Trust in government is an essential foundation to a successful pandemic response, given the need for people to drastically change their behaviour to avoid adverse outcomes such as severe illness and death.²⁵ Additionally, the public need to trust that their government is competently making decisions in their best interests, using reliable evidence, and engaging with trusted experts and institutions, as well as trusting that other people will follow the government’s directions.

At the outset of the COVID‑19 pandemic, Australians largely did what was asked of them and complied with public health orders that significantly restricted their movements and freedoms. This reflected a high level of trust in government that increased at the beginning of the pandemic, together with a general fear of personal harm, and a willingness to make individual sacrifices for the collective good.

Australians’ ability to band together and make these sacrifices was demonstrated when lockdowns and quarantine requirements were first implemented. Restrictions had not been included in pandemic planning as there was a belief that people would not be willing to adhere to these strict controls. However, when leaders enacted these controls, the high level of public engagement put these beliefs to rest.

The initial strengthening of trust in government did not continue for the duration of the pandemic response. By the second year, restrictions on personal freedoms were less accepted across Australia as outbreaks tended to be short lived and infection rates remained low. The decrease in levels of trust reflects the complexity of the relationship between trust and engagement – trust is vital to ensuring adherence to life‑saving restrictions, but those same restrictions could risk increasing distrust the more effective they are and the longer they are in place.²⁷

The Inquiry heard that there were many reasons for the decrease in trust. These varied within and across jurisdictions, but common drivers included concerns about the lack of transparency in and supporting evidence for decision‑making, poor communication, the stringency and duration of restrictions, the implementation of mandated measures, access to vaccines and inconsistencies in state and territory responses.

During the pandemic, the advice underpinning the imposition or extension of control measures and the evidence that the measures were working or set at the right level were rarely made public. This fed the perception that the government did not trust the public to understand or interpret the information correctly²⁸ and contributed to the decrease in trust.

People also felt that restrictive measures became increasingly inappropriate over the long term and were too heavy‑handed and controlling, and that there was a lack of compassion and too few exceptions based on needs and circumstances.²⁹ Any future public health emergency response should consider fairness and proportionality when implementing and enforcing restrictive measures, especially beyond the alert phase when more evidence‑based approaches are advisable.

The Inquiry’s public consultation indicated that it was the mandating of public health restrictions, especially vaccination, that had the biggest negative impact on trust. The combination of mandatory measures and the perception people had that they were unable to criticise or question government decisions and policies has contributed to non‑mandated vaccination rates falling to dangerously low levels.³⁰

Different approaches being taken across the states and territories also led to distrust. Initially, National Cabinet was united in its approach, but this unity waned over the course of the pandemic and at times there were contradictory explanations of decisions by leaders, further fuelling confusion and mistrust.

While different approaches across states and territories could be appropriate where local conditions or different population risk profiles demanded them, some differences were not easily explained, and no rationale was provided. This included the operation of state border closures that states enacted unilaterally and that lacked consistency and compassion in implementation.

It is also important to acknowledge the individual nature of trust, as prior life experience or negative pandemic experiences impacting close family, friends and colleagues were reported to have undermined people’s trust in government. This again highlights the need for increased compassion when enforcing restrictions in a future crisis, and the protective effect this can have on maintaining trust.