Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The government notes the additional mechanisms included in Senate motion No. 375 aimed at minimising the likely commercial harm previously identified by the government under the order of the Senate No. 27 of 4 February 2009. However, the government continues to believe that the provision of the proprietary model code and data related to the modelling conducted for Australia’s low pollution future: the economics of climate change mitigation would cause commercial harm to organisations that were contracted to assist Treasury.

The Centre for Global Trade Analysis provides the global trade analysis project database from which the database for the global trade and environment model—the GTEM—has been derived. Disclosure of the GTEM database by the Australian government to a third party would have the effect of disclosing a substantial portion of the private, confidential information of the Centre for Global Trade Analysis. The government notes the correspondence between Purdue University and the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy in which Purdue University identifies that if the committee, or its consultant, would like access to the database they would be required to purchase a licence. The Senate order does not identify if such a purchase has occurred. If the government were to provide proprietary data to the committee this would directly deprive Purdue University of funding. In addition, the committee, or its consultants, by purchasing a licence would be directly liable for all confidentiality clauses contained in the GTAP data licence.

In the case of the Monash multiregional forecasting model, the MMRF model, provision of the model codes and database could cause substantial commercial harm to Monash University—in particular, to the Centre of Policy Studies at that university. The model codes and databases for this model are the private, confidential information of that organisation. They are sold as a commercial product by Monash University. The government notes the correspondence between Monash University and the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy which discusses the possibility of making unspecified arrangements with regard to a suitable confidentially and non-disclosure deed. The Senate order does not identify if these arrangements have been put in place and agreed with Monash University. In addition, the correspondence does not identify if all financial considerations of Monash University have been resolved. If the government were to provide the proprietary model code and data to the committee, this could directly deprive Monash University of funding. Until these serious matters of commercial harm are resolved to the documented satisfaction of the external consultants, the government will not consider this matter further.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—As Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy, I note the government’s persistence in refusing to provide the requested information, based on a claim of likely commercial harm to parties contracted by Treasury to assist them in modelling on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The committee will consider the government’s further statement and advise the Senate. I do note, though, that the government, in making this continuing claim of commercial harm, still has not addressed the fact that there is a lot of information that was asked for in this order which is not covered by the government’s claim of commercial harm. The government has made no statement in any of the explanations provided to the Senate so far as to why it is persisting in not complying and conforming with the order of the Senate in relation to all of that other information, which includes, for example, information documents generated by the government for the purposes of the composition of the information covered and a whole range of other information, which is covered in part (3)(b) of the order which was successfully passed by the Senate last week. I ask that the government consider the comments I have just made and consider making a further statement explaining on what basis they are persisting with their refusal to comply with the order of the Senate, given they have not provided any explanation whatsoever of the basis on which they have refused to do so so far in relation to part (3)(b).

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—There is a very simple issue at stake here, and that is the right of the nation to be informed through its Senate committee system as against so-called commercial rights. We are here in the service of the nation. I did not hear in the government’s statement, if there is a commercial component, if there is money to be lost by the people who hold this information, an offer to facilitate the matter by paying so that the Senate can get the information. This time-honoured falling back on commercial-in-confidence as a reason for depriving Senate committees, of all things, of information that is crucial to their deliberations does not wash. The Senate committees should have that information made available, and if the government believes that there is a commercial consideration in the way it should facilitate the payment of whatever that commercial consideration is to ensure that the Senate gets the information that it requires; otherwise, it should support the committee getting that information instead of obstructing it, as we have heard here today.