States have been exempted from the inquiry into Australia’s COVID response, a move that has angered business, health experts, the Human Rights Commission and economists.
Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Simon Birmingham called the inquiry "some half-baked job that only looks at half the issues”.
“... it’s ridiculous when you think about the amount of schooling some children missed out on … to have an inquiry into how Australia handled (Covid-19) and not look at an issue as significant for the wellbeing and welfare of young Australians – as well as the productivity implications of working Australians – of those school closures… just to take one example of an area that was entirely within the domain of the states,” Birmingham said.
The Prime Minister’s inquiry is being called a watered-down version of a pre-election call to hold a royal commission or something similar.
In August last year, PM Albanese said a royal commission or inquiry would need to “look at the response of all governments”.
However, yesterday he said he wouldn’t force premiers to face the inquiry. “How can we force someone to do something? How can we get conflict? It’s completely contrary to the spirit,” he said.
“At the time of the pandemic, there were three Liberal premiers in states and three Labor premiers. This should not be a source of conflict. Part of the lesson of the pandemic is that Australians need to work together.”
The inquiry will be a three-member, 12-month, non-judicial inquiry with no coercive powers and which exempts decisions made by the states including lockdowns.
The panel is made up of health economist and former Labor staffer Angela Jackson, a supporter of Victoria’s lockdowns, epidemiologist Catherine Bennett and NSW public administration expert Robyn Kruk, who led the inquiry into the state’s health system response.
Terms of reference exclude “actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments” including lockdowns, school closures, vaccine mandates, state border closures, contact tracing and policing techniques.
The inquiry will focus on the response of the Morrison government and its issues with vaccines, quarantine and the provision of protective equipment.
To be discussed are national cabinet, including the responsibilities of state and federal governments, mental health support systems, the closure of international borders, community supports such as temporary free childcare and income supports, especially JobKeeper and JobSeeker.
States should be scrutinised
The lack of attention on state responses has been heavily criticised.
Catherine Bennett believes the states should be scrutinised, while epidemiologist Peter Collignon questioned Victoria’s hard lockdowns in the face of the worst rates of infection, death and economic ruin, compared with NSW.
Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said, “If the purpose of the commonwealth inquiry is to identify lessons learned to improve Australia’s preparedness for future pandemics, then excluding unilateral state actions is a major oversight to say the least.
“We need a better understanding of the impacts on communities and business of some of the longest and most damaging lockdowns in the world and of the unilateral and damaging actions of states to lock down everything from buildings and suburbs to entire states.”
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar agreed with Willox saying, “There are many lessons to be learned but clearly many of these stem from the action of the states and territories which should not be beyond reproach.”
Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay accused the inquiry of being politically motivated.
“Lockdowns, border closures, school closures, mask mandates, and many other aspects were the domain of state and territory governments and to not examine these as part of the inquiry means it will be harder for us to improve our response for future pandemics,” she said.
The COVID inquiry will last 12 months.