I have returned from my morning exercise walk around the Flemington and North Melbourne estates. Here is what I saw. Very much reduced police presence on the Flemington estate. Saw just one police vehicle and no actualy police. Cleaners in hazmat were on the estate.
..residents ambling around Debney's Park, kicking balls etc. #33alfred also quiet. There seemed to be more @VicGovDHHS staff on "the doors" rather than police - though still plenty of police around as well. I asked one of the workers if this was a change of policy,
...and they referred me to @VicGovDHHS media, which means I may get an answer later. In the meantime, if any of the workers on site who follows me wants to speed things up, my DMs are open and I protect my sources.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Things I'd like to see in #ausvotes reporting. A thread. 1. A dispassionate analysis of Albanese's time as infrastructure minister, given this is his answer to claim he has not held economic portfolio. Interview the ppl he dealt with, look at the projects etc.
This more revealing than memory tests, I think. 2. Question both leaders on how they can claim to be good economic managers without talking about productivity. 3 Given housing affordability is a topic today, time to ask both sides about
..the impact of capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing on this. 4. What about tax reform? Any ideas at all on this? Too hard for both sides? 5. Housing is the topic 2day, so we should be seeing a contest betwn Sukkar and Clare - assess the teams, not only the leaders
I’ve talked to a few ppl this week about why they are waiting to get vaccine (as opposed to out and out anti). Here are some “reasons” plus the counter argument.
“I want to wait for more data” (with the assumption that it is safe to do so). Counter argument: we know heaps. Millions round the world have had it.
And it is not safe to wait. Public health authority yesterday told me only a matter of time before there is a breakout. Indian variety much more infectious. Winter is coming.
Meanwhile Minister Neville pushes back against counsel assisting's suggestion she "was in a positiong to disagree" with use of private security. She says no matter who made the decision, it was DHHS who was primarily responsible for implementation and management.
Last thoughts from me for this evening. The VicPol National Cabinet argument is important and interesting. Raises issues of Cabinet confidentiality as it applies to national cabinet. Having said that, fwiw I think the focus on who made the private security decision is a bit daft.
NOBODY involved forsaw the problems with that workforce at the time. They probably should have - there had been an inquiry into the private security industry that laid out the issues. But nobody did.
Very significant: VicPol submission squarely places responsibility for decision to use private security on NATIONAL CABINET. [Interesting]
VicPol submission pushes back against counsel assisting's assertion that the decision to use private security was a "creeping assumption" in context of VicPol expressed reluctance to be chiefly responsible
VicPol says the evidence supports finding that a decision WAS made and that Dept of Premier was breifing people this was an "outcome" of national cabinet.
DHHS rejects counsel assisting's submissions that the evidence shows a "schism" within the department on the involvement of public health team (ie Helps says they were involved/responsible, Sutton says they were sidelined).
"It is not controversial that ... there were differing views held by persons within the Public Health and Emergency Management Divisions of the Department as to the level of engagement and accountability of each Division in the running of the Program." DHHS submisssion
"Given that witnesses Professor Sutton and Dr Romanes openly criticised the appointment of Ms Spiteri and Mr Helps, it is unfathomable that it can now be suggested that there was some attempt to give an impression of harmony." DHHS submission
The counsel assisting submission paints a picture of dysfunction and dispute in DHHS, casts doubt on evidence given by Helps and Peake and broadly accepts Sutton's evidence that he was not aware of private security use
Also critical of Minter Ellison, and notes that "it could never be the case" that Sutton could instruct the solicitors not to produce relevant documents, as some media read an earlier document from Minters to allege. See my earlier reporting on this here: theguardian.com/australia-news…