Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to Auditor-General report No. 39 of 2020-21, Performance audit—COVID-19 procurements and deployments of the National Medical Stockpile: Department of Health; Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. This report was released on 27 May. It is a very important report, because it highlights some of the issues around our National Medical Stockpile. Through the COVID committee, we tried to find out quite a lot of detail about this stockpile, and at the time we had some difficulty in finding out how it was operating and how effective and accountable it was in terms of distributing at very critical times the National Medical Stockpile.

This report found that the procurement processes for the COVID-19 National Medical Stockpile, or NMS, procurement, 'were largely consistent with the proper use and management of public resources'. And you think, 'Oh, great,' but then it goes on to say:

Inconsistent due diligence checks of suppliers impacted on procurement effectiveness and record keeping could have been improved.

It then goes on to make this point:

In the absence of risk-based planning and systems that sufficiently considered the likely ways in which the NMS would be needed during a pandemic, Health adapted its processes during the COVID-19 emergency to deploy NMS supplies.

And then it says:

Large quantities of PPE were deployed to eligible recipients. Due to a lack of performance measures, targets and data, the effectiveness of COVID-19 NMS deployments cannot be established.

One of the most critical elements, and one that we were asking constantly about, was the deployment of PPE. For a start, during the pandemic, I was on the phone a lot, asking about what was happening with PPE for aged care—particularly for remote communities, because they were having trouble accessing PPE in a timely manner. Heaven forbid there had been an outbreak, because what they were first told to do, if they saw signs of an outbreak, if COVID had got in, was: 'Ring, and then we'll get you some PPE'—into remote areas? Come on! That was ridiculous. I will acknowledge that, further down the track, PPE, through the National Medical Stockpile, became much more available, but you would have thought that, straightaway, you'd get that PPE out into remote communities, because we all knew what would happen in remote communities if COVID got in, because in some of those remote communities—and in aged care in remote communities—are some of the most vulnerable people in Australia.

The report goes through quite a lot of detail, but it also found:

14. Record keeping for the procurements was partially fit for purpose, which impeded review and transparency. Public reporting of the procurements complied with requirements.

In the opinion of many of us, it didn't comply with the level of information that should have been known to the community, to see how quickly and effectively this PPE, in particular, was being deployed. That's about procurement.

Then it talks about deployments, and it goes on to say:

15. Health's deployment planning was partially effective … risks to effective deployment in a pandemic of any magnitude were not sufficiently considered in the years preceding the COVID-19 response. Pre-pandemic planning was based on a narrow definition of stockpile aims and eligibility. Because this did not align with the way in which the NMS was used during the pandemic, operational plans and systems were changed and additional plans developed during the course of the pandemic.

Hopefully we have now learned from this, to ensure we are always ready for a pandemic. It goes on:

16. Health's deployment of NMS supplies to various health provider groups during the pandemic was consistent in principle with its responsibilities to these groups under national health emergency agreements. In practice, Health limited eligibility to prioritised sub-groups. Disaggregated and unanalysed data about eligibility outcomes impedes transparency about eligibility decisions.

In other words, we just don't know. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.