Scott Prasser | Why has there been no royal commission into the COVID response?

It has joined the United Kingdom and Sweden in forming independent inquiries to review their country's responses to the pandemic.

Its full title - 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, indicates its focus - a review of what happened so as to do better next time.

As Prime Minister Jacinta Ardern explained, while New Zealand had "experienced fewer cases, hospitalisations, and deaths than nearly any other country", the pandemic had "a huge impact on New Zealanders" and "so it is critical we compile what worked and what we can learn from it should it ever happen again".

After all, despite this overall success there was "criticism of NZ's preparedness to deal with COVID-19, of the organisation of the response, and of particular public health measures and their impact on people's lives".

A royal commission, as Ardern explained, "is the highest form of public inquiry" in New Zealand given its investigative powers, independence and public processes and thus appointing one "is the right thing to do".

It signals that the Ardern government is taking this matter seriously. And for a government in the mid-term doldrums and with growing concerns about the economy, it is being seen to "do something". It is both good policy and good politics.

Of interest is that this new royal commission is not chaired, by a sitting or former judge, but by an epidemiologist from the University of Melbourne (though from New Zealand), assisted by the retired head of NZ Treasury and a former National Party cabinet minister.

There are also instructions for the royal commission to avoid acting in a legalistic and adversarial way, and to minimise delays and costs.

READ MORE:

Its terms of reference are extensive covering: quarantine arrangements; regulatory approval processes; modelling and surveillance systems; decision making structures; and most importantly whether the strategies pursued "were effective in limiting the spread of infection and limiting the impact of the virus".

Clearly, there are some lessons here for Australia should we decide to follow New Zealand's lead and establish a royal commission.

Although Australia too, had one of the lowest pandemic death rates, there were many concerns such as: vaccine rollout; use of expert advice; constitutionality of state border closures; effects of school closures; and the national cabinet's effectiveness.

The problem is that while in Australia the Commonwealth could initiate a royal commission, it would have to involve the states given our federal system (unlike New Zealand) and their key constitutional responsibilities over health, education and law and order so pivotal during the pandemic.

While there have been many federal-state royal commissions, the states might be reluctant to join this time given the potential for criticism of their actions.

And there would also be considerable wrangling over any inquiry's membership, powers and terms of reference.

Another impediment is the attitude of the new federal Albanese Labor government.

Quick to appoint a royal commission into its predecessors' robodebt program, it has been reluctant to appoint one into the pandemic despite Albanese's reported statement that a royal commission "or similar inquiry" should be appointed "as soon as practicable" and the "needs to look at the response of all governments".

To date, nothing has happened.

The issue is that any royal commission would have to assess the pandemic actions of three Labor states and two Labor territory administrations about which there was some considerable controversy.

So, all Australia has had to date, is a partisan Senate committee review, and the Shergold inquiry sponsored by major philanthropic bodies, which was not an open public inquiry, and had no powers to access all the information and was easily dismissed by some governments as having no status.

Is this the best Australia can do after such a traumatic period in our history?