Is New Zealand’s royal commission into the pandemic response best practice?

Although Australia, like New Zealand, had one of the lowest death rates in the world from the pandemic, and its economy has revived even more quickly, there have been many calls for a royal commission too. Concerns include:Commonwealth Government’s vaccine rollout; the use of evidence and expert advice; contradictory State responses; media reporting of causes of death; the efficacy, constitutionality and impacts of State border closures; the value and costs of extended lockdowns; civil liberties; police force; effects of school closures; National Cabinet’s effectiveness.

However, the issue for Australia with its federal system of government and a formal written constitution (unlike New Zealand), is who could initiate a similar a royal commission?

Any Australian royal commission into the pandemic would have to be national in focus and thus would need to be initiated by the Commonwealth but would have to be supported by the States given their key roles during the pandemic. In other words, it would necessitate a joint federal-state royal commission – a not unusual occurrence. However, the new Albanese Labor Government, although eager to appoint a royal commission into its predecessor’s Robodebt program and an inquiry into the previous prime minister’s exercise of powers, has averred forming an independent review into the nation’s responses to the pandemic. The reasons are clear – such an inquiry would necessarily have to assess not just the Commonwealth’s action, but those of Labor States and Territories that were sometimes controversial, and questionable.  

All we have had in Australia, other than a partisan-based federal parliamentary committee review, is the Shergold Inquiry which reported in November. It was a private review sponsored by major philanthropic bodies, and although not uncritical of some of Commonwealth and State governments, was not an open public inquiry, did not have access to all the information, and because it lacked any formal status was consequently dismissed too easily by some governments and has not been the basis of ongoing discussion within government.

Conclusions

While NZ’s Royal Commission on COVID-19 has several limitations relating to its terms of reference and some might argue its procedures, at least the Ardern Government has appointed a royal commission. It has official status, has statutory backed investigative powers, a largely expert membership, and a long reporting timeframe allowing it to probe deeply. And like many previous royal commissions, it may, in the course of its investigations, unveil important issues not envisaged by the Ardern Government.