Jim Chalmers defends Covid inquiry after fury over decision not to investigate state lockdowns, mandates and border closures

Politicians, including the Treasurer, have defended the government’s inquiry into the response to the Covid pandemic, insisting it is a valuable exercise despite widespread condemnation that it has been excluded from examining each state’s unilateral decisions.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers emphasized the value of the government’s long-awaited inquiry, saying that despite the criticism, the inquiry would provide all the information needed to inform future pandemic responses.

“As people see how this review plays out over the next 12 months, I am confident it will give people the answers they are looking for,” Dr Chalmers told Sky News’ Sunday Agenda.

“The primary focus will be on Commonwealth responsibilities, and we take responsibility for things that are in our areas, and that’s what this is about.”

Dr. Chalmers claimed the inquiry was free to look at issues outside its mandate, adding that states were not barred from giving evidence if they wanted to.

“It will not prevent states from participating,” he said.

But most controversially, the inquiry’s terms of reference explicitly exclude ‘actions taken by state and territory governments’.

This means the most controversial decisions, including lockdowns, school closures, vaccination mandates, internal border closures and contract tracing, will be exempt from investigation unless state and territory witnesses voluntarily appear.

Emergency Situations Minister Murray Watt also defended the decision to exempt states and territories, saying the inquiry should look at border and school closures.

He told ABC’s Insiders the inquiry would “never end” if it examined every decision made by the governments of every state and territory.

“For a start, there was never any obligation to get a royal commission,” he said.

‘The promise was that there would be an independent investigation. That is what we have established. Government is about trying to understand the lessons of the past, rather than engaging in political point-scoring.

‘Typically, royal commissions have been used for areas where there is mismanagement, possible corruption and possible referrals such as the Robodebt.’

The inquiry is neither an inquest nor a royal commission, and therefore will not have the power to compel witnesses and is not required to hold hearings in public.

Instead, it will focus primarily on the Commonwealth’s response to the pandemic – mainly that of the former Morrison government – including the closure of international borders, vaccine procurement and government subsidies such as JobKeeper and JobSeeker.

The appointment of health economist and former Labor staffer Angela Jackson to the inquiry’s panel has also come under fire after it was revealed she had staunchly defended the lockdowns imposed by Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews.

Public administration expert Robyn Kruk and epidemiologist Catherine Bennett will also sit on the panel.

Before the May 2022 election, the Prime Minister declared that there should be a “royal commission or some form of inquiry” into the response to the pandemic.

But in announcing the inquiry, Mr Albanese said setting up a royal commission would take too long and that a judge would not have the requisite expertise. He had opted for an investigation instead.

During the pandemic, a Senate committee led by current Chancellor of the Exchequer Katy Gallagher, which examined the government’s response, recommended the establishment of a royal commission.

The investigation is expected to last twelve months.