This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Government & democracy
Australia would get an independent public inquiry into how federal, state and territory governments handled COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined., so Parliament can examine what happened across the country.
Australia lacked a national inquiry into how CommonwealthThe federal Australian government, as distinct from state and territory governments., state and territory governments handled COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined., leaving Parliament without a full account of those responses. The bill creates a commission of inquiryA formal investigation with legal powers to hear evidence, call witnesses and make findings for Parliament. to examine those decisions across governments and report findings and recommendations to Parliament to improve future pandemic responses.
During the COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. pandemic, Australian governments imposed lockdowns, border controls, vaccine mandates and other restrictions, while more than $300 billion was spent to cushion the economic fallout, leaving lasting arguments about the human and financial impact of those decisions. After the Albanese government announced an independent COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. inquiry in September 2023 that did not cover unilateral state and territory actions, senators introduced this bill on 25 June 2024 to create a broader commission of inquiryA formal investigation with legal powers to hear evidence, call witnesses and make findings for Parliament. across all levels of government, but the SenateThe upper house of federal Parliament, which can debate bills and decide whether they pass or fail. rejected it on 22 August 2024 while the existing executive inquiryAn inquiry set up by the government rather than by a law passed by Parliament. continued.
The main criticism was that this bill would duplicate an inquiry already underway and risk turning a serious policy review into a vehicle for conspiracy-driven claims about the pandemic response. That case was raised by Labor senator Tim Ayres, while the debate otherwise showed broad support for a stronger parliamentary inquiry.
Senator Matthew Canavan introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Liberal Party, LNP, UAP, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
1 recorded vote before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
58 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Australia would get an independent public inquiry into how federal, state and territory governments handled COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined., so Parliament can examine what happened across the country.
The COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. inquiry would have to look broadly at pandemic decisions and preparedness, with the aim of improving how governments respond to any future global pandemic.
States and territories could give the COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. inquiry extra powers, helping one national process examine issues that cross federal and state lines.
The COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. inquiry would have to give Parliament a report with its findings and recommendations within 18 months, unless the SenateThe upper house of federal Parliament, which can debate bills and decide whether they pass or fail. agrees to more time.
People involved in the COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. inquiry could face legal penalties for misconduct, and the inquiry’s costs would be paid from money approved by Parliament.
The Bill establishes the Covid-19 Response Commission of Inquiry to inquire into and report to Parliament on particular matters relating to the Covid-19 pandemic, including the responses by the governments of the Commonwealth, States and Territories.COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry explanatory memorandum
8. The Commission must conduct a comprehensive inquiry into matters relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the responses by the governments of the Commonwealth, States and Territories to the pandemic, for the purpose of improving responses in the event of future global pandemics.COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry explanatory memorandum
10. The Commission may perform or exercise concurrent functions or powers conferred on the Commission by the States or Territories in conjunction with the Commission’s functions or powers under this Act.COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry explanatory memorandum
12. The report must be submitted on or before the end of the period of 18 months, unless that period is extended by a resolution of the Senate.COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry explanatory memorandum
19. Clauses 17 to 27 set out the range of offences and penalties that can apply in the conduct of this Commission.COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry explanatory memorandum
Context
During the COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. pandemic, Australian governments imposed lockdowns, border controls, vaccine mandates and other restrictions, while more than $300 billion was spent to cushion the economic fallout, leaving lasting arguments about the human and financial impact of those decisions. After the Albanese government announced an independent COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. inquiry in September 2023 that did not cover unilateral state and territory actions, senators introduced this bill on 25 June 2024 to create a broader commission of inquiryA formal investigation with legal powers to hear evidence, call witnesses and make findings for Parliament. across all levels of government, but the SenateThe upper house of federal Parliament, which can debate bills and decide whether they pass or fail. rejected it on 22 August 2024 while the existing executive inquiryAn inquiry set up by the government rather than by a law passed by Parliament. continued.
COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. pandemic response brings sweeping restrictions and major spending
Federal, state and territory governments responded to COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. with lockdowns, border controls, vaccine mandates and more than $300 billion in spending, creating the decisions this bill later sought to examine.
Hansard ↗Prime Minister announces an independent COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. inquiry
Speakers in the SenateThe upper house of federal Parliament, which can debate bills and decide whether they pass or fail. said the Albanese government set up an executive inquiryAn inquiry set up by the government rather than by a law passed by Parliament. in September 2023 with Robyn Kruk, Catherine Bennett and Angela Jackson as panel members.
Hansard ↗Government inquiry excludes unilateral state and territory actions
Supporters of the bill argued the existing inquiry could not provide a full national account because it explicitly excluded actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments.
Hansard ↗Senators introduce a bill for a national COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. commission of inquiryA formal investigation with legal powers to hear evidence, call witnesses and make findings for Parliament.
The bill was introduced to create a commission reporting to Parliament on CommonwealthThe federal Australian government, as distinct from state and territory governments., state and territory pandemic responses, drawing on terms proposed by a SenateThe upper house of federal Parliament, which can debate bills and decide whether they pass or fail. committee inquiry.
Parliamentary timeline ↗SenateThe upper house of federal Parliament, which can debate bills and decide whether they pass or fail. notes the government inquiry is still taking evidence
During debate on the bill, senators said the executive inquiryAn inquiry set up by the government rather than by a law passed by Parliament. had heard from more than 2,000 people and organisations and was due to report shortly.
Hansard ↗SenateThe upper house of federal Parliament, which can debate bills and decide whether they pass or fail. rejects the bill at the second readingThe main vote on whether a bill should continue, so a negative result stops the bill moving forward.
The second readingThe main vote on whether a bill should continue, so a negative result stops the bill moving forward. was negatived, ending this push for a statutory cross-jurisdiction inquiry and leaving the government's existing inquiry as the active national process.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe main vote on whether a bill should continue, so a negative result stops the bill moving forward., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe main vote on whether a bill should continue, so a negative result stops the bill moving forward. moved
The scrutiny record says the SenateThe upper house of federal Parliament, which can debate bills and decide whether they pass or fail. Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2024.
Considered
Collected source bundleThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second readingThe main vote on whether a bill should continue, so a negative result stops the bill moving forward. negatived
Key criticism
The main criticism was that this bill would duplicate an inquiry already underway and risk turning a serious policy review into a vehicle for conspiracy-driven claims about the pandemic response. That case was raised by Labor senator Tim Ayres, while the debate otherwise showed broad support for a stronger parliamentary inquiry.
Criticism recorded in debate was narrow and mainly about duplication and purpose, not the idea of reviewing COVIDThe coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. decisions itself.
Duplicates the existing inquiry
Tim Ayres argued the bill was unnecessary because the government had already established an evidence-based inquiry into pandemic preparedness and response, so this proposal risked duplicating work and redirecting attention away from a proper public policy review.
Further sources
Votes
Other recorded votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Defeated 10 to 26. Support came from Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor. Liberal Party had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The bill was defeated at second readingThe main vote on whether a bill should continue, so a negative result stops the bill moving forward., so it did not proceed in the SenateThe upper house of federal Parliament, which can debate bills and decide whether they pass or fail..
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Matthew Canavan supports the bill and says Parliament needs a proper, independent inquiry into Australia’s COVID-19The coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. response because the government’s current inquiry is too limited and avoids scrutiny of state and territory decisions.
Read in Hansard ↗Ayres opposes the bill, arguing that a genuine inquiry into pandemic preparedness already exists and that this proposal is instead driven by conspiracy theories rather than a proper public policy purpose.
Read in Hansard ↗Roberts strongly supports the bill and says One Nation has co-sponsored it because he believes Australia needs a formal inquiry into the COVIDThe coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. response and vaccine harms.
Read in Hansard ↗Babet strongly supports the bill, saying Australia needs a full inquiry into the COVIDThe coronavirus disease that triggered the pandemic response this bill wants examined. response and that the government's existing inquiry is too narrow and weak.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“It is founded in a proper public policy purpose: how is it that governments, the Australian government and the states and territories, and our public institutions respond in the event of future pandemics? That is a good motivation for a response. That is not what this proposal is founded in.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“I come in here as a genuine, impartial person who cares deeply about the Australian people, and I would ask that the chamber support this, or some sort of Senate inquiry, so that we can give the people of Australia a chance to say how they suffered under COVID and the management of COVID and a say in how they want future pandemics—whatever they may be, government contrived or not—to be dealt with.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024. Firstly, I want to thank Senator Canavan for putting this bill together and Senator Ralph Babet for bringing it before the Senate today. I do support this bill and I want to outline my reasons, and it's certainly not for the reasons that Senator Ayres, in his atrocious contribution, laid out.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“The Australian Greens have clearly expressed previously that we support the establishment of an inquiry into COVID-19 and that it has the powers of a royal commission. A royal commission would provide the powers to compel; it would ensure states' and territories' decision-making processes and the decisions that they made are reviewed and it would allow our community to share the impact that government decisions had on their lives.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“One Nation strongly supports the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024, which I've proudly co-sponsored. To use the words of a former prime minister, 'It's time.' It's time to accept our duty is to the Australian people, not to ourselves and our colleagues. It's time for courage and for truth.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“A once-in-100-year pandemic demands a once-in-a-lifetime commission of inquiry, and that is why the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024 is not something which we should merely consider; it is something that we should approve—and with haste.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingThe main vote on whether a bill should continue, so a negative result stops the bill moving forward. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe main vote on whether a bill should continue, so a negative result stops the bill moving forward., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe main vote on whether a bill should continue, so a negative result stops the bill moving forward. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading negatived
Second readingThe main vote on whether a bill should continue, so a negative result stops the bill moving forward. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered
The scrutiny record says the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2024.
Considered by scrutiny committee (03/Jul/2024): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2024
Collected source bundle
