Experts shred Australia's Covid-19 Inquiry

As the country endures a mental health crisis, economic hardship and the erosion of trust in public health, the Australian Health Minister says there is nothing to be sorry about.

In September 2023, the Australian government announced an independent Inquiry into nation’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

From the outset, critics predicted a whitewash.

The government had already walked back its promise to hold a Royal Commission.

Instead, it settled for an ‘Inquiry’ that would lack broad powers to compel witnesses under oath and subpoena documents.

It was billed as an “independent” Inquiry, but two of the three appointed experts had already shown favour towards the government’s covid policies.

And many complained the “terms of reference” were too narrow to allow a full accounting of the decisions made by State and Territory governments.

The year-long investigation recently concluded, and the findings were released in a 868-page report.

Panel findings

The lengthy report was littered with bureaucratese and praised many of the government’s actions during the pandemic.

The panel applauded the “agility” of the government to act early and lockdown in order to “buy time” before the vaccines were rolled out, which it said, “undoubtedly saved many lives.”

The panel wrote, “Had Australia not closed the international borders and imposed a national lockdown as quickly as we did, community spread would have overwhelmed most public health departments.”

The panel also commended sectors for their “quick action” in developing tests for Covid-19, which enabled early surveillance, and held the virus at bay for the larger part of two years.

That said, some important admissions of insufficiency were made.

The panel noted the inconsistency of state lockdowns, and how unprepared the country was for a pandemic, with no plan for international border closures, or shutting down schools and businesses.

The panel conceded this led to staff shortages, a mental health crisis and the “erosion of trust” towards government for its abuse of power and over-reach.

However, instead of condemning the government’s authoritarian policies, the panel called for greater centralised control of people and public health messaging.

It suggested Australia’s Centre for Disease Control become the “authoritative” source of public health information in the next crisis, with no acknowledgement of how its US counterpart repeatedly mishandled the pandemic response.

Gigi Foster, a professor of economics at the University of New South Wales, said the report lays out the “opposite” of what needs to be done next time we face a health crisis. “If we adopt the recommendations of the panel, we will be worse off next time,” said Foster.

“This report is going to be used as the justification for even more government interference and more centralised control. It will make it easier to lock down, close schools, close borders, and surveil people - none of that is really going to promote health,” she said.

Foster explained that we need to move away from the idea that Government is the only source of truth and information during a crisis.

“It was the government's policies during the pandemic that lacked evidence and caused the most harm. It was the government that actually ramped up fear by holding daily press conferences and doing things like hiring young actors to pretend they were dying of covid in hospital,” she added.

Gigi Foster, professor of economics at the University of NSW

“The report is several hundred pages of hand wringing and brow-furrowing about the various people who were harmed by the government’s policies, but then it proposes that we need even more government architecture in order to protect them next time. It’s a fantasy,” said Foster.

In March 2020, Foster tried to warn policymakers of the need for a cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns and other restrictive measures, but she was met with fierce opposition and an unwillingness to listen.

“That’s the irony,” said Foster. “We were denigrated, and called granny killers back in the day, and labelled as the people who want to let it rip. But we never actually said that. We said we needed to direct resources towards trying to protect the elderly and the vulnerable.”

According to Foster, one of the most egregious and harmful actions of government was to use children as “shields” for the elderly.

“It's unconscionable what we did to our children. The school closures, the masking, the vaccinating of young children - all to protect the elderly – it was essentially child abuse,” said Foster.

“Of course we need to focus protection for the elderly, but the idea that we would use our children as shields against viral threats to ourselves, our parents or the elderly, is just morally bankrupt,” she added.

The panel excused the government’s decisions, saying that it was only with the benefit of hindsight that lessons have been learned, but it failed to point out that there were established pandemic preparedness plans already in place, that the government ignored.

“It’s simply not good enough,” said Ramesh Thakur, an Emeritus Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU and a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Ramesh Thakur, Emeritus Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU

“There is no clarity on why our own existing pandemic preparedness plans were ditched or why there was no cost-benefit analysis by our leaders,” said Thakur.

“They became fixated on the dubious metric of covid ‘case numbers’ and lost sight of people’s rights and civil liberties and ignored dissenting views,” he added.

Build back trust?

Many believe the path to building back trust requires contrition and transparency -- the government must apologise for its mistakes, compensate those it harmed and reinstate the jobs it terminated.

But, Health Minister Mark Butler said the leaders who oversaw Australia's pandemic response don't need to apologise. Appearing on ABC this week, Butler was asked if those who supported prolonged lockdowns should apologise to the public to regain trust.

“No,” said Butler unrepentantly. “Our contribution to rebuilding trust is going to be to put in place a Centre for Disease Control.”

He added, "I have enormous respect for all of the leaders who led our pandemic response …. they worked enormously hard... they made some incredibly courageous decisions.”

Thakur strongly disagrees.

“Our leaders were cowardly and hypocritical,” he said. “They had no skin in the game and suffered no financial penalty while they decimated small businesses, paid no political penalty and got sugar highs on their power trips.”

Foster says that regaining trust can only happen when those people in power are gone.

“Building back trust is a bit of a pipe dream,” said Foster. “We need a root-and-branch reform of the public health system, and it needs review by an independent body that recognises corruption is everywhere in Australian institutions.”

“That takes an awful lot of political courage, and it will never be called for by people currently in power, or those who were in power during the pandemic,” she added.

A Royal Commission?

Some Australian Senators are now hoping to inspire some of that political courage by calling on the Prime Minister to honour his initial promise to conduct a Royal Commission.

“Open and public hearings did not occur during this inquiry so whatever its findings might be, it remains an incomplete job,” said Senator Matthew Canavan. “I will work with my fellow Senators to try again to establish a Commission of Inquiry into COVID.”

Senator for Victoria, Ralph Babet echoed his thoughts. “Such an epic failure of government policy deserves nothing less than a full royal commission,” he said.

“The worst of the decisions were made by bureaucrats who are unelected and unaccountable. They are directly responsible for death, destruction, pain, family breakup, financial ruin and increased deaths which continue to this day,” added Babet.

---