Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to do my best to be very quick, because I know other people want to contribute, so in the spirit of collegiality I'll try and be as quick as I can. I rise to take note of the report from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee in relation to a terms of reference for a COVID-19 royal commission. I want to make a few quick points following on from Senator Roberts's contribution.

Why do we need a royal commission? We need a royal commission for four reasons: first, for the powers of a royal commission. Royal commissions have powers which other Commonwealth inquiries or any other inquiries do not have in terms of requiring witnesses to appear and requiring the production of documents. The Commonwealth inquiry that's been established simply does not have those powers.

Second, we need a royal commission, hopefully with the participation of the Commonwealth and the states and territories so we have a royal commission which can consider the interaction between the Commonwealth and the states and territories with respect to the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third, independence. A royal commission is necessarily independent from executive government. One of the concerning things about the Commonwealth inquiry that's currently underway is it's supported by a taskforce out of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I am not for a moment suggesting that the people involved in that taskforce would do anything other than, in good faith, seek to assist that Commonwealth inquiry. However, a royal commission is independent and is also perceived to be independent—and that is absolutely critical.

The fourth reason why we need a royal commission is the current Commonwealth inquiry specifically excludes decisions that were unilateral decisions of state governments. We have the farcical situation where the current Commonwealth inquiry can look at mental health support provided for people who suffered from lockdowns et cetera but can't look at the efficacy of those lockdowns in the first place and whether or not they were best practice—so there is a disconnect there. We are only looking at half the story, and that is not best practice.

Lastly, I thank all those who gave evidence to the inquiry. In particular I thank Dr Scott Prasser, an expert on royal commissions, for his support to the inquiry. I also thank the witnesses who shared deeply personal experiences. I want to quote, in conclusion, a paragraph from the wonderful representatives of the Redfern Legal Centre, in terms of what they saw during the COVID-19 response:

Many of my clients were in tears in trying to keep up with and understand rapidly changing public health orders … These clients ranged from a mother whose son with a diagnosed intellectual disability was issued with three separate COVID fines worth $1,000 each—

Just reflect on that. That is what was happening in our society—

and an elderly couple, one partner with dementia, fined for being at the supermarket together because one partner could not stay at home by herself.

Can you imagine? This elderly gentleman who took his wife to the supermarket because she suffered from dementia was fined because only one person was allowed to go to the supermarket.

These people, these Australians, deserve to have the opportunity to tell their stories, and the Australian people deserve the opportunity for our country to learn lessons from how we managed the COVID-19 pandemic.

Question agreed to.