The Labor Party's Pandemic Response: A Different Approach?

With the Labor Party not in power during the height of the pandemic, many wonder about the pandemic response that would have been implemented had they been in charge. While it is impossible to definitively say, there are some key areas where their approach might have differed significantly from the current government’s.

One of the biggest criticisms of the current government, particularly at the federal level, is the distribution of contracts to unvetted contractors. If the Labor Party had been in power, this would likely have been more tightly regulated, which could have prevented some of the issues we’ve seen. Additionally, the importance of heeding scientific advice, rather than political expediency, would have been emphasized. This is particularly true during the outbreak of the ERG (Environment, Rita, and George) group at the government.

Their approach would have been more akin to that of successful state leaders such as Daniel Andrews, Mark McGowan, and Jacinda Ardern. For instance, they might have built a Commonwealth quarantine facility that was ready and functional by now. They would also have ordered sufficient vaccines in a timely manner and ensured that those in need received support. Contrast this with the handling of the situation by Gladys Berejiklian and Donald Trump, who left the crisis management to a degree of laissez-faire approach.

Building a Successful Vaccine Rollout

One of the most critical steps in responding to a pandemic is the successful rollout of vaccines. The Labor Party would have taken a more strategic approach to this. They might have imported as many and as diverse vaccines as possible and stored them in a central distribution facility. This would have allowed states and territories to purchase the necessary vaccines at cost, based on the advice of their chief medical officers. This method contrasts starkly with the Liberal-National Party’s (LNP) tendency to politicize health crises.

Comparison to Other Leaders

It’s important to note that while the Liberal-National Party (LNP) at the federal level has faced criticism for its governance during the pandemic, it is reasonable to assume that the Labor Party’s response would have been similar. Both parties often claim to follow and respect scientific advice, and it is presumed that they would make similar decisions given the same advice. There is some speculation from Labor spokespeople that they might have acted differently, particularly in quarantine measures and vaccine distribution. However, these claims are based on hindsight, and it is crucial to recognize that the situation was complex and ever-evolving.

While Labor premiers have managed virus outbreaks effectively at the state level, a national-scale response might have shown some differences. For example, the early stages of the pandemic saw some leaders delay lockdowns for dogmatic reasons, which contributed to prolonged periods of community transmission. If Labor had been in charge, they might have been more proactive in addressing vaccination in care homes, which received insufficient attention under the current government’s leadership.

The vaccine program under Labor would likely have followed a different path. While Labor supported an EU rollout strategy, which has faced delays, it is possible that this approach might have led to a slower but more controlled rollout. In contrast, the UK, with its earlier success, might have set a standard for rapid and efficient vaccine distribution, which Labor might have aimed to emulate.

While the overall picture might be mixed, the key takeaway is that a different political approach could have led to a more streamlined and centralized response to the pandemic. This could have resulted in fewer logistical and communication issues, leading to better public health outcomes.