Ruby Princess scrutiny is vital

Few investigations have drawn such intense public interest as the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Ruby Princess being conducted by Bret Walker SC. On March 8, passengers disembarked from the ill-fated vessel in Sydney, including 158 people who had reported ill, 13 of whom had high temperatures. The ship then reloaded and sailed for New Zealand with 2700 new passengers and 1100 crew. That group returned to Sydney on March 19 and also was allowed to disembark at Circular Quay without health checks — even though some on board were showing signs of respiratory illness. That rare debacle in Australia’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic had far-reaching consequences. More than 664 passengers have since tested positive for coronavirus, and 22 have died of complications relating to the virus. More than 200 crew members also tested positive. And the ship has been linked to cluster outbreaks in northwest Tasmania and New Zealand.

A few days after the ship docked in Sydney for the second time amid rising public concern, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian raised the political stakes when she tried to fit up Australian Border Force officers for the disastrous decision to let the 2700 people on the second cruise disembark without testing, as Yoni Bashan revealed after one of Ms Berejiklian’s colleagues spilled the beans following a partyroom meeting.

Mr Walker has made it clear the inquiry is about fact finding, not apportioning blame. In carrying out the unenviable task of getting at the truth of who was responsible for the problems, he and his team need to ask hard questions. The Australian acknowledged that when we questioned Scott Morrison’s judgment in suggesting Mr Walker was “aggressive” and “a bit out of line” in his questioning of NSW epidemiologist Kelly-Anne Ressler, who cried in the witness box. But in a society that puts a premium on free speech and public sector transparency, the special commission and the volatile NSW politics that led to its instigation are not beyond scrutiny and critical comment.

The Australian’s David Penberthy exercised that right on May 7. His article drew a hostile statement from the senior counsel assisting the commission, Richard Beasley SC. As legal affairs editor Chris Merritt writes on Wednesday, Mr Beasley’s edgy political philosophy and his retweets on some of the politics of coronavirus make interesting reading. But more important, in terms of free speech and the public right to know — basic tenets of our democracy — what is alarming is that The Australian was asked to provide information to the commission to be considered “as to whether the comments in Mr Penberthy’s article … might constitute a contempt”.

The commission was extremely protective of its independence and anything that could be seen as a threat to its ability to discharge its duties. We endorse that sentiment. Independence and impartiality are crucial, particularly when examining the conduct of governments and their agencies. But so is public scrutiny of this inquiry. As our lawyer wrote to the commission, Penberthy’s article was intended to be “a discussion of political matters and in particular the NSW state government’’. It was not intended to be critical of the inquiry, the commissioner or commission staff. Nor did we intend to call into question the commissioner’s integrity. The Australian unreservedly apologised and withdrew any criticism of the commissioner or the inquiry.

That said, free speech — like the perception of independence and impartiality — is fragile indeed. It must not be allowed to become a casualty of the coronavirus crisis.