Yesterday (see thread) I Tweeted a story about residents of the Flemington and North Melbourne public housing towers not being moved to alternative accommodation, which community leaders feared put others at risk. I had put questions to @VicGovDHHS
This is of particular concern, because if the schedule for #33Alfred street still holds, those residents will move to Stage 3 restrictions tomorrow, presumably with positive COVID cases still expected to observe quarantine.
I now have the response. I am afraid it won't answer everyone's questions. Read to end of thread for followup. But here is the DHHS statement in full:
DHHS: "Tenant health and safety is the department’s priority as we work to slow the spread of coronavirus in the community together.
DHHS: "The department continues to work across government and with local leaders and the community services sector to source and offer alternative accommodation for any tenants who wish to be relocated temporarily.
DHHS: "A decision has been made not to place security personnel on each floor of high rises at Flemington and North Melbourne due to rigorous infection control protocols.
DHHS: "Local Police are door knocking apartments of residents who have tested positive to ensure that they are isolating as required.
DHHS: "This is part of an assertive community engagement approach which includes clear public messaging on isolation requirements and health restrictions. In addition, there are police on site where required.
DHHS: "The department continues to provide information to residents with material in more than 12 languages to ensure all residents understand what they need to do to stay safe and protect their community.
DHHS: "We continue to reach out to residents to ensure they have easy access to testing. We have worked to make testing accessible for residents and we continue to work with residents and community leaders, and volunteers, government colleagues and community agencies to provide..
DHHS: ".. information to tenants, and to keep residents and their families safe.
DHHS: "There are currently a total of 189 active cases across the North Melbourne and Flemington high rises. Nine public housing towers in North Melbourne and Flemington were placed into lockdown on 4 July after 23 cases across more than 12 households were identified the housing
DHHS: " estates [sic]. Testing of all residents at the towers has been undertaken.
Two field emergency management units were established at the North Melbourne and Flemington sites – staffed by medical workers, GPs and nurses, ...
DHHS: "..with pharmacotherapy and medicines – to provide onsite care for residents at the public housing estates.
DHHS: "This includes mental health and drug and alcohol support from both peer-support workers and clinicians. Importantly we are working closely with community groups and local health organisations that already have established relationships with those who live in the estates.
DHHS: "The Inner North coronavirus (COVID-19) Response Line will provide information and support to the residents in the restricted postcodes and public housing estates. Further information is available on 1800 961 054 with an interpreter service available on 131 450"
That concludes the @VicGovDHHS statement. What follows is my commentary. First, it doesn't really address the concerns expressed yesterday by community leaders. Why have only 19 people been moved to alternative accommodation out of 189 active cases (previously advised as 243 ..
...so presumably some have recovered?). What does the reference to working across government etc mean? Are there not enough hotel rooms etc which was the accommodation previously mentioned as being on offer?
The comment about security personnel on each floor is a response to Mr Elhadi Abbass's suggestion, see yesterday's twitter thread.
Local police door knocking - of course this is also in place for those in quarantine in the wider community. But in this community in particular my guess is that it isn't the best way to seek compliance and trusting collaboration with the "assertive" approach.
I plan to ask some follow up questions today. If anyone has questions they would like to suggest, my DMs are open.
• • •
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…