Australia's COVID-19 Response Inquiry has been criticised for lacking the scope and powers of the United Kingdom's ongoing pandemic inquiry. The UK's COVID-19 Inquiry, chaired by retired judge Baroness Heather Hallett, has statutory coercive powers to compel evidence and sworn testimony, and is reviewing all aspects of the UK's pandemic response across its nations.
In contrast, the Australian inquiry, established by the Albanese government in September 2023, is non-statutory and has no powers of investigation or witness protection. Its terms of reference explicitly exclude review of actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments, which made many controversial decisions on lockdowns, border closures, and school closures.
Critics argue the delay in appointing the inquiry—16 months after the government was elected—and its limited terms of reference were a deliberate tactic to focus on the former Morrison government while avoiding scrutiny of Labor-led states. The long delay allowed the Victorian Andrews government to avoid independent review before its November 2022 election.
The Hallett Inquiry acknowledged that Australia's quicker, cheaper expert inquiries lacked legal processes with the force of law, and therefore do not have the same scope and depth as the UK's inquiry. The UK inquiry is a multi-year review that has already released two reports and promises seven more, covering healthcare, vaccines, procurement, care sectors, testing, impacts on the young, and economic response.
While the Australian inquiry did give attention to some state actions and praised aspects of the Morrison government's response, critics say it should have gone further. The Senate COVID inquiry in April 2022 had recommended a royal commission to examine Australia's pandemic response, but the government opted for a more limited inquiry.
