10 years, house prices have continued to increase. They go up and they go down, but the trajectory is up.

The impact on that would be half a per cent over six years. You're all very confused about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. He said something, some of you have said other things—they are in complete contradiction to each other.

They may not fit what passes for a political campaign on the other side—what remains of the other side of this chamber. It may not suit what whoever's going on about this thinks is a successful campaign, but what I can tell you is that 270,000 Australians—mostly young Australians—have accessed this scheme, and you want to take it away from them. It has been life-changing for more than a quarter of a million young Australians.

It's life-changing for young Australians, and you want to take those homes out of their hands. You want to rip the security of homeownership away from young Australians. You want to rip down homes that have been built.

You want to denigrate participants in the housing industry who are doing their best to deliver homes for young Australians. A campaign run by spivs in sections of our capital cities who don't understand how important it is for young Australians to have a home—ordinary people who want a home. That shows why you are so remote from where ordinary Australians are on these questions and why there is no hope for you.