We need to put to bed this issue of 'with or due to' COVID
In the final days of July 2022, Australia found itself accounting for two kinds of loss at once — the misallocation of public money meant to serve regional communities, and the lives of more than eleven thousand people taken by a pandemic still unfolding. The audit of a regional grants program revealed a pattern of political favoritism that the new government was eager to name, while the nation's chief medical officer called for an end to the semantic evasions that had allowed some to minimize the pandemic's human toll. Together, these reckonings pointed toward a country attempting, with uneven grace, to confront what had been done in its name.
- An audit found that Nationals-held seats received over $100 million in regional grants that merit assessments had not recommended, with Liberal seats receiving twice as many grants as Labor seats — a pattern the new infrastructure minister called having 'hands in the cookie jar.'
- The Nationals leader dismissed the criticism as a matter of geography, arguing his party simply represents most of regional Australia, while the minister most directly responsible for the decisions was unreachable, on personal leave following a family bereavement.
- Australia's chief medical officer confronted a politically charged debate head-on, declaring that COVID had 'primarily or absolutely' contributed to 85% of the nation's 11,500-plus deaths, pushing back against rhetoric that framed many of those deaths as inevitable or incidental.
- On this single Friday, 157 Australians died with COVID, more than 5,000 were hospitalized, and over 200 were in intensive care — with the elderly over 80 bearing the heaviest share of the pandemic's ongoing burden.
- The government signaled a structural shift in its pandemic preparedness by beginning planning for a national disease control center — an institution that Australia, alone among wealthy nations, had never established — alongside a Medicare taskforce to address gaps the crisis had exposed.
On a Friday morning in late July, Australia was navigating two separate moments of institutional reckoning — one about how pandemic-era money had been spent, the other about how the pandemic's dead had been counted.
The first centered on the Building Better Regions Fund. An audit office investigation found that seats held by the Nationals had received more than $100 million in grants that merit-based assessments had not recommended, with Liberal seats receiving twice as many grants as Labor seats. The previous Coalition government had routinely set aside departmental advice, citing unspecified 'other factors.' Catherine King, the new infrastructure minister, said plainly that the Nationals had 'their hands in the cookie jar.' Nationals leader David Littleproud offered a measured shrug in response — his party represents most of regional Australia, he said, and the fund was designed for regional communities. The minister most directly responsible for the decisions, Barnaby Joyce, was on personal leave following his father's death and unavailable for comment.
The second reckoning was about death itself. Chief medical officer Paul Kelly, speaking at the Australian Medical Association's national conference, called for an end to the debate over whether Australians had died 'with' or 'from' COVID — a distinction that had been used by some politicians to suggest the deaths were less significant because many victims were already elderly or unwell. Kelly's figures were unambiguous: of Australia's 11,500-plus COVID deaths, 72% had occurred in 2022 alone, and COVID had primarily or absolutely contributed to 85% of those cases. More than 65% of the dead were over 80. That same Friday, 157 more Australians died, over 5,000 were hospitalized, and more than 200 were in intensive care.
Kelly also announced he had been asked to begin planning for a national centre for disease control — an institution Australia had never built, and whose absence the pandemic had made impossible to ignore. The government had promised it during the election. Now, the work of constructing it would begin.
Both stories carried the same undertow: a new government trying to establish that accountability, not convenience, would shape how the recent past was understood — and how the present would be managed.
On a Friday morning in late July, Australia's political establishment was wrestling with two separate reckoning moments: one about how pandemic money had been spent, the other about how the pandemic itself had been counted.
The first involved the Nationals party and a regional grants program that had become a flashpoint. An audit office investigation into the Building Better Regions Fund had concluded that seats held by the Nationals received more than $100 million in funding that merit-based assessments had not recommended. The way the previous Coalition government had run the scheme, it turned out, involved ignoring departmental advice and factoring in what officials called "other factors" when deciding which projects to fund. Liberal seats had received twice as many grants as Labor seats. The pattern was clear enough that Catherine King, the new infrastructure minister, felt comfortable saying the Nationals had "their hands in the cookie jar" when it comes to regional funding.
David Littleproud, the Nationals leader, responded with a defense that amounted to a shrug. Of course Nationals seats got more funding, he said in a statement—the party represents most of regional Australia, and the fund was designed for regional Australia. The projects funded were focused on improving regional communities, he argued, and he challenged the Labor government to maintain the same level of spending. When King was asked at a press conference whether the Nationals' strong showing in the recent election was connected to this funding, she was direct: "There is a reason that they funded more projects in their seats." Barnaby Joyce, who had been infrastructure minister when the most recent funding decisions were made, was unavailable for comment. His office said he was on personal leave following his father's death.
The second reckoning was about death itself. Australia's chief medical officer, Paul Kelly, stood before the Australian Medical Association's national conference and called for an end to a debate that had become politically toxic: whether people had died "with" COVID or "from" COVID. The distinction had been weaponized by politicians who suggested that because some of the deceased were already in palliative care, they would have died soon anyway—a line of reasoning that struck many as callous.
Kelly's numbers were stark. Australia had now recorded more than 11,500 COVID deaths. Seventy-two percent of them had occurred in 2022 alone. In 85 percent of those cases, COVID had "primarily or absolutely" contributed to the death. More than 65 percent of the dead were over 80 years old. "We need to put to bed this issue of 'with or due to' COVID," Kelly said, making clear that the virus was cutting lives short in ways that mattered. He had written to aged care facilities instructing them to ensure residents diagnosed with COVID could see a general practitioner within 24 hours so they could potentially be prescribed antivirals that might save their lives.
On this particular Friday, the country recorded at least 157 COVID deaths. Victoria accounted for 107 of them, including 105 that had been delayed in reporting due to a data feed problem. New South Wales recorded 22 deaths. Queensland recorded 17. The others were scattered across the remaining states and territories. Across the country, more than 5,000 people were in hospital with COVID, and more than 200 were in intensive care.
Kelly also announced that he had been asked by the health minister to begin strategic planning around establishing a national centre for disease control—something Australia, uniquely among wealthy nations, had never had. The pandemic had made the absence of such an institution painfully obvious. The government had promised one during the election campaign. Now the work of building it would begin.
As the day's news cycled through, there was a sense of institutions trying to reckon with what had happened and what it meant. The audit into regional grants was about accountability for how money had been distributed. The chief medical officer's statement was about accountability for how deaths had been counted and discussed. Both pointed toward a government trying to reset after a change in power, trying to establish that things would be done differently now.
Citas Notables
The National party have had their hands in the cookie jar when it comes to regional funding— Catherine King, infrastructure minister
We need to put to bed this issue of 'with or due to' COVID. COVID is cutting people's lives tragically short— Paul Kelly, chief medical officer
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter that the Nationals got more funding than the audit said they should have?
Because it suggests the previous government was using public money to shore up its own political position rather than following the process it had set up. The audit found they ignored their own department's recommendations.
But Littleproud's point—that the Nationals represent rural areas and the fund was for rural areas—doesn't that make sense?
It would, if the fund had been allocated purely on merit. But the audit found they added "other factors" into the decision-making. That's code for political considerations.
What's the connection between that and the election result?
King was suggesting that by funding projects in Nationals seats, they were essentially buying goodwill in those communities. It's hard to prove directly, but the timing and the pattern make it suggestive.
Now, the COVID deaths number—157 in one day seems high. Is that unusual?
It's significant, but some of it is a data catch-up. Victoria had 105 deaths that hadn't been reported yet because of a technical problem. Still, the broader point Kelly was making is that we shouldn't minimize these deaths by saying people were dying anyway.
Why was he so insistent about the "with or from" distinction?
Because politicians had been using it to downplay the pandemic's severity. If you can say someone was already dying, it sounds less like COVID killed them. Kelly was saying that's false comfort. COVID was shortening lives.
What does a centre for disease control actually do?
It coordinates disease surveillance and response across the country. Australia didn't have one, which meant there was no single entity pulling together data and strategy. The pandemic exposed that gap badly.