Senator the Hon Anne Ruston

Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care

Shadow Minister for Sport

Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate

TRANSCRIPT

Interview with Tom Connell

Sky News

21 September 2023

Subjects: Prime Minister's COVID Inquiry announcement

EO&E.................................

TOM CONNELL: The Shadow Health Minister, Anne Ruston, joins us. Thanks for your time. What do you make of this inquiry in particular, compared to the previous metric, if you like, set by the Prime Minister?

ANNE RUSTON: Well, I mean, clearly you'd have to question today's decision as to whether the Prime Minister has been rolled by his State and Territory Premiers. Because clearly he said – all his rhetoric in the lead up to making this announcement was all around, you know, we had to be all-encompassing, including states and territories. And then today we find that state and territory decisions have been absolutely excluded from this inquiry. It either brings into question the motivation of why this inquiry is going ahead in the first place, or it would suggest that the states and territories have rolled the Prime Minister and refused to participate.

CONNELL: When we think of some of the powers of the states, during COVID was probably the first time a lot of people realised they could be used. Things such as those lockdowns and in particular the shutting of borders as well. So these are powers the states have and the Federal Government shouldn't or can't actually control at the moment. Does that mean that it wouldn't make much sense for a federal government to look at it unless it's planning on doing something about those powers?

RUSTON: Well, look, I think you have to look at the fact that this was probably the most significant event that happened in any Australian's life that is alive today, probably the most significant event since the Second World War. And if we are going to be in a position to be able to respond in future, be prepared in future and make sure that we've learnt lessons and made sure we understand what we need to do into the future, you've got to take into account all aspects. You can't have states and territories sort of refusing to participate in something when the decisions that they made during the pandemic were so impactful on Australians’ lives. In fact, probably the decisions of the states and territories were probably some of the most impacting in terms of the mental health that we've seen flow from it. As you've mentioned, border closures between states where you had somebody on one side of the border not being able to go and visit a loved one who may have been dying, wasn't able to attend a funeral. The consequences of state and territory decisions were monumental during the pandemic. And this idea that they don't matter if we're going to have a look at a COVID inquiry just seems completely ridiculous to me.

CONNELL: So, to that end, do you think part of the inquiry, whatever it would find, could kick start a conversation nationally around whether we're all comfortable with those states having or any states having those powers? Is that something we need to look at?

RUSTON: Well, the one thing that we do need to be assured of at the end of this inquiry, which clearly is not going to happen because we don't have the states and territories at the table for it, is to make sure that should there ever be a situation again where we're faced with a pandemic, that we are as prepared as we possibly can be. And that preparedness goes to actually uncovering the consequences of decisions that were made during the pandemic by everyone, whether that be local government, whether that be businesses, whether that be states and territories, whether that be the Commonwealth. So I think you can't ignore the fact that this was such a major, major event and that we must make sure that we're more prepared next time.

CONNELL: So there's assessing it and you wonder if it was worth it. That's on the one hand. Are you totally comfortable with the states retaining all the powers that they had during COVID?

RUSTON: Well, look, certainly we saw some pretty bad outcomes in relation – personal outcomes, in relation to some of the actions by the states and territories. And so if we'd had the opportunity to be able to prosecute some of those and decide and learn from those mistakes, then maybe the states and territories would actually see that there was a better way for them to actually have been able to respond to the pandemic. But we're not going to be given that opportunity. And I think that's the travesty of today, is that a whole part of the COVID response is going to be completely excluded from having any sunlight shone on it. And that is why I'm calling on the Prime Minister – I mean, let's be honest with the Australian public, COVID was not just a decision of the Commonwealth Government. The states and territories had a major role, so let's at least try and get them involved. If they won't do it voluntarily, then use your powers of a royal commission to make sure that they're compelled to do so.

CONNELL: But would you regardless want a conversation or would you question at all the powers they had? Is it right for states to wield that level of power?

RUSTON: Well, I mean, the states and territories need to answer the questions around whether the power that they wielded was actually in the best interests on all occasions of the citizens within their jurisdiction, but also their decisions actually impacted other jurisdictions. So, you know, there is a big responsibility that [interrupted]

CONNELL: But that gets to the question, right? So, I understand that you talk about, you know, they should answer their citizens, but if you're talking about affecting other ones, they're only going to worry about themselves. So, do you need some sort of federal, you know, overriding rule when it comes to things such as shutting borders? Is it too much power to give to a state? Is that what COVID showed?

RUSTON: Well, I think to your point, Tom, the decisions that are made of states actually impact across the whole of the nation. Many decisions that were made by one state had consequential impacts on other states and the whole nation. You can't shy away from that. And we need to understand what that is. If that means in the future, it makes sense for it to take a more unified national approach to how do we respond to these things, we need to understand that. But we're not going to be able to understand that because this Prime Minister is not going to allow us to have a look at those decisions. So I think, you know, you're absolutely right. We need to look at everything and we need to look at where we are best placed to make decisions in the best interests of Australians.

CONNELL: Should all former Coalition Ministers involved from the Prime Minister down front up and give evidence in full, not seek to avoid any questions in this inquiry?

RUSTON: Well, look, obviously, the decision of other Ministers in the previous government would be a matter for them. But I certainly think that the best interests of being prepared will be by people coming up and sharing their experiences. But the other thing I would say, Tom, is the COVID pandemic did not finish on the 22nd of May 2022. It has continued on and the actions and responses of the Albanese Labor Government over the last 18 or 16 months also need to be looked into, because don't forget we have had a huge increase in the number of deaths in aged care facilities. We've seen plummeting vaccination rates as well. So the Prime Minister needs to make sure that this inquiry is not just a witch hunt on the previous Coalition government, but looks at his own Government's response as well.

CONNELL: But as to the people that made the decisions, that had a lot more impetus in terms of what we were going through, lockdowns and so on, former Coalition Ministers. It's up to them, of course, it's up to them. But what's your view? You wouldn't want to hear Josh Frydenberg say, I've got a new job, I'm too busy? This is important enough to make time for?

RUSTON: Well, look, I certainly think it is a really, really important inquiry to be in front of. Super disappointed that it's half an inquiry, not a full inquiry, but it still is very important that we shine a light on what we did during the pandemic. So I'd obviously be keen for everybody who was involved to put their story forward because don't forget these were unprecedented times. I remember sitting around the table and being terrified about the decisions I was making, and I think the public need to understand what was actually involved at the time, the uncertainty, and so I would love to see – the public to see what went on.

CONNELL: And so things such as Cabinet-in-Confidence, National Cabinet, there was a bit of dispute around about whether that was even a legal convention. Is it important that's not relied on too much to avoid giving answers?

RUSTON: Well, look, I think the Cabinet-in-Conference process is there to protect the national interest. So obviously, decisions in relation to how much information is provided would need to be undertaken in that context. But I think as much information that we can put on the table as possible to make sure that we're as prepared as we possibly can be for any future pandemic, should one occur, is really, really important. And I think that everybody should be looking at it through that lens that provide as much information as you can to make sure that we are as prepared as we can in the future.

CONNELL: There's been a lot looked at already, a lot of analysis and so on. Can you look back and say, yes, it was a tough time to make decisions, but here's a decision that if we're in this situation again, we wouldn't go down the same path?

RUSTON: Well, look, I think that, you know, the value of hindsight is always – you can always find things that you could do better. But also, I think that Australia's reputation as having responded probably as one of the best in the world is something that we should be extremely proud of as a country. The fact that we saved lives and livelihoods was really, really important. Now, of course, in hindsight we're going to find things that we could have done better. Whether we could have done things more quickly, whether we should have done things more slowly. I'm sure that those are the kinds of things that will come out of an inquiry. But overall, Australia was very much the envy of the world about how we responded to COVID. And I think we need to build on that success, but make sure we learn from the mistakes or anything that we could have done better.

CONNELL: There's been several countries though, that have come out and said, look, we wouldn't shut down schools again, that was a bad call. Is that something you're inclined to agree with?

RUSTON: Look, I think that there were a number of actions that were taken out of an abundance of caution. And of course, we were looking at what was happening in the northern hemisphere, we were seeing tens of thousands of people die. And so obviously, an abundance of caution would always say you're going to protect the lives of your citizens as an absolute number one priority. In hindsight now, we've seen how the pandemic has played out, how the mutations of different strains have played out and how they – the human reaction to them. Of course, there are going to be things that we perhaps wouldn't have done the same way as we did last time or to the same degree that we did last time. But you need to remember that many of the decisions at the time were taken in the context of being very uncertain.

CONNELL: Alright, we know you've got to catch a flight. Appreciate making your time available today. Anne Ruston, thank you.

RUSTON: My pleasure. Thanks.

ENDS