Major parties respond with faint praise but nothing else to Senator Patrick's FOI reform bill

 In 2018 Senator Rex Patrick sponsored the introduction of the Freedom of Information Legislation Amendment (Improving Access and Transparency) Bill and made the second reading speech, the bill was referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the Committee report recommended the Senate not pass the bill (Senator Patrick and Greens senators dissenting)......

And there the bill sat until last week when it came on for Senate debate for 70 minutes before time expired.

The major parties did not support the bill in 2018 and reaffirmed that in 2020, so its fate is clear. 

Senator Patrick managed to get an acknowledgement that the government respects the intent to 'make government more transparent and more accountable, to assist citizens and the media to access information under the law and to improve the effectiveness of Australia's freedom-of-information laws' and from Labor that the bill was "well intentioned, and many of the proposals it puts forward warrant close examination' , but that was as far as they went.

Among the remarks worth highlighting:

Senator Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party)

The government remains steadfast in its support for transparency, for the value of the freedom-of-information arrangements and for providing substantial funding to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner so that it can do its job of making sure Australians can access important information from governments.... the objectives of transparency, accountability and freedom of information are objectives that are highly valued and shared by this government.

(Spoken apparently with a straight face)

Senator Murray Watt (Queensland ALP)

This government hates scrutiny. This government has contempt for basic notions of accountability. This is a government that prefers to operate in the shadows. It is not difficult to see why, because, every time sunlight does find a way in, Australians do not like what they see. Whether it's sports rorts, Angus Taylor's latest outrage, the awarding of contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to companies headquartered in beach shacks or the government's shocking and scandalous record on aged care, the Morrison government does not want Australians to know what it is up to. Make no mistake: that is why the government hates our FOI laws and treats those laws with such contempt. That is also why the government continues to starve the Information Commissioner of resources—so that it takes the commissioner so long to review a rejected freedom-of-information request that the applicant just gives up.

....since this Liberal government took power in 2013, they have been at war with freedom of information, at war with transparency, at war with accountability to the Australian people, who elected them, so Senator Patrick is to be congratulated for bringing forward this bill, which demonstrates his belief that FOI laws need to be strengthened and in the need to undo some of the harm that the Morrison government has done to our democracy in its trashing of FOI and its obsession with secrecy and cover-up.

(Spoken without reference to the fact Labor has not put forward comprehensive, concrete reforms proposals during seven years in opposition.) 

Senator Larrisa Waters (Queensland Australian Greens)

...this is the least transparent government in history.

(Spoken ignoring the fact any government before 1982 when FOI was introduced would beat all since for the least transparent trophy.)

Senator Paul Scarr (Queensland Liberal Party)

...about resourcing. I think it's a key point, to be frank. It's absolutely a key point. If we are going to have an FOI Act regime, there needs to be appropriate resourcing provided for it. It doesn't matter who's in government; there needs to be that appropriate resourcing. When I read the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, page 9, paragraph 2.9 says: 

When asked whether there needed to be more resources at both the early resolution stage, as well as at a later stage, to enable more Information Commissioner reviews to be finalised earlier, Ms Falk stated:

'At this point in time, that's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing that where I need to focus is on working with government to increase the offices resources to increase the capacity at the case-officer level and potentially, the executive level. If that were to be increased and then have a flow-on effect to more Information Commissioner reviews being required of the commissioner and that being something that's not manageable within other functions then that would be something that I would bring to the attention of government.'

Those are the actual words from the Information Commissioner in the report. In my respectful view, they do not support the characterisation of this matter by Senator Watt,

(Spoken in apparent ignorance of the fact that while the Information Commissioner did say this in 2018, she said something different in Senate Estimates in October 2019:

Senator KIM CARR: Did I hear you correctly in your opening statement? Did you actually say that you're under-funded?  

Ms Falk: I did raise the issue of resourcing in terms of FOI. It's a matter that's been discussed before this committee on a number of occasions, where I've indicated that really where the stresses in the system lie, from the OIC's perspective, are with the need for more staffing. I've set out the fact that we've had an 80 per cent increase in Information Commissioner reviews and I have worked very purposefully since being in the role on looking at how we can increase our efficiency. Over that same period of time—the four-year period—we have increased our efficiency by 45 per cent. But I've formed the view, having conducted a number of reviews of the way in which we're carrying out our work, that the only way in which the gap is to be bridged is for additional staffing resources to be provided

... 

Senator KIM CARR: I see. That's where the confusion lies. So, since August last year, you've been seeking additional support?  

Ms Falk: Sometime after that date, Senator. 

 Senator KIM CARR: And what was the government's response? Ms Falk: The government has acknowledged my request and is working through it in terms of normal budget processes.  

..

Senator KIM CARR: So how much did you ask for?  

Ms Falk: Senator, you appreciate that the information I've provided to government is through budget processes. I can give you an indication that, at present, my funding envelope allows for around 19 case officers to work on FOI reviews—there are additional staff who work on the FOI function more broadly—but just looking at FOI reviews, there'd need to be at least a half increase in the number of those staff.

 Senator KIM CARR: What you mean by 'a half? 

 Ms Falk: A half again. Senator KIM CARR: So—Ms Falk: Another nine staff. 

...

Senator KIM CARR: What will that cost in terms of your normal profile?

.. 

Senator KIM CARR: Can you take that on notice, please?  

The OAIC subsequently provided this response to the question: 

"The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has estimated that the annual cost to fund nine (9) additional staff to undertake FOI regulatory work, including processing IC review applications, would be approximately A$1.65 million with an additional capital amount of approximately A$0.3 million for accommodation in the first year." 

.....

We live in hope....

Sports rorts-would Sir Humphrey be proud?

Some exchanges during the two hours Secretary of Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Phil Gaetjen spent before the Senate Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants Committee on 22 July- the sports rorts committee- shouldn't stay buried away in the Hansard.

The backdrop is questioning about Mr Gaetjen's report undertaken at the request of the Prime Minister that led to the minister's resignation. And is subject to a claim of public interest immunity on grounds it is a document prepared for submission to cabinet so not available to the Committee.

Headings dedicated to the memory of Sir Humphrey Appleby:

Well, I did talk to the Minister 

Senator GALLAGHER: As part of your report, you didn't interview the Prime Minister specifically? 

Mr Gaetjens : No.

 Senator GALLAGHER Did you interview any of Mr Morrison's staff as part of your report?

Mr Gaetjens : No. My report was with respect to the minister's apparent breaches of the status of the ministerial code of conduct.

 Senator GALLAGHER Did you interview any of Senator McKenzie's staff?

Mr Gaetjens : I certainly had discussions with her chief of staff, knowing of course that, when I conducted my inquiry, the senator was in a different ministerial position. But I had no discussions with her staff when she was Minister for Sport.

Senator GALLAGHER So, as part of this, you didn't interview the staff of Minister McKenzie's office when she was Minister for Sport?

Mr Gaetjens : I think she was Minister for Sport months before the inquiry happened.

Senator GALLAGHER Yes. So you didn't go back to speak to those

Mr Gaetjens : No.The minister was responsible for the actions of her staff, so the interview with her, I thought, was sufficient.

Procedures, process? Nothing to worry about there!

Mr Gaetjens :.... I think what we did was, through my report ... basically approach the outcomes of all three rounds of the funding. I wasn't necessarily interested in the process; it was the outcomes of the funding round compared to—

Senator GALLAGHER But the process is pretty important here, isn't it, in terms of allegations of pork-barrelling and political interference? You would have thought the process leading to those decisions—

Mr Gaetjens : The process was fully outlined in the Auditor-General's report.

Senator GALLAGHER Indeed, which led to you being commissioned to conduct this assessment of whether fairness under the ministerial code of conduct was adhered to. The process is pretty important.

Mr Gaetjens : I was asked to ask about apparent breaches of the ministerial code of conduct. I was not asked to audit the sports administration program. That was my role.

Senator GALLAGHER....... I would have thought the process, including the communications between the Prime Minister's office and the minister for sport's office at the time was pretty central to you forming a view about whether there had or had not been a misconduct or whether the fairness obligations of the ministerial code of conduct had been met.

Mr Gaetjens : I will just repeat what I said: I was asked under paragraph 7.4 of the standards. The Prime Minister may seek advice from the secretariat of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on any matters within the standards. My focus was on whether the minister breached the standards.

The Auditor-General had done a report with respect to the administration of the program, and I used that report largely as the basis, with other information collected from the Department of Health and from questions asked of Sport Australia and others. ...... In the Auditor-General's report there was no mention of discussions or emails between the Prime Minister's office and the minister. In fact, it's the minister's actions that I was inquiring into.

 The Caretaker Conventions file was closed after sending a memo, no reason to open it since.

Senator GALLAGHER Mr Gaetjens, your report also doesn't note the two decision briefs authorising the expenditure of the $40 million that was sent to the Prime Minister's office in the hours after the election was called and the caretaker conventions were in place. Why is that?

Mr Gaetjens : Because it wasn't known at the time   

Senator GALLAGHER  In the evidence that you looked at, in terms of formulating your report, that did not come to your attention: that, following caretaker kicking in, decisions were still being made between the minister's and the Prime Minister's offices? You weren't aware of that? No-one told you that?

Mr Gaetjens : No.

Senator GALLAGHER So the first you knew about that was in one of these hearings?

Mr Gaetjens : Correct...

Senator GALLAGHER Were you concerned about that?

Mr Gaetjens : Not at the time, because I wasn't aware of it.

Senator GALLAGHER No? Were you concerned when you found out that decisions were being made after caretaker had kicked in, in allocating taxpayer funds?

Mr Gaetjens : Decisions can be made after the caretaker period starts. Usually, when caretaker starts, departments are advised to follow the guidance and advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is the departments and ministers who keep on making those decisions. The PM&C does not take over the decision-making ability. Everything is considered in the context of the transaction or decision being made with respect to scope, scale, importance and sensitivity, so I can't give you a one-size-fits-all answer as to whether a decision should or should not have been made in caretaker. It would relate to the actual circumstances of it being made.

Senator GALLAGHER Well, we've got an actual circumstance here. Does it bother you that $40 million of taxpayer funds were signed off after caretaker kicked in, going to projects in seats that the government was trying to win? Does it bother you, or do you think it's an appropriate use of taxpayer funds?

Mr Gaetjens : I would have to look in more detail at the actual decisions that were made.

Senator GALLAGHER Oh, come on! Mr Gaetjens, you're the head of the Public Service. It doesn't bother you that taxpayers' funds were being spent after caretaker kicked in. Extraordinary!

Mr Gaetjens : If those decisions were made with the advice or guidance of Prime Minister and Cabinet, of which at that time of course I was not a part—

Senator GALLAGHER Were they? Have you checked? Do PM&C have a view, or didn't they mind either?

Mr Gaetjens : My understanding is that advice was not sought, but I'll leave that to people who were there at the time.

CHAIR: But, when you became aware through the work of this committee or through media reports that it had happened, surely you would have then gone, 'We need to have a look at this'?

Mr Gaetjens : By that time the minister had resigned.

CHAIR: Sure.

Mr Gaetjens : Why does one need to have a look at something when the minister has resigned?

CHAIR: The minister put out a statement saying that she had no knowledge that these changes were made after she signed the brief.

Mr Gaetjens : I'm sorry, I've got no role in that. The event had happened. The minister had resigned. There was this inquiry. There'd been an Auditor-General's inquiry. What else could I do? I was asked to inquire about the minister's apparent breaches of the ministerial standards. I did that. She resigned.

Mr Gaetjens : Yes, and then the minister put out a statement when people became aware that there were changes made after she'd signed the brief saying that she'd no knowledge of that. Surely, as the head of the PM&C, you would go: 'Wow, what has gone on there? We need to get to the bottom of that.'

Mr Gaetjens : As the head of PM&C and as a public servant, I'm an adviser, not a decision-maker.

Senator GALLAGHER But you lead the Public Service, and appropriate adherence to caretaker conventions is pretty fundamental to an independent and effective public service. Surely you have a view. It's extraordinary.

The Postal Service? That Trump fellow is onto something

Senator GALLAGHER:....In terms of commissioning the report, Mr Gaetjens, Ms Foster told the finance and public administration committee the Prime Minister or his office provided oral advice of the request on Friday 17 January, and a letter dated 17 January was received on Monday 20 January. Does that adhere to your recollection?

Mr Gaetjens : Yes

..... Senator GALLAGHER.... Why did the letter take until Monday 20 January to turn up, just out of interest? 

Mr Gaetjens : I have no idea.

For heavens sake, we can't have the name of a senior staffer to the PM brandied about!

Senator Rice In the time I've got left, I want to go to issues regarding the breaches of the ministerial standards. You said in response to Senator Gallagher's question that the request for you to undertake the work was a call from a senior adviser. What was the role of that adviser?

Mr Gaetjens : I didn't say 'senior adviser'. It was a senior person in the Prime Minister's office.

Senator Rice Can you tell me what their role was?

Mr Gaetjens : I think that would identify them.

Senator Rice Was it the senior adviser for infrastructure and sport, or the senior adviser for backbench liaisons?

Seantor Abetz That would identify them!

Mr Gaetjens : It was a senior adviser in the Prime Minister's office—sorry, it was a senior staff member in the Prime Minister's office, not necessarily a position of senior adviser. Can I also say that that followed with a letter from the Prime Minister.

 Can I tell you the legal authority for the minister to make decisions? No I can't

Senator GALLAGHER I go now to the legal authority. You say the guidelines authorise Senator McKenzie to provide final approval for projects and authorise the minister to take other factors into account when deciding which projects to fund. You conclude that Senator McKenzie acted within the remit of the guidelines. Regardless of what the guidelines say, it matters whether the decision-making itself was lawful. Would you agree?

Mr Gaetjens : I think that has been covered by people more confident than I to talk about legal issues.

Senator GALLAGHER So can you tell us what was the legal authority for Senator McKenzie and not for Sport Australia to be the decision-maker?

Mr Gaetjens : No, I can't. I am not a lawyer. I think that should be addressed to other people.

Senator GALLAGHER But you have formed the view that the guidelines authorised her to make those decisions and therefore those decisions were lawful?

Mr Gaetjens : My inquiry covered a number of decisions that had been made. They were historical decisions that had been made. I then took upon the fact that those decisions had been made. I was then asked to look at whether in making those decisions there was a breach of the standards. That is the logic that I follow. I think I had also known at that time that the Prime Minister had asked the Attorney-General to provide a view about the legal status.

Senator GALLAGHER The Auditor-General said he can find no evident legal authority for Senator McKenzie's decision-making. Is the Auditor-General wrong?

Mr Gaetjens : I don't have a view on that. It is not in my purview or competence to answer that question.

Senator GALLAGHER As head of the Public Service, I presume this is a matter of interest to you about legal decision-making. Have you taken any advice based on what the Auditor-General found, because I presume it has wider application across the Public Service than just this program.

Mr Gaetjens : I am aware now of what the Attorney-General found.

Senator GALLAGHER You are talking there to the Attorney-General's finding about the legal decision-making?

Mr Gaetjens : Yes.

Senator GALLAGHER The University of Melbourne's Professor Cheryl Saunders and Professor Michael Crommelin said:

If the grants were made pursuant to the Sports Commission Act, they are invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. The Act confers on the Commission, not the Minister, the power to make grants for the purposes of the Act.

Are Professor Saunders and Professor Crommelin wrong?

Mr Gaetjens : I would have no confidence to answer that question. I am not a lawyer, I do not have legal qualifications, I am not a practising lawyer, so, again, I don't think it is an answer I can provide. All I do know is that the Attorney-General has reached his own view and I think the government would probably act according to what the Attorney-General thought.

Senator GALLAGHER The University of Sydney's Professor Anne Twomey says there appears to be no legal basis for Senator Mackenzie to be the decision-maker. Is Professor Twomey wrong?

Mr Gaetjens : My previous answer applies.

University of Adelaide's Emeritus Professor in-law, Geoff Linnell says, 'Senator McKenzie likely had lack of legal authority to either approve or participate in the decision making.' Is Professor Linnell wrong?

Mr Gaetjens : My previous answer applies.

Senator GALLAGHER So you just rely on the Attorney-General's advice to you or advice to the government?.....

Mr Gaetjens : A legal question was asked of a legally competent person....

.......................................

Added comment:

Next day former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Finance Stephen Bartos testified about the legality issue thus 

"My view is that the minister didn't have the authority to make those grants under section 83 of the Australian Constitution. Maybe it's because I worked for many, many years in the finance department, but I had it drummed into me that, under section 83, no money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law—that is, ministers can't spend money unless the parliament has given them the authority to spend that money. Without that clear authority, ministers can't just spend as they wish. There are circumstances, like the advance to the finance minister, where ministers are given some discretion. But the parliament, in the case of the advance, puts a number of reporting and accountability requirements around that, precisely because it's unusual. Ministers are constrained by what the legislation says, and it does appear, looking at the legislation that governs Sport Australia, that not only did they not delegate to the minister the power to make grants; they actually may not have been able to, in any case."

 

Transparency during the crisis, business as usual?

The full extent of how the COVID 19 crisis is impacting on transparency and accountability at the federal or state level is unknowable to us outsiders-maybe information commissioners could have a look and tell us, warts and all ? But what you can glean from the public record suggests the longstanding attachment, in Canberra certainly, to secrecy, confidentiality and guarding the barricades against the inquisitive and interested is hard to shake.
Particularly when you try to get close to the cabinet door.

The Senate- No date-Executive Privilege?

The  ongoing hearings of the COVID 19 Senate select committee has seen parliamentarians dig deep with some warranted success given Parliament's role and responsibility to oversight executive government, and the response to the pandemic.

However those appearing before or providing information to the committee are sticking to the usual ground rule that if information asked for or sought gives rise to something close to a plausible reason to keep the shades drawn, go for it.

When Senator Katy Gallagher Chair of the committee on 13 May asked officers from the Department of Prime Minister "the date on which Professor Murphy (Chief Medical Officer) first briefed the Cabinet about COVID-19?" the question was taken on notice.On the same day PMC came back with the Answer (No 30)

"Revealing information about when the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, first briefed the Cabinet on the coronavirus pandemic would or could reasonably be expected to disclose the deliberations of the Cabinet. 

It is a longstanding practice not to disclose information about the operation and business of the Cabinet and its committees, including when a matter went to the Cabinet, who attended, and what form of submission was provided, as to do so could potentially reveal the deliberations of the Cabinet, which are confidential. 

The deliberations of the Cabinet and its committees should be conducted in confidence so that the freedom of those deliberations can be preserved. It is not in the public interest to disclose information about the Cabinet’s deliberations as it may impact on the Government’s ability to receive confidential information and make appropriate decisions impacting on the Australian community. 

This approach has been used consistently for several years and is consistent with the approach taken by previous Secretaries."

(All the date would reveal was that the cabinet met that day and heard words from Professor Murphy's lips. It wouldn't reveal what he said, what discussion if any ensued and who said what, what if any decisions were taken, but that a deliberation had taken place.

Head things off at the pass

Something similar occurred at a hearing on 26 May when Senator Gallagher asked Professor Murphy:

"I presume you've been briefing the National Security Committee of cabinet on those improvements in the modelling of the health data over the last eight weeks.

Prof. Murphy : The national cabinet has been briefed on those and the National Security Committee less so. At the national cabinet, the premiers and the Prime Minister generally get an update on the modelling at every meeting.

CHAIR: What about the federal cabinet?

A simple Yes, maybe even a No might have done it but Acting Secretary of the Department of Health (seconded from her job as Deputy Secretary of Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet was up to the mark:

 

Ms Edwards : Of course, Professor Murphy is not really at liberty to discuss what advice he's given to cabinet.

Leading to:

CHAIR: I'm talking about the modelling and whether or not that's been provided. I'm not asking what the modelling is and what it's saying and what might not have been released. I am asking whether the Chief Medical Officer has provided modelling to the NSC.

.....

Ms Edwards : Very comprehensive advice is provided to government at all stages through the ordinary processes, including the confidential cabinet processes.

CHAIR: But you won't confirm whether the modelling has been provided to the cabinet?

Ms Edwards : In accordance with the standard practice, we don't provide detail of what advice has been provided to cabinet in confidence.

CHAIR: No, the committee hasn't accepted that, and we have repeatedly made it known to witnesses that if you are going to deny an answer to questions then you must indicate whether you are going to seek public interest immunity. You need to explain the public harm that comes from letting us know whether the cabinet has received modelling information as the health curve has been flattened. That is the question. If you think that's a harm to public interest then refer it to your minister and go through that process, Ms Edwards. I would think it's a fairly straightforward question for this committee to ask.

Ms Edwards : We'll refer to the minister whether he wants to claim public interest immunity in relation to what's been provided to cabinet.

CHAIR: About whether they're doing their job properly.

....

CHAIR: My question is whether the NSC of the federal cabinet have been briefed on the modelling as the curve has flattened. That is my question. If you're unable to answer that simple question today and it needs to be referred to your minister, please indicate if that's the case.

Ms Edwards : That's what we'll have to do.

CHAIR: Right. It really makes the scrutiny role of this committee an absolute joke. ....

Give a little-pass the parcel 

Questions about briefs and modeling were also asked of Treasury Secretary Dr Steven Kennedy.  As the Sydney Morning Herald reported in April Treasury released parts of this ministerial brief dated 30 January on economic impacts-before the full scale of the damage to the economy was realised. 
It has published and updates the Government Economic Response. 
The Senate committee asked for more. Dr Kennedy in a letter of 19 May provided a copy of another January ministerial brief providing background on the SARS epidemic of 2003 and commentary about its current relevance, and referred to some publicly available documents, but said other documents requested were prepared for cabinet deliberations and were a matter for Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

The National Cabinet

Brewing away in the background here is the significance in terms of transparency of the claim put out there most notably by PMC Secretary Phillip Gaetjens at that hearing on 13 May that the National Cabinet is part of the Federal government governance structure, indeed part of the federal cabinet. Suffice here to say Mr Gaetjens was clear and definite in his evidence:

Senator PATRICK: In relation to the national cabinet, I heard you saying at the start—and I apologise; I came in late—that, in effect, it is part of the federal cabinet?

Mr Gaetjens : Yes.

It's very doubtful in my opinion.

More on that in the next post.

FOI- we're hard pushed

On the Freedom of Information front, delays and requests for extra time are the order of the day and many/most are understandable. However from what's visible through FOI applications using the Right to Know platform "complex or voluminous" is getting quite a workover.

Just hard

On access to documents not a lot in the public domain at present.

PMC dealt with a Freedom of Information request from Senator Rex Patrick for the early briefings provided to Prime Minister Morrison on the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak by giving nothing away.

As Senator Patrick recounts:

"I was hopeful that the Department would release some useful information that would shed light on the Government’s early assessments and responses in January. A high level of transparency is essential if we are to learn all the lessons we can from the experience of this terrible pandemic."
However the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet has refused access to all of the requested briefings given to the Prime Minister at the beginning of the crisis.
"The Government has piled on every exemption category it can think of – international relations, national security, internal government deliberations and Cabinet business – to withhold every word of five briefings provided to the Prime Minister between the first and thirty first of January. This was the critical time in which the Government first received reports of the coronavirus outbreak, and first learned of human-to human transmission, but decided to only screen flights from Wuhan and hand leaflets to passengers arriving from China."
"The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s blanket refusal to release early briefings to the Prime Minister at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis is deeply disappointing and quite at odds with the Government’s claimed commitment to transparency," said Senator Patrick.

Ariel Bogle online technology reporter at the ABC also struck out, giving this cryptic account on Twitter 

"I've been refused FOI access to the government's privacy impact assessments for the coronavirus WhatsApp channel & info app. Seems odd given the one for COVIDSafe was released for public confidence. (They say it would inhibit frank advice from legal advisers, among other things)"

Senator Patrick is out there again at the moment this time flagging 'cabinet in confidence' may stand between the public right to know and Treasury modeling that led to the $60 billion Job Keeper bungle, calling  

" ..on Treasurer Josh Frydenberg to immediately release Treasury JobKeeper modelling after the Government committed the biggest accounting error in Australia’s public administration history."Treasury modelling may well have caused Government to suffer from a bad case of confirmation bias," said Senator Patrick.Senator Patrick pressed Treasury Secretary Dr Kennedy last Thursday for the modelling to be released to the Senate’s COVID-19 oversight committee. "I put to you that all the modelling your department does is done on the public coin and for public purpose, and the public has a right to see what it is that your department has done. I think it is disrespectful for the Treasury to withhold that information from the public.""If there wasn’t enough reason last Thursday, there’s 60 billion more reasons now."Dr Kennedy hinted a cabinet-in-confidence claim would be used. "I think most Australians are getting sick and tired of the Government sprinkling ‘Cabinet fairy dust’ on just about anything that might prove embarrassing to Government," said Senator Patrick.

Sure to be plenty more of this in the pipeline.