>
The devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated recession required an unprecedented policy response from our government.
These were extraordinary times and they required extraordinary measures to respond. Our government’s overriding objective was to save lives and livelihoods, which we achieved. To achieve this we needed to ensure continuity of government and robust administrative arrangements to deal with the unexpected in what was a period of constant uncertainty during the nation’s biggest crisis outside of wartime.
Information and advice changed daily and even hourly. Meetings with ministers, officials and advisers were constant, as was liaison with industry and other stakeholders as we were dealing with everything from supply chain shocks to business closures, the overwhelming of the social security and hospital system and the sourcing of critical medical supplies and workforce. The prospect of civil disruption, extensive fatalities and economic collapse was real, especially in the early stages, which was occurring in other parts of the world.
The risk of ministers becoming incapacitated, sick, hospitalised, incapable of doing their work at a critical hour or even fatality was very real. The Home Affairs Minister was struck down with COVID-19 early in the pandemic and the UK Prime Minister was on a ventilator and facing the very real prospect of dying of COVID-19.
The parliament was suspended from sitting for a time and cabinet and others meetings were unable to be held face to face, as occurred with businesses and the public more generally.
As prime minister I considered it necessary to put in place safeguards, redundancies and contingencies to ensure the continuity and effective operation of government during this crisis period, which extended for the full period of my term.
To ensure oversight, the government, with the support of the opposition, established a concurrent public Senate inquiry into the management of COVID that effectively ran for the duration of my term as prime minister.
In addition I took the precaution of being given authority to administer various departments of state should the need arise due to incapacity of a minister or in the national interest. This was done in relation to departments where ministers were vested with specific powers under their legislation that were not subject to oversight by cabinet, including significant financial authorities.
Given the significant nature of many of these powers I considered this to be a prudent and responsible action as prime minister.
It is not uncommon for multiple ministers to be sworn to administer the same department. However, given that such additional ministers were in a more junior position in the relevant departments, and would not be familiar with all the details of the pandemic response, I considered it appropriate that the redundancy be put in place at a higher level within the government and not at a more junior level.
The major department for which this was considered was the Health Department, given the extensive powers afforded to the minister by the Biosecurity Act. This was put in place on March 14, 2020. The Department of Finance was added on March 30, 2020.
As an added administrative precaution, as a ‘belts and braces’ approach, the Departments of Treasury and Home Affairs were added some time after in May 2021. I did not consider it was likely that it would be necessary to exercise powers in these areas, but the future was very difficult to predict during the pandemic. As events demonstrated with the resurgence of COVID-19 in the second half of 2021, we could never take certainty for granted. In hindsight these arrangements were unnecessary and until seeking advice from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet today, I had not recollected these arrangements having been put in place. There was a lot going on at the time.
Thankfully it was not necessary for me to trigger use of any of these powers. In the event that I would have to use such powers I would have done so disclosing the authority by which I was making such decisions. The authority was pre approved to ensure there would be no delay in being able to make decisions or take actions should the need arise.
The crisis was a highly dynamic environment and it was important to plan ahead and take what precautions could lawfully be put in place to ensure I could act, as prime minister, if needed.
It is important to note that throughout this time ministers in all departments, where I was provided with authority to act, exercised full control of their departments and portfolios without intervention. Ministerial briefs were not copied to me as prime minister in a co-minister capacity, as this was not the nature of the arrangement. These arrangements were there as a ‘break glass in case of emergency’ safeguard. I also did not wish ministers to be second guessing themselves or for there to be the appearance to be a right of appeal or any diminishing of their authority to exercise their responsibilities, as this was not the intention of putting these arrangements in place. I simply wanted them to get on with their job, which they did admirably and I am grateful for their service.
The decision in relation to the Department of Industry, Energy and Resources was undertaken in April 2021 for separate reasons. This was the consequence of my decision to consider the issues of the PEP11 license directly. Under the legislation the decision is not taken by cabinet, but unilaterally by a minister with authority to administer that department. I sought and was provided with the authority to administer matters in relation to this department and considered this issue observing all the necessary advice and issues pertaining to the matter before making a decision, without prejudice, which I announced publicly. Once having been given the authority to consider this matter I advised the minister of my intention to do so and proceeded to consider the matter. I retained full confidence in Minister Pitt who I was pleased to have serve in my ministry. I believe I made the right decision in the national interest. This was the only matter I involved myself directly with in this or any other department.
The use of the powers by a prime minister to exercise authority to administer departments has clearly caused concern. I regret this, but acted in good faith in a crisis.
I used such powers on one occasion only. I did not seek to interfere with ministers in the conduct of their portfolio as there were no circumstances that warranted their use, except in the case of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources which I have explained.
The pandemic has been a difficult time for Australia, although we have performed better than almost any other developed country in the world. There is no guide book in these circumstances and there is much commentary that will be offered in hindsight from the comfort of relatively calmer conditions. It is not surprising that some of this commentary will have a partisan or other motive, but that’s politics. In a democracy it is a positive thing for these issues to be discussed and for experience to inform future decisions and I hope my statement will help inform that process.
I have endeavoured to set out the context and reasoning for the decisions I took as prime minister in a highly unusual time. I did so in good faith, seeking to exercise my responsibilities as prime minister which exceeded those of any other member of the government, or parliament. For any offence to my colleagues I apologise. I led an outstanding team who did an excellent job and provided me great service and loyalty as ministers.