Appearance at the Senate inquiry into possible terms of reference for a royal commission into the COVID-19 pandemic
Dr Scott Prasser appears at the Senate Committee inquiry into possible terms of reference for a royal commission into the COVID-19 pandemic on 1 February 2024
The below provides a summary of Dr Prasser’s submission to Senate Constitutional & Legal Affairs Committee inquiry into possible terms of reference for a Commonwealth royal commission into Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes video excerpts from Dr Prasser’s appearances at the inquiry.
Introduction – what is the Senate inquiry about
On 19 October 2023, the Senate referred an inquiry to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry into “The appropriate terms of referend for a COVID-19 royal commission that would allow all affected stakeholders to be heard.”
This referral was supported by members of the Coalition opposition along with several members of the crossbench.
Background – why was this Senate inquiry appointed
Prime Minister Albanese intimated before (and after) the May 2022 election, that his government would appoint a royal commission into Australia’s response to the pandemic.[1] It was also a recommendation by the Senate COVID-19 Committee in April 2022 chaired by Labor front-bencher and now minister, Senator Katy Gallagher.
Despite these promises and recommendations and many exhortations from a wide range public figures and commentators[2] it was not until September 2023 that Albanese Government appointed the Commonwealth Government Covid-19 Response Inquiry. This inquiry was criticised for being: a non-statutory public inquiry lacking any coercive powers of investigation unlike a royal commission; its narrow terms of reference that avoided addressing the key actions of the States; and the expertness and independence of its membership.[3]
What the Prasser submission said
In summary the submission made the following points that:
royal commission are statutory based inquiries with real powers of investigation, that the pandemic deserved such a review, and that the practice after a calamitous event is to appoint such inquiries;
royal commissions notwithstanding their flaws, have generally served Australia well;
there was a need for a national joint federal-state royal commission (for which there are many precedents) and this must be covered in any terms of reference;
overseas public inquiries in Sweden, Norway, United Kingdom, Scotland, and New Zealand enjoyed royal commission type powers; and
there should be consultation before finalising any inquiry’s terms of reference (as is increasingly the practice overseas and in Australia) – this has not occurred with the government’s current COVID Inquiry.
Four key areas need to be examined by any Royal Commission appointed:
1. Disease related issues (origin, type, how many died from the disease, who were most affected);
2. Governance issues (pre-pandemic preparations, institutional arrangements, federal-state relations and responses, civil liberties);
3. Implementation issues (rollout of vaccines, timeliness of responses, assistance measures, changing government regulations, clarity of communications); and
4. Policy/strategy issues (evidence based polices, transparency, efficacy and effectiveness of measures, impacts on business, schools, other non-health areas).
Finally, a checklist for any national inquiry’s terms of reference should include:
actions taken by State and Territory governments, as well as by the Commonwealth;
whether the stated goals of government policy relating to Covid-19 were realistic;
closure of international and intranational borders;
development and rollout of Covid-19 vaccines;
approval of Covid-19 vaccines for widespread use in the Australian population by government bodies, including whether the process and scientific basis was sufficiently robust;
granting of immunity against legal claims to manufacturers of Covid-19 vaccines;
efficacy and adverse health effects of Covid-19 vaccines;
impact and justifiability of mandatory vaccination;
freedom of medical practitioners to express opinions, particularly given the evolving and unsettled nature of the science throughout the pandemic;
investigation of medical practitioners for misconduct for expressing opinions or for themselves failing to be vaccinated against Covid-19;
media reporting on Covid-19 and the government response to Covid-19;
extent to which there was control and censorship of information relating to Covid-19 by the media, social media and the government, and, if so, the consequences;
impact of lockdowns on education, physical health and mental health;
impact of government responses to Covid-19 on human rights, and whether the significant infringements of rights imposed by governments were proportionate to the threat posed by Covid-19;
whether the measures imposed by Australian governments resulted in a measurable reduction in the excess mortality rate;
amounts spent by Australian governments in attempting to respond to Covid-19, and whether this expenditure achieved its goal; and
prosecution of people for breaching government regulations relating to Covid-19. The financial impact of Covid-19 regulations on people and businesses.[4]
At the end of the day, its politics…
[1] See Coorey, P., “Any pandemic probe must also look at the states”, Australian Financial Review, 22 January 2022 (article highlighted Albanese’s pre-election National Press Club promises).
[2] See Prasser, S., “A royal commission into Australia’s response to the pandemic?” Australasian Parliamentary Review, 38(1), Autumn 2023, p. 90
[3] See for example, Coorey, P., “PM’s inch deep COVID-19 inquiry treats us like idiots”, Australian Financial Review, 22 September 2023
[4] This list reflects work by Associate Professor Ben Saunders, Law School, Deakin University.