Major state decisions to be excluded from COVID inquiry

Australia’s COVID-19 inquiry will call on premiers who steered their states through the pandemic to give evidence about how they worked together but will not have the scope to investigate major decisions they took individually, such as lockdowns and school closures.

Prominent epidemiologist Catherine Bennett, one of three experts leading the inquiry, said the panel would “absolutely” seek to hear from state and territory leaders because their interactions with the federal government were critical to how national cabinet operated at the height of the pandemic.

Australia’s coronavirus commissioners (from left) Robyn Kruk, Professor Catherine Bennett and Dr Angela Jackson.

But federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton accused Labor of running a protection racket after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese revealed on Thursday that unilateral decisions made by first ministers, which also included state border closures and vaccine mandates, were explicitly ruled out of the inquiry’s terms of reference.

The federal government’s expert-led inquiry – called instead of a wide-ranging royal commission – is to report within 12 months on the Commonwealth response to the pandemic, including in relation to vaccines and medical supplies; financial support for individuals and businesses; help for Australians abroad; and how different levels of government co-ordinated through national cabinet.

Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay also criticised the government for omitting individual state and territory actions while the Australian Medical Association said it could not see how examining state hospital systems and pandemic restrictions could be avoided if the inquiry were to come up with robust recommendations.

While political leaders clashed over the inquiry’s scope, it was unclear whether it would hold public hearings, compel state premiers to testify, or force the release of national cabinet documents that would reveal the way crucial decisions were made. The panel members are yet to meet to decide the consultation process.

Former NSW premier Dominic Perrottet will happily participate in the inquiry, having been part of the NSW government’s crisis cabinet as both treasurer and premier.

“I believe it’s important to understand what decisions we got right and what would be done differently, in case our country has to face something similar in the future,” he said.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said on Thursday that they welcomed the inquiry and stood by their respective decisions in the pandemic, but they did not say whether they would appear.

Former Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton said he expected to give evidence and would be disappointed if tough questions were not asked about lockdowns, quarantine and other state policy settings.

“There shouldn’t be shyness about asking the tough questions for those things that were most disruptive,” he told ABC radio.

“This is a pandemic that has killed at least 20 million people globally. So let’s ask all the questions that are relevant so that we can be really well informed about how best to handle it going forward.”

Dutton said Albanese had made a “deliberate decision to put the interests of Labor premiers ahead of our national interest and that is a shameful act” and that the prime minister should have called a royal commission, which would have the power to compel witnesses and produce documents.

“I think most people will be quite stunned to understand that premiers who were responsible for lockdowns, the very significant numbers of deaths in Victoria, the mental health issues that still linger today in Victoria and elsewhere ... would be excluded from consideration in this inquiry,” he said.

“If there’s nothing to hide here, then why not let the sun shine in?”

Albanese batted away the accusations on Thursday. He said he expected the inquiry to be forward-focused and have wide co-operation but did not confirm whether state and territory leaders would be compelled to give evidence.

“I should imagine that everyone will want to participate in this,” he said.

“I raised this at the national cabinet, and all of the premiers and chief ministers welcomed this approach of a constructive way of looking forward. There have been 20 inquiries already. And what it’s aimed at is looking forward for how we get better preparedness in the future.”

“It looks like a love-in with only one person there at the moment.”

AMA president Professor Steve Robson

Albanese said the three people appointed to lead the inquiry – Bennett, former senior public servant Robyn Kruk and health economist Dr Angela Jackson – had more appropriate expertise to make recommendations for future preparedness than a judge with a legal background in a royal commission.

“What do you think a royal commission could do that this couldn’t do? Nothing. This will be an inquiry that will hear from stakeholders, that will get input, that will report within a year. Because a lot of the work has already been done,” he said.

“This should not be a source of conflict. This should be a coming together in a constructive way to learn the lessons which have been done from the pandemic, and that is the spirit in which it’s operating.”

Labor frontbencher Katy Gallagher had pushed the party to back a COVID-19 royal commission after chairing a parliamentary committee into the pandemic before Labor won government.

Independent MP Monique Ryan warned that the inquiry should not be a witch hunt or a whitewash.

“If a royal commission is not held, the federal government’s inquiry into our handling of COVID-19 must at least be extremely thorough and transparent,” she said.

She said it should be “given scope to put everything and everyone – including both federal and state governments – under its microscope. That scope must include public hearings and the appropriate power to subpoena witnesses.”

Australian Medical Association president Professor Steve Robson said a robust inquiry would need to look at individual state and territory decisions.

“It looks like a love-in with only one person there at the moment,” he said.

“The reality is that our response to COVID-19 involved all levels of government in areas like health service delivery, public health restrictions, vaccination rollout, and economic support for businesses and individuals.

“Many decisions were interrelated, and the inquiry needs to get the full picture if it is to come up with robust and effective recommendations.”

Infectious diseases expert Professor Robert Booy also suggested the inquiry must find a way to investigate controversial issues such as border closures and school shutdowns.

“Clearly states did things differently with different outcomes. We need to work out which were the good decisions we can emulate again in the future, and which ones we can learn from and do better next time,” he said.

Pandemic decisions

Federal

• International borders including restrictions on travel in and out of Australia, travel advice
• JobKeeper and other support payments 
• Vaccine procurement and communications
• National medical stockpile management
• Managing aged care homes
• Financial assistance to states and territories for the extra costs incurred by their health services in responding to COVID-19 
• Non-financial assistance such as from Australian Defence Force 

State

• Managing hospitals
• State border closures
• School closures
• Closures of non-essential businesses
• Density limits
• Exercise limits
• Reasons for leaving the house
• Numbers of people with whom you could have contact
• COVID testing facilities
• Contact tracing
• Mask mandates
• Police ensuring compliance with lockdown laws and public health regulations

Overlapping

• Hotel quarantine
• Mandatory isolation periods, testing requirements
• Vaccine rollout (co-ordinated by Commonwealth, with some centres run by states)
• Cruise ships (Commonwealth responsibility for border control and quarantine; state responsibility for public health)

While Albanese suggested the independent panel would be able to “look at the full gamut of issues”, Bennett confirmed the unilateral actions of state and territories were not in its remit. However, their interactions with the federal government were a “critical part of this review”.

“That interface between states and federal is a critical part of how we respond as a nation, and how leadership works together, so that’s definitely in [our] scope,” she said.

“The national cabinet is one of the named areas, and that is comprised of our first ministers. We want to see how this works for everybody and so this absolutely includes the [state and territory] jurisdictions as well.”

Bennett said Australia’s pandemic response had focused on epidemiology but there were other costs to people’s livelihoods, and the most vulnerable people in disadvantaged communities, that the country needed to learn from to minimise harm and maximise benefits in the future.

With Broede Carmody

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.