DOCUMENTS

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (12:22): In taking note of this ridiculous explanation, if you could call it that, I again remind the Senate that the government has actually produced extensive amounts of modelling; it's just that it's been redacted. The Treasury was commissioned by this government as an afterthought—after it announced its radical restructuring of the five per cent deposit scheme, where it abolished the place caps and abolished means testing—to do this modelling, and that basic modelling should be made available to the Australian public for their inspection.

It is not a secret cabinet document; it is the modelling which may underpin a cabinet judgement, but it is the modelling which proves that the government knew that there were risks in unbundling this scheme from its means testing and its place caps. For the minister to come in here week in, week out and say, 'We're not going to give you the modelling; we're going to trample over the powers of the Senate,' shows their disdain for democracy and it shows their disdain for the process and operation of this parliament.

It is not true to claim that modelling which underpins a cabinet judgement is a cabinet document. It is not true and the minister needs to go back to school and learn a few things. We are fortunate to live in a country where we can also try and get the information through the FOI process, as established by the Fraser government.

The Information Commissioner is currently reviewing this case, and I'm sure when it gets to it—because it's backlogged with all the other cases—it will find that this document should be produced for public inspection. So we won't give up on that, because, if we gave up on the task of trying to get information which is germane to policy judgements, when they go wrong, as they have here, we would be giving up on our jobs as representatives, and we shouldn't waste taxpayer funds to come to this Bush Capital to do that work.

The problem here is that the government is afraid that they will be embarrassed, but they won't be embarrassed, because they will be seen as doing the right thing by the Australian people by being transparent. They campaigned on the promise that they would be transparent, but the Centre for Public Integrity says they are the most secretive government since the Keating government, as judged by their record on responding to Senate orders and by their record on responding to freedom of information requests.

I say to the government again that you are adults and that you are responsible people. You've been elected by the Australian people. Do the right thing and provide the information that has been ordered, not by the Liberal Party and not by the National Party but by this crossbench and the opposition.

That is a reasonable cross-section of this parliament, which you should pay respect to, not because of who we are but because of who we represent in the Australian society. The five per cent deposit scheme has been a massive failure, because we know that the modelling that was done, even though it's been covered up, couldn't have been right, because the Prime Minister's claim that it would push up prices by 0.6 per cent over six years was thrown out in the first six months of the scheme's operation, where we saw a 6 per cent increase in entry level house prices.

So we know it's wrong, but, of course, this government has got everything wrong in housing. Their Housing Australia Future Fund has had three years, has had 10 billion bucks and has built about 1,000 houses, half of which it has bought, not built. Who could believe the government's housing scheme would buy as many houses as it's actually built itself?

Then we have these taxes, which have made a bad situation much worse. We have a new system of taxation where we have higher rents, fewer first home buyers and fewer houses. For a government which has collapsed housing supply by 30,000 houses each year compared to the last government, should we be surprised that they have a budget which designs deliberately to suppress supply by another 35,000?

The answer is no. This government has a deliberate policy to reduce housing supply. Because of that, we now see fewer houses, we see higher rents, and we see fewer home loans.

Last week we heard in the Senate committee that the National Australia Bank has seen a 15 per cent reduction in home loans going to owner-occupiers. You have to ask yourself: who wins from these new taxes? It's not renters, it's not homeowners, and it's not investors.

It's no-one. No-one wins from high taxes, just like very few people win from the five per cent deposit scheme, which has pushed up prices for people who can least afford it. And you can bet London to a brick that no-one has won from this housing future fund, which has spent 10 billion bucks to build only 1,000 houses over two years.

We will never give up on trying to get to the bottom of these things, because you are wasting taxpayer funds, you are wasting public resources, and the Australian people won't stand for it. Question agreed to.