Senate debates

Tuesday, 22 June 2021

Documents

COVID-19: Vaccination; Order for the Production of Documents

12:01 pm

Photo of Katy GallagherKaty 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.

12:16 pm

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

The Greens will be supporting this motion. I was astonished when sitting in the COVID hearing last night when the department said that they couldn't hand over this information because it had gone to national cabinet, when I'd been here in the chamber with everybody else, hearing Minister Colbeck saying, yes, he would provide that information. If that information is not provided, how does that reinforce the community's confidence in our vaccine program, which is, I've got to say, at a pretty low ebb right now, unfortunately, because not one of their goals has been met? The goals have been rolled over and rolled over and rolled over. Now there is a vague promise that we may be there by the end of the year with everybody—those that want it—having had their first shot. There's been problem after problem after problem here, to the point where we've now had to bring in the Defence Force to make sure that we get the logistics right. People have no confidence at the moment, particularly after the announcements last week. We need to restore confidence in the program. There is absolutely no reason, unless the government is hiding something, that they cannot hand over this information to help restore confidence in the shambles that is the vaccine rollout program.

Last night we heard, in fact, that the government is now working on a new draft of the vaccine rollout program, the program that says you've got your priority 1a and then 1b and then 2a, 2b and 2c. That is apparently not going to be operating within the next couple of weeks. It has essentially been thrown out the window already; I will acknowledge that. The government are now in the position where they're redrafting that whole rollout program. Once again, there are changes to our vaccine program. Really we can have no confidence in any time frames the government articulates at the moment without that foundation information about how many doses of the Pfizer vaccine are going to be available from now through the next quarter and the next quarter. When is Moderna coming online, for example? Why didn't we have a contract with Moderna a long time ago?

The fact is that there has not been transparency in this whole program. What's happening with the contracts? We had one contract to start the logistics of the rollout, for example, in aged care to aged-care residents and staff. That didn't work, so then we got another contract because the first contractors couldn't do the job. Then we had a second lot of contractors come in to try and provide that rollout, and of course that didn't work either. There's a lack of transparency there; that's commercial-in-confidence information.

We have to make sure that we get access to as much information as possible. The government has to be as transparent as possible, because of the—I was going to say a slightly unparliamentary word there, so I'll retract that—shambles of the program that has been run out to date. When were these decisions made? How much Pfizer will we have? When will people have certainty that they can get their first jab and then their second jab? When will people have confidence that they will be vaccinated? This doesn't exist in a vacuum. It also connects to other issues that people want to know about—for example, when the borders are going to be open. It's absolutely critical that people have their vaccine, for the protection of themselves and of the broader community.

I see absolutely no reason why the minister cannot table this information. It is crucial information to start the rebuild of the community's confidence in our vaccination program. People are increasingly hesitant. We, as Greens, support the vaccination program and we were encouraging people to get vaccinated, but I can actually understand now why people are a little bit nervous. We want to counter that. We want to make sure that people have confidence and that we rebuild confidence in what has been a shambles—an absolute shambles. And the government can't say that they have been transparent in any of the vaccination program. They've only just started giving us some statistics.

Last night I was asking questions about mixing and matching vaccines and was told that they're doing some further work on it and that there wasn't a lot of information around. I subsequently got an email from someone—a health professional—who has been working on this and who attached at least three articles on the research that has been done on mixing and matching vaccines. Again, there's a lack of transparency. Other countries are doing it. Why can't Australia?

We actually need access and proper answers to these questions. We need them now, not down the track. We need this information now. So the Greens will be supporting this OPD because we do need access to this information. The government shouldn't be hiding behind national cabinet, as they continually do. They shouldn't be hiding behind it. This should be publicly available information. We should have had it last night, either here in the chamber or at the COVID committee. Instead, we've found the government hiding behind national cabinet. It is outrageous that the community cannot have access to this information. The government knows it. There is no excuse for the government not releasing this information, other than that they're trying to hide something—maybe that, in fact, there isn't enough, despite the government saying there will be enough. Maybe there won't be. Maybe we're going to be restructuring the rollout plans, perhaps to cover the fact that there is not enough. We just don't know. And, if we in here are speculating about this, what are people in the community doing? They're also speculating about whether there's going to be enough and why the government won't tell us what's going on. Produce the information. We shouldn't have to go through this debate in this chamber. The minister said he would produce the information—which was good—and now we find that we can't have access to it.

The Greens will be supporting this motion. It's about time that we had some transparency in what has turned out to be a shambles of a rollout.

12:24 pm

Photo of Malcolm RobertsMalcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I will be supporting Senator Gallagher's motion. I, like her, have wider concerns about the virus campaign on which the government has embarked. On 23 March last year, a Monday, our first day sitting in this parliament with the virus, I supported the government on behalf of One Nation and said we expected the data and we expected the plan. Where is the plan? A vaccine is one strategy as part of a comprehensive plan to manage. There is no such plan. So I have wide concerns about the lack of a plan and the lack of data. There are seven strategies. I have checked this with the Chief Medical Officer in Senate estimates. I have checked with the Secretary of the Department of Health in Senate estimates.

The first one is lockdowns. Even the crooked, corrupt, incompetent, dishonest World Health Organization admits that lockdowns are to be used as a last resort and only initially to get control of the virus. Yet we've seen states using lockdowns repeatedly, which means they haven't got control of the virus. The virus is managing states. We see capricious lockdowns with one or two positive tests. We see people 2,700 kilometres from Brisbane, in Bamaga, wearing masks as an exercise in conditioning. So the first one is capricious use of lockdowns.

The second strategy is testing, tracing and quarantining. That has not been used properly in this country. There are countries overseas that have used it properly, with wonderful results. We have not. The third is restrictions—things like masks and social distancing. That has been used here, although we are told initially there was no need for masks, because there were no masks available. Then, when masks became available, we were told they must be used. They're a symbol of conditioning.

The fourth one is vaccines. And what a hazardous, disjointed mess that's turned out to be. I agree with Senator Siewert. I agree with Senator Gallagher. The people are concerned because we've had contradicting evidence and contradicting statements about vaccines. It's atrocious. People are scared because the government has terrified them with the uncertainty as well as the deaths from vaccine. I will talk more about that in a minute.

The fifth strategy that was signed off by the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of the Department of Health is the use of cures and prophylactics to treat people with the virus—successful antivirals dramatically proven overseas. They are low cost, safe—3.7 billion doses over six decades in the case of ivermectin—and now proven successful overseas and clinically.

The sixth one is personal behaviour—things like washing hands and personal hygiene. The seventh we have heard nothing about from this government, yet it's a well-known comorbidity: obesity. We need people to manage their own health and fitness.

That will provide a comprehensive plan. We see state and federal governments stumbling around vaccines, lockdowns and some restrictions. That's it. And our country is getting decimated economically—or was—because of it, and we are recovering slowly.

So I commend Senator Gallagher for moving this, because the government made a commitment yesterday and it needs to honour that commitment. We've had deaths from the vaccines—thousands of people overseas. We have had hundreds of people, after they received a vaccine, dying. We have a long delay between the death and the reporting of the death. We have a wide variety of side effects from the vaccine, including blood clots. The health minister himself had cellulitis and was hospitalised, and that is reportedly a known vaccine side effect. We've had the Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal Department of Health refusing to declare that the vaccine is 100 per cent safe. How do they possibly get conditional approval?

The vaccine has failed to prevent transmission. How does that figure into a plan for managing the virus? The vaccine fails to stop someone getting the virus and getting sick. The intergenerational effects are not known. Now we have nurses talking about banding together because together they have power against a hospital or against an aged-care facility and because some of them are pregnant and don't know what the vaccine will do to their future child.

The dosage is unknown. The vaccine's effects against mutations are still unknown. The vaccine frequency is unknown. The number, the time of jabs—will we be required to do this annually? I won't be, but are people going to be jabbed forever? The vaccine fails to remove restrictions. The vaccine fails to open international borders. The vaccine makers have displayed a considerable lack of integrity, with fines of billions of dollars for misrepresenting their products. Health Minister Hunt summarises it so well with his words: 'The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial ever.' And I'm not a lab rat, and Australians should not be treated as a lab rat. Governments should be supplying the information freely and openly.

The vaccine showed that this is the first time in history that healthy people have been injected with something that will kill them. At the same time, we have a known, proven, safe, affordable drug, and sick people have been denied it in this country and in some other Western countries. As I said, ivermectin is off-patent and affordable. These are the things that need to be discussed and aren't being discussed. We need to start with the information that Senator Gallagher is wanting.

We learn that four pilots have died in British Airways employment in the UK after getting the jab. Will planes start falling out of the sky? Will nurses, especially pregnant nurses, concerned with the child they're carrying, band together as a mark of solidarity to prevent their children from being hurt by these vaccines?

I want to commend Senator Patrick. He pointed out quite clearly—and I agree with him—that there is no such thing as a national cabinet. Government is answerable to us, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The national cabinet is a fabrication. I support very strongly Senator Gallagher's motion and will be voting accordingly.

12:31 pm

Photo of Rex PatrickRex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

I would like to add a couple of different perspectives to this debate. Firstly, I'd like to talk about Senator Gallagher's discussion about providing this information to the Senate. I agree that's very important. But I think we need to appreciate something—that is, these documents were written by officials who are paid for by the taxpayer, they were approved by ministers who are paid for by the taxpayer, they were transmitted to the states by means which were paid for by the taxpayer and they are documents that are written for public purpose. They are documents that do not belong to the coalition government; they are documents that belong to the Australian people.

The default position in our representative democracy is that documents that you are custodians of—you are not the owners of them—must be made available unless there's some very good reason for them not to be. I agree with statements made in the chamber this afternoon basically asserting that, in actual fact, there can be no question that these documents are not sensitive from any national security perspective, from any international relations perspective; they're not legally privileged. There is no reason that these should not be handed over to the Senate so that we can make them public and we can assist in informing. The whole point of a representative democracy is that we allow people to participate in our democracy, either through this chamber, through the media, through discussions or through ringing their MPs—however they may wish to do that—but they can only do that if they're properly informed. In politics, information is currency.

I understand why the government want to keep this secret. It is not for any legitimate reason. You're just not open to scrutiny; you're just not open to criticism. One of the benefits of disclosure is that you might find some people might congratulate you for some things that you're doing. You might find that it helps sway the public in supporting whatever campaign you're running. But if you don't bring the people along with you then you're not going to get that support that you need. So, first and foremost, this information belongs to the public, and you are not allowed to keep it secret from them. That's not how things work in this country. If you want to play in the political system that does that, move to China; move to other places that don't have the sort of free democracy that we have. That's the first point.

The second point—and I note that Senator Roberts brought this up—is that the mechanism by which you claim that these documents ought not to be provided to the Senate is because of an aroma of what you call 'the national cabinet'. I'm going to criticise Senator Gallagher here for giving legitimacy to the national cabinet. I think we ought to be saying 'the thing that the Liberal government call the national cabinet'; it is not a national cabinet. As Lewis Carroll wrote in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty said, 'Words mean what I say they mean.' And that's what I mean: we've got a Humpty Dumpty Prime Minister who seems to think he can define what the word 'cabinet' means. That is not the case.

This chamber knows that I have a matter before the AAT that Justice White is considering at the moment, but let me tell you why there is no such thing as a national cabinet. There is an attempt by the government to connect the national cabinet to cabinet. A cabinet is something that's been around since King George II. It has particular attributes and those attributes must be respected. Those attributes include the fact that a cabinet is a meeting of senior ministers responsible to a single legislature. A national cabinet is not a single legislature. Our national cabinet is made up of one federal minister, that being the Prime Minister, and premiers and chief ministers, who are responsible to different legislatures. There are nine legislatures involved in what is called the national cabinet. That's the first problem.

The second issue is that, if you read the Cabinet Handbook, it makes it very clear that the Prime Minister controls who is a member of cabinet. The Prime Minister cannot control who the South Australian Premier is. The Prime Minister cannot control who the Queensland Premier is. The Prime Minister cannot control who the ACT Chief Minister is. So that's another inconsistency with what a cabinet is.

Thirdly, the very basal reason for having cabinet-in-confidence is cabinet responsibility, the idea that everyone agrees when you come out. That is not the case. The Prime Minister said it himself. He said in a press conference that he accepts that 'not everyone will be on the bus but the bus has to leave the station'. Those were his words. That is not how a cabinet works. A cabinet works with the principle of collective responsibility.

Another thing a cabinet works with is the principle of cabinet solidarity—that is, once a cabinet makes a decision, everyone who walks out of that cabinet must publicly support the decisions of cabinet. That is not what happens with the national cabinet. It has no resemblance to what is known in law as a cabinet. The Senate has faced an obstruction in respect of requests for documents which come from the thing that is called the national cabinet. The difficulty with that is that first and foremost, if you read Odgers, there is no proper claim—just as the courts have decided that cabinet documents may be adduced in a court or, as necessary, in the Senate in order for us to do our oversight role.

The second aspect of this is that 'cabinet' is a word that is defined in the statutes. So it is not for the Prime Minister to come along and simply say cabinet means something different now. Let me read to you from the submissions of the Commonwealth to the AAT. They suggest that, in spite of all the things I've just listed that have been determined judicially, and it is the judiciary that interprets what the words of the statutes mean, what the Prime Minister argued was that the tribunal should attach greater weight to the expert evidence—that is, Mr Gaetjens—before relating it to the specific issues raised in this case such as the generalised judicial observations made in very different contexts. What the Prime Minister was saying is: 'Don't you worry about what the word "cabinet" means in the statute. That's not for the courts to decide; it's for the Prime Minister to decide. The Prime Minister can decide whatever he likes.' We can put a word in the statutes here and then at some later stage the Prime Minister can just change the meaning of the word? That is not how this thing works. Humpty Dumpty will have to fall off the wall. There's a good chance that when our Prime Minister, Humpty Dumpty Morrison, falls off that wall there won't be many people prepared to put him back together.

The government needs to understand that it has to be open and transparent. It has an obligation to the people of Australia to be open and transparent in the conduct of its business. That's how this is supposed to work. That is especially the case when called on by the Senate to answer a question. In this case Senator Colbeck did answer the question and made a commitment to come back to the chamber to give the information, but somehow we find that information is no longer going to be provided. That's a disgusting state of affairs.

What is so sensitive in this information? It ought to be made public. It's to do with a very important program to be rolled out to make sure we can get on with our economy and get on with the work we do without being strangled by this awful pandemic. Cough up the information. That's the right thing to do. It's information that belongs to the public.

12:41 pm

Photo of Penny WongPenny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | | Hansard source

The motion before the chamber does one thing. It simply asks Minister Colbeck to do what he said he would do. It's pretty simple. In question time the minister was asked a question by Senator Sterle. He was asked directly how many vaccines per week the Commonwealth is going to make available to the states. Senator Sterle asked, 'How many Pfizer doses per week will the Commonwealth guarantee from today until the end of July 2021?' It's pretty simple information. We can only purchase vaccines on a national basis, as a national government. The states don't purchase them. The Commonwealth purchases them. They have to be supplied to the states, so the question from Senator Sterle was: how many per week have you indicated that you'll give the states?

Senator Colbeck actually gave a quite helpful answer. He said:

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 with that information, because that information hasn't been given to me off the back of the national cabinet meeting this morning.

We know this information exists, because the minister told us it exists. We know the minister can provide it to the Senate, because the minister told us he would provide it to the Senate. The problem is the minister hasn't and he won't. Sometime between question time and 10 to 10 last night, somebody got to the minister and said, 'By the way, we're not going to do that.'

I'll come to the Prime Minister's character in a moment, but this does come to the pattern across the government where information that is available is routinely denied to the Senate. I think, for example, of FOI claims that Senator Patrick and other senators have put in place. Under the freedom of information legislation, information which was denied through the chamber has been provided to the applicant—in this case a senator. That's not actually how this should work.

With the Westminster system—and we have all our political differences—the key way ministers are accountable to the Australian people is through the parliament. People use the media et cetera, but ultimately, as a matter of our democracy, the Westminster system says that I'm accountable to the people of Australia through the parliament. Yet what we have in this government is not even a creeping tendency but a considered strategy to reduce that accountability to this parliament in question time, in questions on notice, in estimates and in orders for the production of documents. They've so reduced the level of accountability that people are going outside of the parliamentary processes in order to get that information, and sometimes they've been successful through litigation. Well, we shouldn't have parliamentarians having to litigate FOI. We shouldn't have Senator Gallagher having to come in here to put a motion to require a minister to do what he undertook to his colleagues and the Senate chamber to do.

The facts are that the government have taken this approach in part because they don't want to be accountable for their failures. Essentially, Mr Morrison had two jobs: quarantine and vaccine. I'll leave the discussion about quarantine to one side. The discussion about the vaccine has been really notable for the way in which the government has dealt with its failures. Does everyone remember that we were going to have four million vaccines by the end of March? Well, obviously that didn't happen. What has occurred as a consequence of that and failures around targets is that the government has simply said: 'Guess what? We're not going to give anybody any targets.' Instead of saying, 'Look, we missed it for these reasons. We're going to be up-front about this. This is what's occurred,' they just stopped saying anything about any targets. We can't get any information from which you might even be able to infer a target. You can't get any information which might actually quantify any accountability. They're so grumpy about the fact that the Prime Minister was proved to have missed a target. The way they're dealing with this is by not providing any information. It's a very paranoid way of running government, I have to say.

I think Australians would actually appreciate the government being much more up-front about the vaccine. I think they did the wrong thing; the Labor Party has been clear about that. We think they put too many eggs in the AstraZeneca basket. We think they failed to make sure the rollout would be managed properly. We've seen Senator Colbeck in here saying the government had to reset, repivot the rollout vaccine. That was before the change of advice last week. We know that the so-called national cabinet was convened yesterday for an emergency meeting to help fix the rollout—of course, everyone was distracted because the National Party were in the middle of a big fight about who was going to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr Morrison has effectively given up on targets, because he would prefer not to have one than to miss another one. And now we see this strategy of hiding information from Australians. Senator Colbeck said yesterday during question time that Australians could have confidence in the rollout based on the information provided to the national cabinet. Pause and think about that for a minute. On the basis of information he is now refusing to provide to the Senate, he's telling us all, 'You can have confidence.' Whatever your political views, Australians are entitled to be able to look at the information their government is providing. Australians are entitled to look at the truth, the facts about what is actually happening on the rollout. I don't think it's reasonable just to say: 'You can have confidence. We're looking after it.'

There isn't a lot of confidence in the rollout. I don't say that with any relish. I think that is a problem. I think it's a problem for the economy and for people's sense of confidence in what is occurring. The lack of confidence is not improved by treating people like they're mushrooms. The lack of confidence and the concern are not improved by refusing to give people information. A smoke-and-mirrors approach from a Prime Minister who refuses responsibility and refuse to admit his failures is not the way to deal with this.

I thank those crossbenchers who have indicated support for the motion. I think the Senate should be empowered to do its job. I say to the minister: can you just do what you said you'd do? Just turn up in here, provide the information that you were asked for that you have already provided to the states. You've already provided it to the states. That's the key issue here: he has it, he can provide it and he's refusing to do so. The Senate should hold him to his word.

12:49 pm

Photo of Simon BirminghamSimon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the Senate. I indicate at the outset that the government, having granted leave and agreed to the consideration of this motion, also will not oppose the passage of this motion. We acknowledge that, whilst ordinarily we would deny leave for consideration of motions that should be brought through the normal consideration of formal business, in this instance we acknowledge the importance of the subject matter. Because of the importance of the vaccine rollout, although we don't agree with the assertions that have been made by many during the consideration of this motion, we were happy to facilitate the time in the Senate for its debate and consideration.

Senator Patrick interjecting

I will take the interjection, Senator Patrick, because the principle of whether or not a motion has precedence for consideration is an important one. Not every motion or OPD request or anything else that is bowled up at the start of the day is about to be granted leave. Even if we don't have the numbers, we'll go through the process of denying leave and the consequent consideration by the Senate that would occur.

In relation to the motion and its content, it is correct that Senator Colbeck was asked yesterday about provision of vaccine doses to the end of July 2021. I note that the motion that's been brought forward here seeks information through to the end of 2021, a considerably longer period of time than Senator Colbeck was asked about in the chamber yesterday. Senator Colbeck did come back to the chamber last night with further information, as he had promised to do. The further information that he provided to the chamber indicated that the government has to date received 4½ million doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and that Pfizer have confirmed supply of a further 3.4 million doses to the end of July 2021. He also quotes a statement that Pfizer had released in relation to the broader supply of vaccines through the period of 2021 that's important to place on the record. That statement from Pfizer says: 'As Pfizer informed parliament whilst giving evidence on the record to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 hearing on 28 January 2021, Pfizer proposed to the Australian government the procurement of 10 million doses of our COVID-19 vaccine, and that was the number initially contracted by the government. The parties have since contracted agreements for a further 30 million doses.' Indeed, Pfizer in their statements have confirmed that Australia will be supplied with a total of 40 million doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in 2021.

I note that, in much of the rhetoric during the debate, there was scant reference to the changed circumstances that have hit the vaccine rollout during the course of this year. These are just realities that we have had to face, which Senator Colbeck and others have spoken on extensively. It would, of course, be preferable, and it would have been the government's preference, had contracted vaccines that were expected to come to Australia during the early parts of this year arrived on time. They didn't—some 3.4 million.

Senator Lambie interjecting

I will take Senator Lambie's interjection as well, which is just false. Indeed, many were urging us to make sure that we proceeded in supporting a vaccine that we had the capability to manufacture in Australia, which was the case with AstraZeneca. Australia does not yet have the capability to manufacture the new mRNA technologies. That's why we're going through the process of trying to procure and secure the intellectual property and the technology and investment to ensure that, for the medium to long term, we are able to get that manufacturing capability into Australia.

But the reality is that certain supplies didn't turn up as had been contracted and expected. The reality is that there have been two significant changes in relation to the health advice around AstraZeneca. These have been disruptions the government would wish had not occurred, but they have occurred. We have responded to them, the states and territories have responded to them and, indeed, so have the medical practitioners participating in the rollout. I place on record our thanks to all those involved in the rollout for the way in which they have adapted to the changed circumstances.

Senator Patrick interjecting

It's actually called having ownership of the technology and the ability to manufacture, Senator Patrick. You can all pretend, if you like, that there's an easy answer here. What we're working through are the realities we face in an ever-changing circumstance that we've confronted.

As I said, the government won't oppose this motion. We will endeavour to provide as comprehensive a reply as we can. I note that there are aspects of this that will require discussion with the states and territories about releasing information relevant to them and that we'll look at any commercial aspects in relation to consideration of the motion. But the government does not oppose this motion and notes the importance of the vaccine rollout to all Australians.

Question agreed to.