Labor ‘quarantines’ states from Covid accountability

There is also the issue of the inquiry's membership, which must be perceived in the public mind as independent and expert. In this respect, Sweden's eight-person commission set the standard.

Chaired by a Justice of the Supreme Court, its members were drawn from reputable institutions covering economics, local government, infectious diseases, aged care, business, public policy and ethics. Similarly, the UK inquiry is chaired by Baroness Hallett, a former senior judge.

By contrast, the three-person Albanese inquiry has only one member with direct applicable health expertise. Another has health administration experience and certain related qualifications, while the other is an economist from a left-of-centre think tank.

The three members might be perceived, given their current and previous work, as being too close to the government.

While the inquiry will "consult with relevant experts", we don't yet know who it will approach. An expert reference panel to assist and oversee the inquiry, especially given the complexity of the issues involved in the pandemic, would have been better. This is what has occurred with other reviews.

Although the inquiry will hold public consultations across Australia, it is unclear whether these will be open public hearings like royal commissions, whereas in the Robodebt royal commission, we all learnt so much.

This is not a review of how Australia as a nation responded to the pandemic. We weren't in it together then, and we certainly won't be in it together now with this flawed inquiry.

This is the inquiry the Albanese government had to have – not the inquiry Australia really needs.