Australia's approach to reviewing its pandemic response has been revealed as fundamentally inadequate when compared to the United Kingdom's comprehensive COVID-19 investigation, according to policy experts.
Stark Contrast in Investigative Approaches
The recently released second report from the United Kingdom's COVID-19 Inquiry highlights what Australia chose not to establish: a proper royal commission with statutory powers to examine the nation's total pandemic response.
The UK investigation, chaired by retired judge Baroness Heather Hallett, has been scathing in its assessment of Britain's initial pandemic handling. It revealed a toxic and chaotic culture within Boris Johnson's Conservative government that delayed crucial lockdown decisions, miscommunicated vital pandemic information, and failed to consider diverse expert opinions.
Despite the UK performing better than some nations during the health crisis, the Hallett Inquiry concluded that British authorities failed their citizens through systemic governance breakdowns.
Australia's Limited Investigation Powers
In stark contrast, the Albanese government established a non-statutory COVID-19 Response Inquiry that lacks fundamental investigative authority. The Australian inquiry possesses no powers to compel evidence or protect witnesses who wish to provide testimony.
More critically, its terms of reference explicitly prevented examination of unilateral actions taken by state and territory governments. This exclusion is particularly significant given that state governments implemented many of the most controversial pandemic measures, including lockdowns, border closures, school shutdowns, and civil liberty restrictions.
Many of these state-level decisions were made with limited evidence and often contradicted agreements reached through the National Cabinet process, creating confusion and inconsistency across Australia's federal system.
Political Motivations Behind Inquiry Limitations
The Albanese government's delay in appointing the COVID-19 Response Inquiry until September 2023 – sixteen months after taking office – and its constrained scope have been interpreted by some observers as deliberate political strategy.
This timing allowed the Victorian Labor government under Daniel Andrews, which faced an election in November 2022, to avoid independent scrutiny of its heavily criticised pandemic actions. The approach also focused attention primarily on the Morrison government's federal response while shielding Labor state administrations from examination.
To its credit, the Australian inquiry team exceeded their narrow mandate by addressing several state-level issues and even praising some actions taken by the Morrison government. However, critics maintain the investigation should have delved deeper into the complete pandemic response picture.
Fundamental Differences in Scope and Depth
The Hallett Inquiry acknowledged that quicker, cheaper expert investigations like Australia's have their place but emphasized their limitations. Without legal processes possessing the force of law to compel evidence production or sworn testimony from political and administrative leaders, such inquiries cannot achieve comparable scope and depth.
The UK investigation represents a long-term commitment, extending over several years and promising seven additional reports beyond the two already completed. These future reports will comprehensively cover healthcare system performance, vaccine and therapeutic development, procurement processes, care sector impacts, testing and tracing arrangements, effects on young people, and economic responses.
The Critical Purpose of Pandemic Inquiries
The fundamental purpose of post-crisis inquiries extends beyond merely establishing facts and allocating responsibility. As the Hallett Inquiry emphasizes, with another pandemic inevitable, achieving full understanding of previous failures is essential for implementing remedial actions that ensure more effective and transparent handling of future health emergencies.
This perspective aligns with recommendations from the Senate COVID inquiry chaired by Labor senator Katy Gallagher, now Finance Minister. In April 2022, just before the federal election, that inquiry recommended establishing a royal commission to examine Australia's pandemic response and inform future preparedness.
While the United Kingdom pursues a powerful, ongoing, national independent inquiry led by a former judge, Australia has missed its opportunity for equivalent comprehensive review. Our federal system has been used as justification for limited investigation, but the primary motivation appears rooted in short-term partisan political considerations rather than genuine national interest.
Dr Scott Prasser, who edited New Directions in Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries: Do We Need Them? and provided evidence to the 2024 Senate Committee regarding a proposed Australian royal commission, highlights these concerning disparities in investigative approaches between nations.
