The recently released report into Australia’s pandemic response has revealed significant shortcomings, particularly in Victoria.
At 877 pages, this comprehensive analysis does not shy away from scrutinizing the actions of state governments, highlighting a troubling pattern of inconsistency and a heavy-handed approach that many believe violated basic human rights.
Victoria, under the leadership of Health Minister Mary-Anne Thomas and former Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton, implemented some of the most draconian measures during the pandemic. The report points out that decisions to shut borders and schools were made without adequate compassion or justification, leaving many citizens bewildered and frustrated. While officials claim these actions saved lives, the reality is that they have eroded public trust, a vital component of any democracy.
The report emphasizes the word “trust,” mentioned 332 times, and it’s clear why: the pandemic response has left many Victorians questioning the integrity of their leaders. Sutton himself admitted to failing to communicate effectively at times, acknowledging that some guidance was based on “a best guess.” Such admissions are troubling; they expose a leadership that often appeared reactive rather than proactive, leaving the public in a fog of confusion.
The authors of the report—esteemed experts in public health and economics—warn that many of the measures enacted during COVID-19 will not be accepted by the population again. This sentiment is critical for understanding the current landscape of public health. Victorians are now more skeptical of directives from authorities, a sentiment that could hinder future responses to health crises.
Moreover, the report raises an essential question: Should we return to a command-and-control approach in future pandemics? This model, which emphasized strict regulations and orders, may no longer resonate with a public that has experienced the fallout of such authoritarian measures. Instead, there’s a pressing need for a strategy that fosters individual responsibility and community engagement.
The creation of a permanent Australian Centre for Disease Control, while a step in the right direction, will only succeed if it is led by a figure who can rebuild the lost trust in institutions. The polarization surrounding health experts has made this a challenging task.
Victorians should not only reflect on the past but also demand accountability from their leaders. The pandemic has highlighted severe flaws in governance that need addressing. If we are to prepare for the next health crisis—be it in a year or a decade—we must learn from these failures and foster a climate of transparency, communication, and, most importantly, trust. Only then can we hope to navigate future challenges effectively.
