A royal commission into Australia’s response to the pandemic? A matter of national necessity
As part of IPAA Queensland’s Mastercraft Seminar Series, I was pleased to deliver first event on the topic of Royal Commissions, Public Inquiries and Reviews (click here for more detail on the content covered at this event).
At this event, I shared insights into this impactful and debated policy functions, and explored some key questions drawing on his depth of academic knowledge and practical experience in policy making and advice, with insights from a career of studying the past and present of Commissions, Inquiries and Reviews in Australia.
But – what is happening at this space at the moment?
There have been many calls from a wide variety of different sources for an independent inquiry, usually in the form of a national royal commission, to review Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
These calls have come from a range of sources, including from editorials, professors of law, former prime ministers, retired Liberal and Labor premiers, numerous commentors, think tanks and families personally affected by the pandemic. Then leader of the opposition, Mr Albanese indicated prior to the 2022 election that his government would appoint a royal commission or some form of inquiry.
In addition to the above calls, two separate Senate committees have also recommended that a royal commission. One was chaired by Labor Senator, Katy Gallagher now Federal Finance Minister and dominated by Labor and Green senators did so in April 2022, just before the May federal election. The other Senate report released earlier this year, chaired by Queensland Liberal Senator Paul Scarr, did the same while also proposing terms of reference.
Why we should consider a national royal commission into the pandemic?
Although Australia had one of the lowest death rates in the world, and its economy bounced back faster than most after the pandemic, there have been concerns about Australia’s responses to the pandemic including: the rollout of the vaccines; advice by state chief health officers; contradictory policy responses across the States; media misreporting; the constitutionality and impacts of state border closures; effects of lockdowns both on business and people’s well-being; the suspension of parliamentary sittings; loss of civil liberties; excessive use of police force; impacts of enforced schools closures; and the questionable constitutional role of the National Cabinet.
It is all these concerns that have prompted the proposal that a royal commission should be seriously considered.
Further and perhaps more importantly, any such review, and thus any such royal commission, must be national – that is be a joint federal and state inquiry. A federal royal commission would only have powers to examine the federal government’s actions, not the states’.
This is an important consideration, particularly when considering a royal commission given the pivotal role of the states in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.
We all know that because of their constitutional powers the states had many of the key responsibilities in responding to the pandemic – border closures, lockdowns, police enforcement and fines, school closures, hospital and health responses, and so forth. So, there would be no adequate review of our nation’s response to the pandemic unless state actions are included in any review.
That means a joint federal-state royal commission is needed.
Clearly, any such joint royal commission would require the states to agree to the commission’s terms of reference and membership.
There are plenty of precedents for such royal commissions, however coordinating a royal commission reviewing the response to the COVID-19 pandemic across both federal and state jurisdictions may prove difficult. After all, it would mean state government actions being open to independent assessment which might in some cases be an embarrassment.
Remembering – as discussed at the Mastercraft event last year, that royal commissions are essential because of their prestige and powers and what they can achieve and how they achieve them.
Royal commissions in Australia are statutorily based with coercive powers of investigation to access files, call witnesses, take evidence under oath, and importantly to protect those giving evidence from defamation actions or other threats. Further, royal commissions hold public hearings, report publicly and release their evidence so we can check if what they recommend accords with the information they have collected. It is these functions that ensure that the review is robust, independent and actioned in a way that achieves actionable outcomes for the public sector and indeed the broader community into the future in the spirit of continuous improvement.
Overseas developments
While the conversation regarding the need for the Australian Federal Government to consider a royal commission, we have seen other governments overseas experience different outcomes.
The United Kingdom initiated its COVID-19 Inquiry in June 2022. Sweden was more proactive appointing its COVID-19 Commission in June 2020 at the beginning of the pandemic. It produced several reports during the pandemic then a final report. Norway had a similar inquiry. In New Zealand the Ardern Labour Government established in December 2022 the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lessons Learned from New Zealand’s Response to COVID-19 That Should be Applied in Preparation for a Future Pandemic under the Inquiries Act 2013. It is about to report.
Based on this, we have seen several countries across the globe evaluate and report on their responses to a significant, global pandemic event.
What about Australia?
While there have been different inquiries in some of the states most of these have not been as wide ranging as a royal commission. In September 2023 the Albanese Government appointed a public inquiry – the COVID-19 Response Inquiry. This was not a Royal Commission. It lacked a royal commission’s coercive powers of investigation. There was criticism about its membership and that its terms of reference precluded it from assessing the actions of the states.
The Inquiry reported in October 2024 after receiving 2,000 submissions, holding 250 consultation sessions and producing a 900 page report with 26 action recommendations. The Inquiry noted that “Australia was one of the most successful countries in its pandemic response” but was not adequately prepared in some key areas. It was surprisingly praiseworthy of some of the Morrison Government’s actions even describing PM Morrison in some instances as being “courageous”. Unexpectedly, despite its narrow terms of reference, the Inquiry, was very critical of the states and their arbitrary lockdowns, border closures, school closures and vaccine mandates. The COVID-19 Response Inquiry is worth a read https://www.pmc.gov.au/resources/covid-19-response-inquiry-report.
Conclusion
To date, Australia has not had a fully-fledged, national, arm’s length, independent public inquiry into how we, as a nation responded to the pandemic. The COVID-19 Response Inquiry has gone some way towards answering some of the issues concerning our nation’s response to the pandemic.
Since the pandemic crisis more information is becoming available that suggest that some of Australia’s responses were excessive, wrongly targeted, costly, ineffective, panicked, contradictory, and confusing. It is important to bear in mind that we should not be surprised at this, as after all in crisis situations such reactions and mistakes are to be expected.
What is important to bear in mind is the necessity to ensure that as a nation we learn from the experience so that we can respond better next time – and the experts say there will be a next time.
With the reality that further pandemics are on the horizon, a royal commission should have been appointed. Not in the spirit of playing the ‘blame game’ but rather as that 2022 Senate Committee recommended “to examine Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic to inform preparedness for future COVID-19 and future pandemics”.
No other instrument would have been so fit for purpose than a properly structured federal-state Royal Commission to carry out this task. With, however, an impending federal election in 2025, and with the pandemic quickly fading from our collective memory, the opportunity to appoint a Royal Commission has, it seems, passed.
Dr Scott Prasser is author of Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries in Australia (2021 – LesxisNexis) and New Directions in Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries: Do We Need Them? (2023, Connor Court Publishing)
Dr Scott Prasser
Dr Prasser is a public policy consultant and commentator. He is the editor of the recently released book New Directions in Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries: Do we need them? and provides regular analysis in print, radio and television media. He has held senior policy and advisory roles in state and commonwealth public services, and served as ministerial advisor to three federal Cabinet Ministers. He holds undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications from the University of Queensland and Griffith University. Dr Prasser is also a IPAA Queensland Councilor.