THE government’s big-bang hit on Labor’s negative gearing policy quickly became an embarrassing fizzer today when it was revealed the figures were about something else.

Whatever it was about, the report was not an inquiry into Labor’s policy.

Treasurer Scott Morrison today paraded the findings of a study by respected consultants BIS Shrapnel.

Mr Morrison said the report showed the changes to negative gearing proposed by the Opposition would cut $19 billion from the economy.

The findings also pointed to 10 per cent annual rent rises and the loss of 175,000 building industry jobs over 10 years.

“It is a credible report and it shows what we said what would happen with Labor’s policy,” the Treasurer told ABC radio.

“It would have a significant impact on property values, it’s going to push many people into housing stress. It’s going to require compensation of hundreds of millions of dollars, more than is actually raised by the policy itself.”

However, the attack was weakened by BIS Shrapnel executive Kim Hawtrey who revealed today the modelling had not been based on Labor policy.

“Well the report was written over the last few months before Labor released its policy and it wasn’t directed at any particular policy at all,” Mr Hawtrey told News Radio.

“And in fact we’ve made no recommendations. Our job was simply to chase the effects on the economy by crunching the numbers and looking at what might happen if you did this kind of change.”

He said it had been commissioned by a company, and “not a political organisation or anyone affiliated with a political organisation”. “It’s simply a private client,” he said.

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen had challenged the findings even before that revelation and questioned whether the study was about Labor policy.

“And if they were looking at Labor’s policy they didn’t read the document,” he told ABC radio.

“They are talking about a policy which does not bear resemblance to Labor’s policy.”

Senior economist Saul Eslake told news.com.au BIS Shrapnel was “a reputable bunch of economists who have been around for a long time and know their stuff”.

“That said, the report essentially proceeds from selected assumptions to foregone conclusions,” said Mr Eslake.

“And the conclusions they reach are very much governed by the assumptions they make. For example, negative gearing would be available for investments other than property, which is not what Labor’s policy is.

“But if you make that assumption it is very easy to argue that investors will quit the property market in favour of areas where they will continue to get negative gearing.”