To date, the inquiry has received 54 submissions ranging from government agencies - including Treasury, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) - to industry bodies like the Property Council of Australia and interested individuals like Slow Tung (who on closer inspection turned out to be Siow Tung - the 'i' was poorly-dotted).
The New Zealand audience would be familiar with most of the arguments presented: property investors calling for more land, less red tape and tax relief; with most others suggesting a review of the existing property incentives.
In particular, some submissions have earmarked a couple of Australia's property sacred cows as potential abattoir candidates: capital gains tax relief, and negative gearing (or the ability to property-related investment losses against other income).
While it paints a more nuanced picture of the Australian property market, the RBA's conclusion is clear enough: "Financial stability considerations would suggest that tax and regulatory frameworks should avoid encouraging over-leveraging into property, whether by owner-occupiers or investors."
The RBA has publicly identified negative gearing as one area ripe for reform, as part of a wider review of the tax system.
In a to-and-fro inquiry session, Australian Treasury also released figures showing net (ie taxable) residential rental income went from $156 million in 1999/2000 to -$5.39 billion over 2012/13 (which was an improvement on -$8.25 billion the previous year).
Treasury was also asked if any other countries had comparable rules to Australia.
"New Zealand has similar arrangements on negative gearing for property investment," Treasury answered.