COVID positive residents of the Flemington and North Melbourne public housing towers are not being given alternative accommodation, putting other tenants and the wider community at risk, according to community leaders.
Only 19 COVID positive cases and their close contacts from the towers subjected to hard lockdown have been moved to alternative accommodaton, according to figures given by @VicGovDHHS yesterday. (see my thread yesterday) This is despite a total of 243 COVID positive cases.
Mr Elhadi Abass, a tower resident and the manager of the Multicultural Sudanese Centre on the Flemington estate, said this morning that @VicGovDHHS was not doing enough to encourage COVID positive residents to move.
This meant that in some cases a COVID positive person was living in the same flat and sharing a bathroom with COVID negative family members, he said. The failure to move COVID positive residents risked undermining the rationale for the lockdown.
The wider community was also at risk because all but one of the nine towers subjected to the hard lockdown has now been moved to Stage 3 restrictions, meaning COVID negative people had returned to work, Mr Abass said.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the community of volunteers supporting residents at #33Alfred Street - the tower which is still in hard lockdown - said some COVID positive residents wanted to move, but had not been given the option of doing so.
This was despite the Premier, Daniel Andrews, saying that COVID positive residents of the towers would be "strongly encouraged" to move to government-provided alternative accommodation.
The spokesperson said that if the hard lockdown of the Alfred Street tower ended as scheduled this coming Saturday, the failure to move COVID positive cases meant that neighbours who had been in close contact would be out in the community and back at work.
"What's the point been of this awful lockdown if that happens?" she said. The Alfred Street tower had its lockdown extended because of a high number of COVID positive cases, with the authorities saying up to 25 per cent of the residents might test positive over time.
Mr Abass said he had raised the issue of COVID positive residents not being moved at a meeting with police and DHHS representatives, but that the response had been unsatisfactory.
He said he had tried to persuade DHHS and police to keep a watch on the floors containing COVID positive cases, but allow other residents to return to a more normal life - including using the communal laundries which are currently closed.
At the moment, the government is providing a limited laundry service to residents, but they are also having to wash clothes in their bathrooms.
Mr Abass said that many COVID positive residents were still confused about the pandemic, the reasons for the lockdown and the restrictions they were meant to be observing.
Information had been posted in the lifts to the towers, but not all of those affected were literate, he said. "I told the Department you have to work hard to explain and persuade the people," he said. "But I was told that they cannot be forced.
"I'm not talking about forcing them. I am talking about working harder to make sure they understand, and letting them know about what the alternatives are."
The Victorian Government placed nine public housing towers in Flemington and North Melbourne in "hard lockdown" two Saturdays ago without warning, meaning tenants were not permitted to leave their flats for any reason.
After chaotic implementation, and mass testing, eight towers were released to Stage 3 restrictions last Thursday, but the tower at 33 Alfred Street remains on hard lockdown.
There have been continued tensions between the heavy police presence at 33 Alfred Street and volunteers supporting the residents, although consultation with the community has gradually improved.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible both for the lockdown and for public housing, said yesterday that a community working group now met daily and that community members were also on the management team overseeing the lockdown.
The @VicGovDHHS has been approached for comment on the community leaders' concerns, but has not yet responded. I will report its response as soon as it is available.
• • •
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…