‘We Were Demonised’: Quarantined Australians Among 2,000 Submissions to COVID-19 Inquiry

Arriving passengers talk with a Western Australia (WA) Police Officer at the Perth Domestic Airport on March 3, 2022 in Perth, Australia. Paul Kane/Getty Images

A couple who were stranded in the UK when COVID-19 hit and forced into quarantine on return to Australia in June 2020 are among more than 2,000 submissions to the Commonwealth Government COVID-19 Response inquiry.

The inquiry, chaired by Robyn Kruk and including panel members Catherine Burnett and Dr. Angela Jackson, published the public response on March 27.

Qantas, Woolworths, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Home Affairs, Fair Work, state government departments, federal departments, doctors, advocacy groups, universities, legal groups, unions, political parties and privacy advocates are among those that provided submissions.

Mr. Ken Bairstow and his wife Mrs. Bairstow claim that they were “treated as criminals and demonised” when they returned to Western Australia (WA) from their annual trip to the UK in 2020.

When they arrived at Perth Airport they claim their negative COVID-19 test results were “dismissed as unimportant.”

Further, the home address provided on the Western Australian G2G pass that was required  for entry to the state was dismissed.

“We were forced into hotel quarantine for 14 days. We had to have two COVID tests in that period and were denied the results. We were negative,” the returning Australian citizens said (pdf).

“The room was unclean. We had no opening windows or access to fresh air. We had no change of linen for 14 days. Family supplied us with food. We were treated as criminals and demonised.”

In the future, the couple are suggesting only those citizens who are infected or contagious should be quarantined.

‘Disproportionate to the Risk’: Qantas

Airline Qantas submitted that later in the pandemic, the containment measures to COVID-19 was in many cases “disproportionate to the risk.”

The airline says the containment measures implemented at the start of the pandemic were appropriate as little was known about the virus and no TGA-approved vaccine was available.

“However, as subsequent COVID-19 variants weakened, public sentiment shifted and COVID-19 vaccination rates increased later in the pandemic, applying the same containment measures resulted in new unintended consequences and in many cases, was disproportionate to the risk,” Qantas said (pdf).

Qantas said Australia’s international border closure was “largely effective” in the early stages of the pandemic, but the long hall of domestic border closures caused destruction.

“Australia’s international border closure was largely effective in reducing Australia’s infection rate in the early stages of the pandemic,” Qantas said.

“But the long tali of domestic border closures, even once the majority of the population was vaccinated, was unnecessarily destructive to businesses and the community, and was directly contrary to the World Health Organisation’s advice against ongoing travel bans,” Qantas the submission from chief health and safety officer Dr. Ian Hosegood stated.

Qantas noted an independent review led by Professor Peter Shergold AC found that border closures had “significant social and economic costs that were often ignored and should be last resort.”

“The report also said that the existence of trade-offs of these consequences alongside health considerations ‘needs to be acknowledged and carefully managed and evaluated through risk management and cost-benefit frameworks.”

Border Controls Kept the Public Safe: Home Affairs

The Home Affairs department said Australia’s border controls helped mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic shock by providing “much-needed time” for domestic health responses.

“In doing so, border management proved to be a key component of Australia’s national response in keeping the public safe from the early - and arguably the most severe—phases and impacts of the pandemic,” Home Affairs said in its submission (pdf).

“Throughout the implementation and enforcement of enhanced biosecurity and border measures for trade and travel, the ABF was at the forefront of the Australian Government’s response to the pandemic.”

The department explained how the travel exemption process was initially undertaken via an email-based system up to July 17, but this was superseded by a purpose-built service delivery platform that made it easier to submit and track travel exemption requests.

“By the time it was closed, the travel exemptions process had involved decisions on nearly 1.2 million requests for inbound and outbound travel exemptions,” Home Affairs said.

Home Affairs also confirmed they monitored social media content for harmful “misinformation and disinformation” about COVID-19 during the pandemic.

The department referred more than 4,799 social media posts to social media companies for review and more than 3,000 were removed or actioned.

“Between 16 March 2020 and 19 May 2023, 4,726 social media posts were referred to digital industry for review against their content policies and terms of service, of these, 3,098 were actioned by the relevant social media company with content removed or its distribution reduced,” the department said.

“The contract supporting the COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation referrals expired on 30 June 2023 and was not renewed, and the Department no longer undertakes this function.”

COVID-19 Response Inquiry Panel Overwhelmed by Response

The COVID-19 inquiry is reviewing the Commonwealth government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and accepted submissions between Nov. 6 and Dec. 15.

The COVID-19 Response Inquiry panel said they had been “overwhelmed” by the openness and willingness of more than 2,000 people and organisations who had taken the time to share their insights.

“There was a common theme in the submissions of wanting to capture the lessons learned, before they were lost to the passage of time,” the panel said.

“Four years on since the start of the pandemic, as a panel, we share that sense of importance and urgency to better prepare for a future event.”

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said the submissions have only been published with the author’s agreement.

“All submissions have been reviewed prior to publication and some submissions have been redacted in part to protect the privacy of respondents or others, or to meet the guidelines outlined in our privacy notice,” the department said.