I now have a statement from @VicGovDHHS in response to my asking for greater clarity on the relocation issue. Here it is in full:
DHHS:"Alternative accommodation is available for all confirmed cases and close contacts at the North Melbourne and Flemington estates, who wish to relocate – including 33 Alfred Street.
DHHS:"More than 20 households have accepted this offer to date across the two estates, but the majority have chosen to isolate in their own homes.
DHHS: "Residents have been informed of the offer through on the ground communications at Flemington and North Melbourne, and through community leaders. This offer will be reiterated through door knocking at 33 Alfred Street over the weekend.
DHHS:"The department respects the privacy of patients and does not provide details about individual cases unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of public health." End of DHHS statement.
My comment: Good to hear the offer will be reiterated at 33 Alfred, given that some residents have not yet got the message, on my information. Good to be told the accommodation is available if wanted.
The information about the messaging at Flemington should be compared to the statements of Mr Elhadi Abass and my own previous thread...
..but I believe things may now be improving fast. The Ombudsman is on the case and a number of people with backchannels have been raising concerns and seem to be being listened to. So enough for now. As always, 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…