Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 7.20 pm on Tuesday, 22 June 2021:

the planning parameters of the likely lowest and likely highest allocations of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccine doses that each state and territory is expected to receive each week throughout 2021, which the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care committed on 21 June 2021 to provide to the Senate.

I thank the chamber for giving me leave to move this motion this morning. To disrupt or reorganise the program isn't something that we like to do, but this is a really important issue and I think it deserves the attention of the Senate at this time, at the beginning of the session. It is a motion that I think the government should support as well, as it was a government minister yesterday who said that they would provide to this chamber the documents that had been provided from the Commonwealth to the states and territories about the distribution of vaccines, both Pfizer and AstraZeneca, month by month right up to the end of this year.

There is no greater issue facing the country at the moment than the COVID-19 pandemic, as our colleagues from New South Wales would be feeling most acutely this morning. There is no greater issue that deals with the COVID-19 pandemic than the government's vaccination program. We know it has been a shambles. We know that there has been mistake after mistake, change after change. We know that vaccine hesitancy is an issue in this country. We know people have been worried about the changing advice coming from the government. We know that supply has been an issue. With the recent changes, with more people being brought into the category eligible for Pfizer, it makes the issue of how much supply they have and how it's getting distributed even more important. We know from the states and territories that there have been concerns about the distribution of supply. Are they going to have enough for the second dose? Do they need to hold back other doses so that they can vaccinate people within the three-week recommended time frame? These are all issues.

Yesterday the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, completely of his own initiative, said in this chamber:

That information with respect to the number of doses available—of both Pfizer and AstraZeneca—was provided to state and territory premiers as a part of the national cabinet meeting this morning. I am happy to provide that information to the chamber. I will come back to the chamber as soon as possible …

Well, that didn't happen. He didn't come back as soon as possible. But, colleagues, he did come back and table a document at 10 to 10 last night which specifically didn't go to providing that information.

The information in question time that Minister Colbeck undertook to give to this chamber is extremely important information, because, if you are to believe the government, the changes to the vaccine program as recommended by ATAGI last week won't lead to a shortage of Pfizer vaccine—the evidence last night in the COVID committee was that they won't lead to any problem at all. We know that they don't want to be held to time frames, because they've missed every one they've set themselves. They missed 'vaccinate four million by the end of March'; they missed 'vaccinate 1a and 1b within six weeks and be done by Easter'. We know that they have missed every single time frame they have set themselves. So now they're in the business where they don't give time frames. They just say, 'There are different scenarios, and we'll focus on supply and on getting the supply out.' Now we know that the government has a document which clearly sets out how much vaccine is going, where it's going and what type of vaccine is going where, right up until the end of this year. That document exists, and it should be provided to this Senate.

This Senate has provided a crucial scrutinising role throughout the pandemic. When the Senate didn't sit, the COVID committee did. When there's a change to the advice coming from government, the Senate, through the COVID committee, sits. We interrogate. We examine. And this is no different.

Here we have the minister, who has appeared before that committee many times, of his own volition. He wasn't even asked to provide this information; he was answering a different question. He volunteered that those documents would be provided to the Senate as soon as possible, and they are critical to the government's credibility on rolling out this vaccine because their credibility is linked to the supply and distribution being effective, particularly over the next quarter. What I think those documents might show is that, over the next quarter, supply is going to be a bit tight—it's going to be tight if you need to get a Pfizer vaccine in this country—and that then it will improve in quarter 3 and quarter 4 as more doses of Pfizer or of Moderna enter the country. But we know that the government has that information. They are avoiding scrutiny of it. They are avoiding being transparent. It looks as though Minister Hunt, probably, has got to Senator Colbeck, clipped his wings again and said: 'You've overstepped the mark. That information is not being provided. That information, which is in the public interest, will not be provided to the Senate.' That looks like what's happened overnight.

So we get this letter, which is completely unrelated, answering a question that the minister had already answered and didn't take on notice. But the undertaking he gave—which was to bring it back to this chamber 'as soon as possible', to use his language—has been ignored. We're not going to let you get away with that, because you gave this Senate an undertaking yesterday in question time, and that means something. It means something when a minister stands up and says they will do something and then they don't follow through with it. This is the biggest issue facing the country now. The solution to the pandemic—to minimise the harm, economically and health-wise, and the social impacts of it—is the successful rollout of the vaccine. The government has a document that should provide comfort to Australians, if we believe it to be true, to say they have enough vaccine, they know where that vaccine is, they know when it's coming, they know where it's going and that the states and territories know what they're getting month by month.

This information is in the public interest. It's not good enough for the government to offer it up and then to have a second thought of: 'It might not actually work for us politically if we put that information out now, so let's fob the Senate off with an answer which is completely unrelated to the undertaking the minister gave.' We cannot let that stand. The Senate must stand up and hold the minister to the promise he made to this chamber yesterday in question time, which was to provide the information and to provide it as soon as possible.

There are concerns that the government doesn't have enough supply. There are concerns, from states and territories, that they're not getting the information they need about how they make the rollout as efficient and as effective as possible so that people can get access to the vaccine. We had evidence last night that said that they think that, over the next two months, there should be enough Pfizer for anyone who wants to have a shot. Presumably that is supported by this document. So release it, give it to the Senate and actually stand by what you said yesterday. That is important. It's not only important in terms of responding to the pandemic; it's important in terms of ministerial commitment and how the Senate holds this minister to account. We need this information. It is critical for understanding what is going to happen over the next few months, particularly in the next quarter.

The government still maintain their commitment to vaccinate any Australian who wants a vaccine by the end of this year. It's changed from being two shots—from being fully vaccinated—to one shot, but they are saying this is what they will maintain over the course of 2021. I see no reason, now that the minister has volunteered this information, that that can't be made available to this chamber today. It's really important for the trust in this program, for dealing with issues like hesitancy and for trying to get as many Australians vaccinated as possible that this information be provided. Any lack of willingness by the government to provide it should be looked at most seriously.

What are the government hiding if they cannot provide this information? Why will they not provide it? If they try and hide under national cabinet and say, 'It's a national cabinet document,' I respond: no, it's not. It was generated and developed by the Commonwealth and then shared with the states and territories. So don't hide behind national cabinet as you've done on every single other important aspect of the vaccine. It's been used as a way of avoiding transparency and avoiding giving Australians the information they deserve about this vaccine. If you're expecting Australians to roll up their sleeves and do what's right by the country then they expect you to be upfront and give them the information that enables them to do that in a way in which they can be fully informed. This document, I think, at this point in time, in terms of supply and understanding whether we have got enough to do what needs to be done over the course of this year, is critical to holding you to account and making sure that you can do what you're promising you'll do.

There is no reason at all why this should be secret information—none at all. This is all it is: 'This is the vaccine. This is how much we are getting. This is where it's going month by month.' There is nothing top secret in that. But it seems the government, after Minister Colbeck has volunteered to provide that information, has now overruled Senator Colbeck. Otherwise it would have been provided at 9.50 last night when the one-pager, completely unrelated to the matter, was tabled. The government feels that that's actually delivering on what you promised, Senator Colbeck. Well, your words were:

I am happy to provide that information to the chamber. I will come back to the chamber as soon as possible …

The chamber needs to hold this minister to account. It is not top secret information. It is information that should be made publicly available just like when the cabinet was first briefed about the pandemic and just like who decided what about the vaccine portfolio. All of that information is top secret. When did those meetings happen? Who was involved? None of that information is being provided to the Australian people, and it makes you wonder why. What is it that makes this information so top secret? Were the cabinet not briefed? Did they not follow the recommendations of the experts in terms of purchase of the vaccine? Did Pfizer offer an unlimited amount to vaccinate the whole population as a priority country? Who knows? We don't have any of the information available. This is just another attempt by this government to withhold critical information from the Australian people and hope that they can get away with it. We won't let you get away with it. We will keep asking you the questions and we will keep your feet to the fire, especially on this one.

I am sure the government will be able to support this motion, because this motion just asks them to comply with what they offered to do yesterday. How do you oppose this? When we have a vote, what does poor Minister Colbeck get told? That he's got to walk across the chamber and vote against what he said yesterday? He says, 'I know I said I'd bring it back as soon as possible and that I would make it available to the chamber,' but do you know what? Minister Hunt has been on the phone. We've all been on the phone and had an earbashing from Minister Hunt. We know what it's like. Stand up to him. Say: 'I'm sorry Greg, but I said this. Now we're going to have to deliver.' But do you know what? It's not such a bad thing, because this information is important information. It needs a light on it, and we need to be able to see what the government is planning in terms of the vaccine rollout. That's what this information's about. It is not top secret. The government should not be allowed to pretend that there's some secrecy attached to it because national cabinet is a body that just consumes secret information and never, ever spits anything out. We don't accept that. The Senate shouldn't accept that.

Minister Colbeck, we are on your side on this one. We agree with you that the information should be made available to the chamber, and I genuinely believe you do think it should be made available. I actually do. But I think you've been overturned. Well, we are here to strengthen your arm. The Senate is here to support you and, most importantly, to give that information to the Australian people, because I think there is interest in how much Pfizer vaccine there is in June, July and August this year. I think that is critical to what is going to happen for the next three months.

If the government's words are true—that there is no shortage of supply—then show us the spreadsheet. Show us the paperwork that supports that. There is absolutely no reason why the government should not be supporting this motion today other than just another attempt to withhold information, to play the politics of the pandemic and not actually deal with the genuine issues, to stage-manage, to make the PR fit the press conferences and to pat us all on the head and say: 'It's all coming. Don't worry. We've got it all sorted.' Well, that's not been our experience of the vaccine rollout. Every single commitment given hasn't been met, and now we have a minister prepared to share that information and he's been overturned. Now he's going to be in the most embarrassing position, where he's going to be forced to vote against a motion that actually requires him to do what he promised yesterday in this chamber to do. Well, we shouldn't let it stand, colleagues. I urge the Senate to consider supporting my motion. It's important information that should be made available.