COVID-19 Response Inquiry did not miss in its criticism of over-the-top pandemic response | Caleb Bond

Where are Daniel Andrews, Annastacia Palaszczuk, Steven Marshall, Gladys Berejiklian, Mark McGowan and Peter Gutwein this week, writes Caleb Bond.

An independent inquiry into Australia’s Covid response has found ongoing restrictions and vaccine mandates were unjustified and eroded trust in government – so when will the pandemic premiers apologise?

The COVID-19 Response Inquiry may have been a sham insofar as it was not specifically charged with looking at the states and so no premier or chief public health officer was called before it and directly held to account.

But it did not miss in its criticism.

“The evidence suggests that some restrictions were poorly justified in extent and/or duration, disproportionate to the risk and inconsistently applied across the country, and that specific groups were disproportionately impacted,” the report read.

It found that ­“restrictive measures became ­increasingly inappropriate over the long term and were too heavy-handed and controlling” and that “there was a lack of compassion and too few exceptions based on needs and circumstances”.

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian and former SA Premier Steven Marshall in Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

“Fairness and proportionality” should have been considered in restrictions, “more evidence‑based approaches are advisable” and there was “limited real-time evaluation of public health measures and policy decisions” to make sure they actually worked.

On the states having disparate rules, it said “some differences were not easily explained and no rationale was provided”, including “the operation of state border closures that states enacted unilaterally and that lacked consistency and compassion in implementation”.

“Broad opposition” to vaccine mandates was one of the inquiry’s “clearest findings” and “they contributed to distrust in government, increased vaccine hesitancy and carried profound social and economic costs for those who could not or decided not to get vaccinated”.

It also found too much consideration was given to health advice and not enough given to human rights.

We are owed an apology – now.

The findings could not be much clearer. Those of us who said at the time that restrictions and lockdowns were unjustified have been vindicated.

People who were prevented from seeing their dying relatives interstate have been vindicated.

Children who missed out on important education and socialisation in their formative years have been vindicated.

Former NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet gives his valedictory speech at NSW Parliament. Picture: NewsWire / John Appleyard

The only pandemic premier who has issued an apology of any kind is Dominic Perrottet who, when leaving NSW parliament, said that vaccine mandates were “wrong”, should not have cost people their jobs and that he regrets implementing them. Good on him.

A lesser man (or woman) would let bygones be bygones and try to pretend it never happened – which is every other leader from that time.

Where are Daniel Andrews, Annastacia Palaszczuk, Steven Marshall, Gladys Berejiklian, Mark McGowan and Peter Gutwein this week?

Heard a peep out of any of them? Me neither.

They should count themselves lucky they were never hauled before this inquiry to explain themselves.

As I wrote and said for the better part of two years, bureaucrats are employed by politicians to provide advice and politicians are employed by us to make moral decisions.

Advice is just that – not a demand or requirement.

And yet premiers continually hid behind their chief health officers and the “health advice” to justify heavy restrictions that this inquiry has now found were wrong.

They abrogated their responsibility to weigh up the advice against what was ultimately best for their constituents.

And when they’re called out by people far more qualified than I, they still can’t fess up.

They treated us with contempt then and they continue to do so today.