Last week the Albanese government rejected by a single, short sentence, "the government does not support this recommendation", the Senate legal and constitutional committee's proposal for a " ". or signup to continue reading Likewise, the government rejected other recommendations for there to be a federal-state royal commission, the detailed three-page draft terms of reference, and its call for further public consultation. The government gave no detailed explanations for its rejections just noting that it had already announced an " ", the COVID-19 response inquiry, with "an independent panel" and terms of reference "to consider all key aspects of the national response to the pandemic .
.. including with other levels of government".
No need for a royal commission argued the government - they are already doing it. It could be argued that as the Senate committee was dominated by Coalition members and not unanimous and its report was therefore partisan. Certainly, there was a dissenting report by the two Labor senators, but they echoed the government line that an inquiry already existed, but they were not joined in their dissent by the Green senator.
Neither the Labor senators in their brief one-page dissenting report nor the government in its single sentence responses, dissected the 128-page Senate report, or repudiated any of the 600 written and public testimonies from respected professional health bodies, experts and reputable individuals. It was this evidence that underpinned the Senate committee's recommendation that a federal-state royal commission "would produce the optimal opportunity to learn from Australia's response to the pandemic". It was from this evidence that Senate committee assessed that the government inquiry's terms of reference were too narrow, specifically precluding it from examining "actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments" thus ignoring their controversial decisions concerning lockdowns, civil liberties and school and border closures.
Also, from these submissions the Senate committee was able to highlight that the government's inquiry lacked the coercive legislative powers of a royal commission to call witnesses, procure information, and to provide legal protection for those who might want to come forward to "spill the beans". Senator David Shoebridge of the Greens in his "additional comments" to the report endorsed the royal commission recommendation and was best able to explain why: A royal commission has the independence needed, including the power to compel answers from often unwilling governments, to give the public the confidence that its final report and any recommendations will be credible and unbiased. In many ways the government's rejection of the royal commission proposal exposes how Mr Albanese's promises to appoint a royal commission when in opposition, and were just political posturing on the eve of the 2022 federal election to embarrass the then Coalition government.
The incoming Albanese's government . And part of the reasons as discussed during the Senate committee's hearings are because the government wanted to avoid exposing any of the five Labor states and territories that held office during the pandemic to any detailed scrutiny. Australia never had a royal commission following the 1919 pandemic because federal-state relations were fractious, Commonwealth powers circumspect and its financial resources limited.
Nevertheless, it was a missed opportunity. Times have changed. The states might retain constitutional responsibility for health, but the Commonwealth now has the money, the capabilities, and the recognised role to lead the nation's health strategies.
Such important matters cannot be left to the states. So, not having a royal commission this time is an even greater missed opportunity. Properly constituted and invested with genuine commitment to learn from the pandemic, a joint federal-state royal commission could have laid the foundations for a reinvigorated health system.
Such policy timidity and political opportunism by our national government in not forming a royal commission in stark contrast to the , , Sweden and Norway where open, national commissions of inquiry were established so that lessons for the future can be learnt. DAILY Today's top stories curated by our news team. WEEKLY The latest news, results & expert analysis.
WEEKLY Get the editor's insights: what's happening & why it matters. WEEKLY Love footy? We've got all the action covered. WEEKLY Every Sunday explore destinations, deals, tips & travel writing to transport you around Australia and the globe.
WEEKLY Going out or staying in? Find out what's on. WEEKDAYS Sharp. Close to the ground.
Digging deep. Your weekday morning newsletter on national affairs, politics and more. TWICE WEEKLY Your essential national news digest: all the big issues on Wednesday and great reading every Saturday.
WEEKLY Get news, reviews and expert insights every Thursday from CarExpert, ACM's exclusive motoring partner. TWICE WEEKLY Get real, Australia! Let the ACM network's editors and journalists bring you news and views from all over. AS IT HAPPENS Be the first to know when news breaks.
DAILY Your digital replica of Today's Paper. Ready to read from 5am! DAILY Test your skills with interactive crosswords, sudoku & trivia. Fresh daily! Advertisement Advertisement.
