Scott Prasser | Anthony Albanese COVID inquiry is too little, too late when royal commission was needed

It is not a royal commission or anything like it.

This inquiry is too late in being appointed, too limited in its powers of review, too narrow in its scope, and too narrow in its membership and processes.

It is too late in being appointed given overseas developments.

Sweden appointed a commission of inquiry in 2020 that ran the course of the pandemic. The UK appointed an independent inquiry last year and is currently making waves with the incumbent Conservative government. The New Zealand Ardern government established a royal commission last December.

Even the government's own capability review of the Department of Health and Ageing was becoming concerned about the slowness in appointing an inquiry as "left too long, organisational memory will start to dissipate".

The inquiry is too limited in its powers because it is not a royal commission and so lacks powers of investigation - to make witnesses attend and answer questions, to procure files and information and importantly to protect witnesses from defamation actions or reprisals.

The New Zealand inquiry is a royal commission while the UK inquiry is established under the Inquiries Act 2005 like our royal commission legislation.

The inquiry is also too narrow in its scope on several fronts. Its terms of reference are Commonwealth-centric. It is concerned, with a few exceptions, almost wholly with how Commonwealth agencies performed and how the Commonwealth interacted with the states through a few different bodies as if that was the end of the matter.

As we all know, that was just the beginning as in our federal system considerable constitutional power on the issues that affected how we as a nation responded to the pandemic remained firmly in the hands of the states.

That is where some things were done right - but also where some were not, including over-zealous enforcement, inaccurate and often contradictory health information. The inquiry's terms of reference are clear that "outside the scope of the inquiry" are "actions taken unilaterally by the state and territory governments".

The inquiry might be seen to be too narrow in its membership. Only one of its three members has qualifications directly relevant to the pandemic. Another, a former senior public servant, has health administration experience and certain related qualifications, while the other is an economist from a left of centre think tank.

It might be argued that given their current and previous work and roles they might be perceived as being too close to the government.

The eight-member Swedish commission of inquiry included members from a variety of disciplines - economics, health, business, local government, aged care, public policy and even ethics.

Lastly, the inquiry is potentially limited in its processes. While there will be "public consultations" and submissions this is not the same as open, public hearings of a royal commission, like the robodebt royal commission, where we can hear what witnesses say, watch the cross-examinations and make our own assessment.

READ MORE:

This latest review is not a review of how Australia as a nation responded to the pandemic. It is a review to manage the politics, to say the government has done what was long promised while quarantining those five Labor states and territories in office during the pandemic from the scrutiny their own systems do not provide.

Australia may have had one of the lowest pandemic death rates in the world, and our economy has bounced back quickly, but many concerns remain like: vaccine rollouts; inconsistent state responses; impacts of border closures, lockdowns and school closures; suspension of parliamentary sittings; loss of civil liberties; lack of scientific basis of some responses; and the confused role of the national cabinet.