PM’s panel members backed hard lockdowns

The make-up of the expert panel and its limited scope fuel Peter Dutton’s fears the PM caved in to Labor premiers on the inquiry.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews puts on a mask after a press conference.

Two-of-the-three experts hand-picked to lead the government’s Covid-19 inquiry publicly supported Victoria’s hard lockdowns, fuelling Peter Dutton’s concerns that Anthony Albanese has been “rolled” by Labor premiers in excluding state and territory pandemic decisions.

Independent inquiry panel member Angela Jackson, an economist and former deputy chief-of-staff former Labor finance minister Lindsay Tanner, in July 2021 said that Victoria needed “a hard lockdown and a dose of luck to get through this”.

In another June 2021 tweet, Dr Jackson declared that “Melbourne has suffered its share of lockdowns helping to keep the rest of Australia Covid free”.

“Time to bloody step up Sydney because personally could do without lockdown 5.0. And yes would prefer that we had hit vaccination targets and this option was redundant,” she said.

In another tweet, Dr Jackson slammed a “group of six adults (that) my husband asked to either mask up or leave the middle of the playground yesterday”.

“Thanks for being irresponsible adults and making our kids lives that little bit harder,” she tweeted.

Lead Economist for Impact Economics and Policy, Dr Angela Jackson

After the Victorian Department of Health reported 450 new local cases in September 2021, Dr Jackson posted: “Really think they need to be thinking about some restrictions to slow this thing down – closing construction for two weeks for example?”

“A third of cases linked to it – it’s not essential and I’m not arguing for Covid zero just that we don’t overwhelm hospitals and delay the general reopening … which would have a bigger economic cost than closing construction for a two week circuit breaker.”

Ahead of flying to Sydney in May 2021, Dr Jackson asked followers if she was “stark raving mad to still be planning on jumping on a plane from Melbourne to Sydney? Note: I will be fully vaccinated”.

“Now thinking those Covid-19 passports are a great idea – however this has zero basis in any policy analysis, and 100 per cent basis in naked self interest.”

Social media posts by Lead Economist for Impact Economics and Policy, Dr Angela Jackson

When asked by The Australian if she was personally supportive of Premier Dan Andrews’ decision to lockdown the state, Dr Jackson pointed out “the panel won’t be looking at this issue”.

“(It) would be fair to say that in my view the economic and health system impacts of letting Covid-19 run were such that lockdowns were a necessary tool,” Dr Jackson told The Australian.

Across 2020 and 2021, fellow panel member and epidemiologist Catherine Bennett was also publicly supportive of Melbourne’s lockdowns to allow contact tracers time to contain outbreaks.

However, Professor Bennett backed the softening of lockdowns in late 2021 and through 2022, warning that lockdowns and other restrictions would become less effective in combating Covid-19.

The third panel member is NSW Department of Health director-general Robyn Kruk, who conducted the inquiry into the NSW health system’s response to Covid-19 that reported back earlier this year.

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, 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.

“The following areas are not in scope for the Inquiry: Actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments (and) international programs and activities assisting foreign countries,” the terms of reference read.

Mr Dutton said the exclusion of state decisions “didn’t make any sense”.

“It’s clear here that the prime minister is putting the interests of Daniel Andrews and Annastacia Palaszczuk ahead of the interests of the Australian people. And that is a very dangerous act for a prime minister to undertake,” the Opposition Leader said.

“If there’s nothing to hide here, then why not let the sun shine in? I think the prime minister has made a deliberate decision to put the interests of Labor premiers ahead of our national interest.”

Opposition health spokeswoman Anne Ruston said the move to protect the states from scrutiny was “a damning indictment” on the government.

Mr Albanese defended the scope of the inquiry, which he said should be about “coming together in a constructive way to learn the lessons which have been”.

“The idea that it should be subjected to political bickering is not what the objective is here,” he said.

“This isn’t aimed at conflict. This is aimed at people being able to participate.”