Covid inquiry comes up short without premiers

By announcing an inquiry-lite into the Covid-19 pandemic, Anthony Albanese has ensured it will be a job half done. The decision to exclude the actions of state governments means lockdowns and other measures that had the biggest impact on people’s lives will not be properly assessed. The appointment of hand-picked experts, at least one of whom made no secret of their political views and support for tough lockdowns during the pandemic, leaves the whole process open to accusations of apprehended bias from the start.

Mr Albanese has been politically opportunistic in choosing not to examine the border closures, lockdowns, quarantine failures and use of excessive force by Victorian Premier Dan Andrews. It is the same story for Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who ignored the national interest to play base state-of-origin politics with the issue. The federal opposition is correct to say the inquiry has all the hallmarks of being another political hatchet job on the Morrison government.

This is a shame. As we have editorialised previously, there are good reasons to hold a royal commission into the nation’s Covid response. We said it would be responsible to ask whether decision-makers should have paid more attention to what was happening in other places, and should have been more careful in subjecting citizens to authoritarian measures. With the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to see how the extraordinary emotional toll on the community and financial toll on businesses resulting from the heaviest aspects of government intervention was warranted.

A comprehensive inquiry could have examined the actions of state and federal politicians and the health bureaucrats who advised them, including a proper analysis of border closures, state and national; hotel quarantine; the introduction of special laws and emergency powers, and the use of police against citizens; the interruption to schooling; the introduction of vaccine mandates, and; the consideration given to safeguarding mental health and community welfare outside Covid-19. What we have got is an inquiry that does not include the actions of state governments. The Covid inquiry’s terms of reference, released on Thursday, confirmed the panel’s scope would include the vaccination program, broader health supports for people affected by Covid-19, international policies to support Australians at home and abroad, and financial supports provided to individuals. While the role of the commonwealth and national cabinet, and responsibilities of state and territory governments were within the scope of the inquiry, decisions made by states during the pandemic were not. As a result, the inquiry falls short of what was recommended by a Labor-dominated parliamentary committee before the May 2022 election.

Regardless of its obvious shortcomings, if done properly there is still value in examining Australia’s Covid response. An OECD review found Australia had performed well but gave a poor appraisal of the efficacy of lockdowns. The OECD results showed the cost of the pandemic response was high and the heavy-handed nature of government intrusion arguably unwarranted. Greater effort could have been focused on those most at risk, particularly the elderly, in nursing homes and people with comorbidity, as many had argued at the time. As health editor Natasha Robinson wrote on Thursday, it was the heavy-handed response of police and state government decisions that impacted people’s ordinary lives in the most profound manner and made Australia’s response to the pandemic notable and unusual in global terms. Examining the actions of premiers is vital to understanding how the Covid emergency was handled.