Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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?

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, please resume your seat. A point of order, Senator Ruston?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just wondering, Senator Siewert, if you could stop yelling. Your voice is actually hurting my ears.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know, but please could you.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, please resume your seat.

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

I will try to keep it a bit lower, but this is an issue that's extremely important, and, if the government keep wanting to run interference, those are just more signs that they don't want us to talk about this or to know what the full brief was, what the full remit was or what the terms of reference were for this inquiry.

What the government refers us to, contained in the Doherty report, are some brief points about what that remit was. That is not good enough for the scrutiny that ought to and needs to be provided and undertaken, over the whole of the vaccine program and over decisions that are going to be made about the targets for vaccinations. I think it is extremely important that we understand the terms of reference for what is contained in the Doherty report.

What is at stake here is not having the appropriate and right target. In the calculation of the target, if you go for 80 per cent of just the eligible population, that in fact relates to 65 per cent of the general population, and a lot more people will get sick and a lot more people will die, including young people, because the delta variant is much more infectious. As we know, and as I've articulated in this place on several occasions now, children are much more at risk from the delta variant. Young people are much more at risk from the delta variant. So it's critical that we include people under the age of 16 in the calculations of the target. It's critical Australians know what information is being used to decide those targets, when the government are relying on just one source of information, apparently—the Doherty institute report—for which they prescribed the terms of reference.

I'm not having a go at the Doherty institute. What I want to find out is the specific terms of reference that the Doherty institute were asked to report on. What were the other parameters they were asked to report on? For example, to build a picture for people so they know, what was the calculation done on how infectious delta was as compared to the original variant and the alpha variant? Those sorts of things matter. That's why we sought and the Senate supported this OPD: to try and get access to this information so that we could understand what parameters the Doherty institute were specifically asked to model. Then we as a community could decide whether we think they were the right terms of reference and understand just what it means when the government decide they're picking particular targets and just how many people in the community will be at risk if we open up at 80 per cent—that is, 80 per cent of so-far-eligible people, because under-16-year-olds are not included, which, as I said, means that's actually a rate of 65 per cent.

We need to understand this information. That's why I asked for and moved this OPD—to get access to that information. For the government to claim public interest immunity is an insult not only to this chamber, but also to the Australian people and the experts who want to fully consider the Doherty institute report in the context of what the government asked them specifically to model.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also want to comment on the response to the OPD. I wasn't aware that the government had made a claim of public interest immunity that involved cabinet-in-confidence. I understand it has just been tabled.

I want to point out that what the executive has done here is actually quite disturbing. I will refer the chamber to the matter of Patrick and Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, AAT 2719, where a judicial officer, Justice White, has ruled that the national cabinet is not a cabinet. So far as I understand the Constitution, the executive is bound by these decisions. Of course, there has been a stay of order. The stay of order is to stop the effect of the decision, which is to hand over the document, not the decision itself.

It's quite disturbing. We've had a situation where the executive has been claiming to the Senate that things are cabinet-in-confidence when they haven't been. I want to make it clear, the Senate doesn't necessarily accept that, just as the High Court hasn't accepted it. But now we have a slight change and it's a very disturbing change; that is—the government is not complying with a decision of a judicial officer. That is quite disturbing, very arrogant and a new step for this government. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further contributions on ministerial statements, with the leave of the chamber, I will return to item 17. We had some technical challenges before. Senator Hanson wished to make a contribution on the management of the Inland Rail project.