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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

I wish to take note of the government's response to Senate order for the production of documents No. 1208, which I moved yesterday and the Senate supported, seeking the full terms of reference, the full brief and the remit related to the Doherty institute modelling that informed the government's National Plan to transition Australia's National COVID-19 Response. I must say I'm not terribly shocked that the government didn't provide the actual information that the Senate passed a motion requiring the government to produce. The response includes a series of documents that I already have; it's nice to have another copy, but in fact where the substantive matters of interest are involved, the government is claiming public interest immunity—apparently, based on the well-established principle of cabinet confidentiality.

Senator Patrick interjecting—

And that's exactly the point I was just about to make, Senator Patrick: national cabinet does not have that confidentiality applied. So I think squat of the government's claim of public interest immunity. They try to hide behind this every single time. Whenever we try to get to the guts of the matter—in the COVID committee, for example—what happens? A public interest immunity claim! This is information that is extremely important. It's vital, in fact, for us to understand the nature of the government's response—why they've made the decisions they have made, in terms of these important issues. In this case, we want to know what were the terms of reference—the full brief—for the Doherty institute, because the government is ignoring the input of other organisations and other experts—for example, the Grattan Institute, whose modelling includes young people under the age of 16, whereas Doherty's doesn't. The government did ask Doherty for data on those that are eligible. What else did they ask Doherty for? What were the terms of reference?