Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have to admit that I found the MPI in its written form somewhat confusing, and Senator Gallagher has now clarified it a little bit. I thought that it had something to do with the Doherty modelling. The Doherty modelling lies at the centre of everything that we're doing, but I think I may have missed any reference that she may have made to that. We are in a process of opening up safely, and I don't accept that we are less than transparent in what we're doing. We've all made sacrifices. It has taken a personal toll on Senator Gallagher, and we're aware of that, and I'm very sensitive to that.

I have been a user of those same hospitals that Senator Gallagher was talking about, for uses other than COVID. In March of this year, when I started using them, I sent thanks both to Senator Gallagher—who was responsible, in her previous iteration, for the extraordinary cancer set-up that we have in the ACT—and to Senator Seselja, as someone who has worked in the ACT. So the hospitals are in use by others, and there will be a call on them.

There is lots of information being shared. I don't want to trivialise the virus in any way, shape or form. I would be terrified as a parent if I had to nurse any of my children through this period of time. Senator Gallagher counsels us to be careful not to scaremonger, and that's very, very important. That's why accurate information is so important. Let's get the facts and the plans right. Let's not be paranoid about this. Let's not push it too hard. Let's get it right before we release the facts.

We are in a process of suppressing the virus and delivering the vaccine. If there were something fundamentally wrong with what we're doing, we wouldn't see the results that we are seeing at the moment, which are quite extraordinary. Senator Gallagher mentioned the fact that we are vaccinating people at a quite phenomenal rate. Australia's first-dose vaccination rate is now higher than the rate in the US; it's higher than the rate in Germany; it's higher than the rate in Israel, which we all held up as being the paragon of COVID management; and it's higher than the OECD average In relation to the written MPI, about people being concerned that there may be a problem with the Doherty modelling, this must indicate that somewhere the modelling must have got it relatively right. More than 95 per cent of over 70s are protected with a first dose, and more than 85 per cent have received a second dose. Sixty-five per cent plus of the eligible population aged 16 and over are fully vaccinated—I think it's well into 68 per cent at the moment.

There is a plan, and that plan is very important and it's being run. Basic to that plan is the modelling. The modelling must be good. It's certainly better than a lot of the alarmist climate change modelling, which has failed in the recent past. On both the health and economic fronts, Australia has fared better than most countries in dealing with COVID-19. For example, over 12 per cent of people in the USA, and 11 per cent of people in the UK, have had COVID. By contrast, 0.4 per cent of Australians have had COVID. That's not to trivialise it. It is to acknowledge that someone, somewhere, must be doing something right. Of the 38 developed OECD countries, Australia has had the second-lowest number of COVID-19 cases per capita. On a per capita basis, the UK and the USA have had over 40 times the number of COVID deaths.

We say, with validity, that, if Australia had had the death rates of OECD countries, we would have had something in the order of 30,000 deaths. How can you criticise the modelling which lies at the centre of the plan if in fact we are achieving such success? While Australia has been doing it tough, and we know we've been doing it tough—we are all making sacrifices, and I acknowledge that Senator Gallagher has made a particular sacrifice, through her family—Australia's economy and its GDP have recovered to be larger than prior to the pandemic. That's extraordinary, ahead of any advanced major economy in the world. Australia was also the first advanced economy to have more people in work than prior to COVID. Nearly 900,000 jobs have been created since May last year, and our credit rating agencies and the IMF have acknowledged this very important fact, because the sacrifices that we are all making are reflected to an incredible degree in the economy of the nation.

Turning to the written form of the matter of public importance, I need to talk a little bit about the Doherty modelling. In July 2021 the Prime Minister announced an agreement to formulate a four-step national plan to transition Australia's national COVID response. Senator Gallagher asked if there was a plan. There is a plan, and we are seeing that plan on a daily basis. To support the plan—because facts are important—the Doherty institute was commissioned to undertake modelling of COVID-19 infections and vaccinations to define target levels for transition to phase B and phase C of the four-step plan. Based on the results of the modelling and the recommendations of the COVID-19 Risk Analysis and Response Taskforce, in July 2021 national cabinet agreed to transition to phases B and C when 70 per cent and 80 per cent respectively of people aged 16 and older are vaccinated. Because jurisdictions are likely to have different case counts, different numbers of COVID, a sensitivity analysis was conducted for when vaccination thresholds are met—and this is part of the modelling process that was mentioned in the written version of the matter of public importance. This assessed the initial modelling results for low, medium and high numbers of infections at different coverage thresholds with either optimal or partial test, trace, isolate, quarantine—TTIQ, as they say in the profession—and combinations of public health and social measures, or PHSM, God help us all!

This is what the MPI refers to, I think, when it refers to a 'small COVID outbreak'. That has been the sensitivity towards various levels of outbreak, and the sensitivity analysis was conduced.

The overall conclusions of the initial modelling were found to remain valid even with a higher number of infections. This is very, very relevant to the MPI. They were valid, even with a high number of infections, at the time of transition. However, at 70 per cent coverage, with medium or high seeding, and partial TTIQ, the epidemic curve shifts to the left and the peak of daily new infections is considerably higher. We know that. As optimal TTIQ—test, trace, isolate and quarantine—cannot be sustained at higher caseloads, public health and social measures are required in those situations. So, by knowing the facts, by doing the modelling and by looking at the sensitivity for various scenarios, we can vary the TTIQ and the PHSM. The sensitivity analysis, of course, has been published on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website and the Doherty Institute site. This has cost us roughly $1½ million, as at December 2021, and an additional contract is currently being finalised for additional work for the national cabinet.

So we do have a plan and that plan is in play, is being used and is successful. Certainly, aspects of modelling have been released, particularly the sensitivity aspects of the modelling. Further modelling is anticipated to consider the public health response, including different methodologies and key indicators for the TTIQ. The impact of vaccinations and responses in key populations—including Indigenous communities, culturally and linguistically diverse populations and schools—and border measures and quarantine, and how varying these may affect the risk of importation, are being considered in great detail. I think that answers the ideas that lie in the written version of the matter of public importance.