Order for the Production of Documents

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (10:12): This is in relation to order for the production of documents No. 28. I just advise the chamber that, in response to this order, Treasury officials have been undertaking a substantial review to identify documents relevant to the Senate's request. The request is being advised and actively progressed consistent with standard practices, and I expect to be able to respond to this order as soon as practicable. I look forward to the standard contributions from other colleagues about this matter.

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (10:13): I move:

To take note of the minister's answer.

I have to say, I'm not surprised that the government have come in here today and not provided appropriate answers to the questions that were put to the Senate and agreed by this Senate. This is about the expenditure of public funds. It's a $10 billion scheme which has been running for two years and has only built—we think—maybe 17 houses, 2,000 houses or no houses. The point of this particular order for production was to ascertain exactly what happened with the $277 million remaining in the HAFF fund at 30 June 2025. The HAFF is required to spend $500 million each financial year.

The Department of Finance reports that only $223 million had been debited in 2024-25, so we wrote to the Auditor-General to seek a performance audit. They wrote back and said that, in fact, the remaining $277 million had been debited and given to Housing Australia to spend on round 1 of the HAFF. The problem is that we can't actually see where that $277 million of taxpayer funds has gone.

The reason I say that I'm not surprised about this is that this is the most secretive government since the Keating government. It's a secretive government. It has a shocking record of responding to orders for the production of documents. The Centre for Public Integrity has actually marked the government's work here and said that this is the worst in 30 years. This government is more secretive than a government led by a man who swore himself into secret ministries. That is the standard of this particular government. It campaigned on being transparent and showing great integrity, but it has shown that it is obsessed with covering up its use of public funds.

The use of these off-budget funds is massively problematic. Here you have a $10 billion scheme—that's a lot of taxpayer funds—and we can't even see where the money is going. We have no idea which projects it has funded. We have no idea what the commercial arrangements might be. When the Labor government feigns surprise when we come in and ask questions about the Housing Australia Future Fund, it's because we can't get any answers. Freedom of information requests are blocked and blacked out. When you get a freedom of information request back from this government, all you see is black ink and no material information. The orders for the production of documents are blocked, blocked, blocked.

One of their favourite tools to use is the public interest immunity claim. In fact, Mr Chalmers, the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, has been found to have used false public interest immunity claims when he made them in relation to documents provided to him by the Cbus super fund. The Treasurer filed a public interest immunity claim with this Senate, which said that it would not provide the documents that Cbus had given the Treasurer because they were commercial-in-confidence. We appealed that because we had a parallel piece of paper in with the Information Commissioner, and the Information Commissioner found that, in fact, that document should be provided because it was not commercial-in-confidence and that what Cbus was doing was lobbying the Treasurer to try and get preferential access and deals. In this case, it was trying to cover up the stamp duty fees paid by the super fund to its members. Now we see that one of the outcomes of the economic roundtable was that the government wants to help the super funds cover up stamp duty fees to their members so that they can become the corporate landlords of Australians.

I've often said that this is a government for vested interests. But I thought that, when they had a productivity roundtable, it was genuinely about productivity. In fact, it was all about lining the coffers of their mates with the ideas that were already provided to them in the last term, such as helping the super funds become massive corporate landlords. That is what stinks about this government. Beyond it being the most secretive and untransparent government since the Keating government, it won't even say where it is spending taxpayer funds. I suspect that there is a range of unsavoury financial arrangements that exist between the unions, the super funds, Minister Chalmers and his government, and the Housing Australia Future Fund.

Senator McAllister: On a point of order, Senator Bragg has just reflected in the most inappropriate way on Mr Chalmers in the other place. I think he should withdraw it.

Senator Scarr: On a point of order, I was listening very closely to Senator Bragg, as I'm sure all Australians are, and, from my perspective, his comments were very well chosen and certainly consistent with other practice I've seen in this place. I saw nothing disorderly in the comments whatsoever.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ciccone ): Senator Bragg, it would be helpful if you could clarify that the remarks you made about the Treasurer do not go to any of the standing orders or breach any unparliamentary language. It would be helpful if you could assist the chair and the chamber, particularly around your last comments about the Treasurer. I also remind you to refer to members in the other place by their correct titles.

Senator BRAGG: I'm happy to clarify my point, which is that the Treasurer filed a false public interest immunity claim with this Senate to cover up documents that he received from Cbus and that the Information Commissioner later found should have been made publicly available. It was a disgraceful occurrence that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth used his position to cover up secret lobbying to aid his corporate housing agenda.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (10:20): I do really wonder what the government has to hide on something as straightforward and simple as asking and seeking to understand how this government has spent $277 million of taxpayers' money. It's not the government's money and it's not their personal bank account; it is the money of taxpayers being apportioned and expended. We are not sure how it's used. We are just seeking to understand, and that is all Senator Bragg has been asking for. He's been asking for clarity on how this large sum of taxpayers' money—a resource that underpins the operations of public services provided by government—is being utilised. It's for the $277 million debited to spend on houses between 1 April and 30 June this year—a pretty straightforward request.

The minister has come in here with what some would describe as an explanation—I'm not sure it does fit the bill, frankly—and suggested that the usual practices are being applied, that they're going through the processes and that progress is being made by officials. Seriously! This is the expenditure of money relating to a significant amount when it comes to public housing and the Housing Australia Future Fund. It should not be that difficult to provide documents that outline to this place, a place where the government is accountable to the people of Australia, how that money has been spent and what it has been used on.

The government come in here day after day to tell us how amazing their program is when it comes to building houses for Australians. As we know, and as Senator Bragg has said, 17 houses have been built in the 3½ years that the Australian Labor Party have been in government, which is fewer than when the last government was in power. So to have put aside $10 billion of taxpayers' money, to not tell us how they're using it and to have only built 17 houses—something stinks to high heaven here, and they don't want us to know what it is.

There is a concerning pattern of secrecy emerging in this government. It was only 3½ years ago that the Prime Minister promised to Australians that his government would be a fairer, kinder and more transparent government, and one that would share information with Australians about how their money was being used. Well, here we are again today. This is the latest in a series of damning indictments of this government. They are hiding information from taxpayers and members of this Senate—information we deserve to know about. And you can guarantee that, when we come to Senate estimates, this government will be playing the same game. Ministers will be saying the information is commercial in confidence, or there'll be some claim of public interest immunity. I think that is not good enough.

You've got groups in Australia like the Centre for Public Integrity suggesting that this government has become more secretive and less transparent than governments before it. They've seen 25 per cent of freedom-of-information requests fully granted under this government. That means 75 per cent of requests made of this government by not just the Senate but members of the Australian public who are wanting to know how their money is being spent by this government are being denied. An alarming rate of secrecy is being applied by this government, because, of course, this government knows best. They don't want people to have the information that they're hiding, because they know best.

This is an alarming trend and a completely broken promise by this government and by this prime minister, who promised us the transparency that Australians were apparently calling out for. But it appears, as is often the case with this government and prime minister, that you can say whatever you want before an election.

You can make all sorts of commitments and set all sorts of thresholds about the ways things will be done, how low power prices will be, how many houses you'll build and how transparent you'll be, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this pudding does not taste good. It is pointing to a government that hides things, a government that is secretive. They do not want to reveal to this place or the Australian people what is truly going on.

The reason, I believe, is that things aren't going so well. Seventeen houses, a $10 billion fund, and Australians are in no way better off as a result of this terrible program being maladministered by this government. Shame on them. Shame on them for their secrecy. They should do better. Australians deserve much better.

Senator BARBARA POCOCK (South Australia) (10:30): I'm extremely concerned by this government's failure to comply with the Senate's order for the production of these documents. As Senator Bragg has pointed out, according to the Centre for Public Integrity, the last parliament only complied with these orders 33 per cent of the time. I'll say that again—just 33 per cent of the time. The 1993-96 parliament complied 92 per cent of the time. This is an incredible decline. It's really an extraordinary failure. These motions aren't optional; they're orders. Access to government information is crucial to democratic practice, and one of the most powerful tools for accessing this information is this chamber's ability to order the production of documents.

Research of the Centre for Public Integrity shows this government is making approximately one bogus unilateral public interest immunity claim per week. Compare this to the one every three weeks under the Morrison government—a government hardly known for its transparency. Out of the 336 motions to produce documents that this chamber agreed to in the 47th Parliament, 142 were not complied with on public interest immunity grounds. Ministers are making incontestable claims of public interest immunity, and there is little recourse to hold them to account. The system of Senate orders for the production of documents is broken. These claims serve to prevent the Senate from performing its core function as a house of review and scrutiny.

I note that, regarding this particular order, No. 28, the minister is yet to comply. In the minister's previous interim response, reaffirmed today, she said she expected 'to be able to respond to the order as soon as practicable'. Well, it's now been a month since the Senate voted on this motion. When does the minister intend to provide the documents? We've had no illumination about that this morning. No clear date has been provided. She is required to table any documents that detail the aggregate expenditure made from the Housing Australia Future Fund from 1 April to 30 June this year. It's a relatively short period of time, and I'm not sure why it's taken a month.

Scrutiny of government expenditure is a key responsibility of this chamber. It's necessary that the Senate scrutinise the spending of Commonwealth funds in the interests of transparency and accountability. That's our responsibility to the Australian people. This chamber is a house of review. It's a chamber of scrutiny, where we've been sent to do exactly that—look at all of these expenditure proposals and hold the government to account. How can we perform that role without sufficient information on key government priorities? There's barely any detailed public information about the Housing Australia Future Fund and its expenditure.

In response, Senator Bragg and I have both put motions to this chamber to demand more detail from the government. I want to know where the $3 billion that the Greens secured in negotiations to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund has gone. How has it been spent? The Greens secured some huge wins in those negotiations. As a direct result of Greens pressure in the previous parliament, we got the government to close the no-minimum-spend HAFF loophole. We forced Labor to guarantee a $500 million annual spend, starting in 2024-25. Previously, the government could spend anything from $0 annually to the $500 million cap.

We also got the government to spend a further $1 billion in immediate and direct spending on public and community housing. We know that we have a drastic shortage of public and community housing in this country. While over 170,000 Australian households languish on public housing waitlists, this government has this week prioritised building houses for US troops and weapons contractors. The government's priorities are all wrong.

While the Greens have some problems with the Housing Australia Future Fund, especially as it does nothing for the third of Australians who are renting, we want to know where this money is going and how it's being spent. I strongly encourage the minister to provide this chamber with these documents and to do so immediately, and to allow this house of scrutiny to do the job that Australians voted to put us here to do.