National, state responses must be included in any COVID-19 pandemic royal commission

It seems the Prime Minister will soon be announcing a royal commission "or similar inquiry" into Australia's response to the pandemic, though its form, scope and membership remain unclear.

Anthony Albanese is reported to have stressed although the inquiry's focus will primarily be on the federal government's responses it "would also look at state government responses" to the pandemic.

Coming after four months in office the Albanese government should have resolved by now what sort of inquiry we should be having into the pandemic that raged for over two years, caused many deaths, closed down the economy, cost billions of dollars, destroyed businesses and compromised our civil liberties.

Indeed, these inquiries along with the just announced review of former prime minster Scott Morrison's assuming ministerial responsibilities across several portfolios, have a taint of political revenge on the previous government in the same way the Abbott administration appointed a royal commission into Labor's home insulation scheme.

Nevertheless, there are important issues that warrant a proper inquiry into the Commonwealth's responses to the pandemic, like the rollout of the vaccine, federal support measures, international border and immigration issues.

However, there can be no proper review of our nation's response to the pandemic unless it also covers state reactions given their pivotal constitutional responsibilities covering health, education, border closures and law enforcement.

Nor can there be an effective review unless the inquiry has the statutory coercive investigative powers of a royal commission so witnesses can be called, files accessed, evidence heard in public and recommendations released.

And for that to happen, it must be a joint Commonwealth-state royal commission so its powers of investigation can cross all jurisdictions and boundaries.

A Commonwealth-only royal commission would have no powers to obtain information from the states where so many issues about the pandemic were decided and caused in some cases, such pain.

There are plenty of precedents for joint Commonwealth-state royal commissions.

The most recent is the Royal Commission into Violence, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability appointed in 2019 and still under way.

Whether there can be a Commonwealth-state royal commission with wide-ranging and agreed terms of references and appropriate expert and independent members will be a test for the Albanese government. Is the proposed inquiry just to signal concern, or to really improve Australia's future policy responses to such crises?

Or is it just another means to play partisan politics to point the bone at its predecessor?

Understandably, states may be reluctant to have full and open scrutiny of their pandemic responses given some of the problems that occurred like the hotel quarantine scandal in Victoria, some enforcement measures, and the public funds wasted on places like Queensland's Wellcamp quarantine hub. Victoria and NSW governments will also be sensitive to any independent review given impending elections.

Of course, other countries have had a jump start on Australia in reviewing their responses to the pandemic and we could do well to learn from their experiences.

Sweden provides the best-practice example. Although adopting a different, less repressive approach to most other countries, Sweden was proactive by initiating at the beginning of the pandemic, an ongoing commission of inquiry to assess the government's responses during, as well as after, the pandemic. Over two years it released numerous interim reports, concluding with a two-volume final report.

Although largely endorsing Sweden's overall strategy, it was still forthcoming in highlighting some major flaws. Reforms are now under way.

Significantly, the Swedish inquiry had bipartisan support, was chaired by a Supreme Court judge who was joined by seven commissioners with expertise in policy, health, medicine, economics and even theology.

In the United Kingdom an independent inquiry has been appointed under the Inquiries Act 2005 and is chaired by a former senior judge, supported by 12 QCs and an advisory panel, and is now under way. It underwent an extensive public consultation process to determine its terms of reference to ensure it would be no whitewash.

The inquiry will cover government preparation and responses to the pandemic across the whole of the United Kingdom. Emphasis is being placed on considering "disparities evident in the impact of the pandemic on different categories of people", the "experiences of bereaved families" and to have "regard to international comparisons".

Sweden and the United Kingdom offer examples of what a proper, thought-out, comprehensive and very public inquiry into the pandemic looks like. It is time the Albanese government did the same.

Australia does need an independent review of our nation's responses to the pandemic - warts and all. Ultimately, the federal government has to take the lead. Given our federal system, the split in responsibilities between national and state governments, and the politics involved, setting up such an inquiry will not be easy.

But, that is what responsible government is all about, Prime Minister.