Just when we thought it was safe to go out and about, Covid19 has once again put much of Australia on high alert, following the latest virus outbreak in New South Wales. And with impeccable timing, this cluster has emerged only a few days before the Christmas holidays – peak super-spreader season. On top of the months of lock-down, working from home, toilet paper shortages, job losses, food deliveries, economic disruption, closed borders, non-stop streaming, social distancing, restricted movements, panic buying, mask wearing, night-time curfews, Zoom calls, on-line shopping, cancelled events and home-made entertainment, we now have the prospect of a muted festive period. Like most people, I will be glad to see the back of 2020 – not that 2021 will necessarily be a whole lot better, given the ongoing rates of infection around the world, and the other knock-on effects of the pandemic.
My holiday plans are all mapped out….
Overall, I can count myself fortunate to have had a “good pandemic” – I managed to keep working from home, I don’t work in any of the front line sectors (health, education, hospitality, logistics, tourism), I live close to public parks and open spaces for daily exercise, and none of my immediate family or circle of friends caught the virus (although I have spoken to a number of people who were not so lucky). However, my travel plans were severely disrupted, so I have been unable to see any of my family overseas, and the prospect of visiting them in 2021 still looks remote.
As I write, the Report into Victoria’s failed Hotel Quarantine Program has just been released. The findings conclude that no single person was responsible for the ill-fated decision to engage private security firms to enforce the quarantine restrictions (which in turn led to Victoria’s second wave and Stage 4 lock-down for over 100 days). Instead, the Report underscores the notion of “acquiescence” (and “creeping assumptions“) – and of course, the failure of governance and proper decision-making.
The significance of this Report is now being brought into stark relief in light of the latest NSW outbreak – which appears to be as a result of a breach in hotel quarantine measures. Having read the Executive Summary, it’s clear that respective Victorian government departments and agencies charged with implementing and managing the HQP did not understand their specific roles and responsibilities. Regardless of the decision to engage private security firms, it seems that the procurement process was seriously flawed; and even if the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Resources was not at fault in how it hired certain private-sector security firms, it’s a serious oversight (and failure of process) that neither it nor the Department of Health and Human Services were fully aware of who was accountable for monitoring these contractors.
Of course, the ramifications of the US Presidential Election and a no-deal Brexit are still playing out – and the New Year is unlikely to bring immediate closure. For myself, I am lying low and staying close to home during the Saturnalia celebrations. As the above photo suggests, my plans involve nothing much more than catching up on my reading, and exploring my wine collection. Consequently, this blog will be taking a break for a few weeks, but I trust that this holiday season will bring a welcome respite from the events of 2020 for you and yours. Thanks for reading.
A couple of weekends ago in Melbourne, the question on many peoples’ minds was, “Are we there yet?” Namely, had the rate of new Covid-19 cases slowed down to the point where we could start to emerge from one of the longest and strictest lock-downs in the world? The answer was, “Yes, but not to the satisfaction of the government and their public health advisers.” So the opening up was pushed back again, having been brought forward by the very same government. It felt like the goal posts had been moved, and despite the huge sacrifices made by the general population, we were being asked to take a “cautious pause”.
No wonder some people got a bit uptight, and it took some tedious questioning from the media to establish what the Premier could have said at the outset of his umpteenth daily press conference. Yes, the Premier was tired, and he had been up late the night before, and he’d done over 100 pressers on the trot by that point. But you could hear and see the exasperation in his voice and in his body language as he realised how he’d managed to miscommunicate what should have been positive news – i.e., “We’re very close, everyone, and thank you all for your efforts, but just to be absolutely sure, please give me a couple of days more before I can confirm the decisions the government have already made.”
At the time of writing, people in Melbourne are still under pandemic restrictions, some of which have been in place since March:
There is a limit on the number of people who can come to your home
There is also a limit on the size of gatherings in public
You can’t travel more than 25km from home
You can’t travel outside the Greater Melbourne area
Retail and hospitality are only allowed to open under strict conditions
Everyone must wear a face mask in public
And while there are some exceptions to each of the above, under the current State of Emergency, the government can rescind or reimpose each and every condition, or add new ones as they deem appropriate – including re-introduction of the overnight curfew, which seems to have been a political decision as much as one made on grounds of public health or public order.
I should say that I was in favour of the first lock-down in Victoria. In fact, I was actually glad that the Victorian Premier took a more conservative approach than some of his counterparts, which meant that during lock-down #1, Victoria appeared to be doing a much better job than NSW in containing the spread of the virus, when comparing the daily number of new cases in March and April. But I think the Victorian government should have gone harder when they had the chance, to nip it in the bud:
However, masks weren’t made compulsory until much later during the so-called second wave, and lock-down #2. There could be several reasons for this:
Medical opinion was divided as to the efficacy of masks
The government wanted to reserve supplies for medical and other front line workers
There was inadequate public supply, partly because stocks had been diverted to regions impacted by the summer bush fires (and, initially, some local stocks had been donated to aid projects and sent overseas to China)
There were already too many other social behaviour changes that were needed, and which were deemed a higher priority
I’m not sure why there is still so much local resistance to wearing masks in public. Many people think it’s an infringement of their civil liberties, or they question the science, or they simply don’t like being told what to do. For men, I wonder if they feel that wearing a mask somehow emasculates them? For women, does it make them feel even more invisible than they already are in society? And for the ardent civil libbers, don’t any of them understand the concept of the mutual duty of care we each owe to our fellow citizens (even the self-styled, self-sovereign ones)? Having spent a lot of time in Asia, where social norms mean it is quite common to see people wearing masks in public, I guess I am less resistant to the idea. So much so, that I started wearing them in Melbourne before they became mandatory.
Of course, over 90% of locally-acquired cases which caused the second wave of new infections were directly the result of the failed hotel quarantine programme in two Melbourne hotels. I’ve commented on this fiasco before, and now the recent Board of Inquiry set up to investigate what happened has asked for an extension before delivering its verdict, owing to the late submission of evidence by key witnesses, including civil servants, public officials and elected representatives. As I wrote previously, the decision to engage private security to manage the quarantine programme is not the issue – it’s the decision-making process itself (referred to as “creeping assumptions”), and the oversight of the programme once it was established.
At this stage, we still don’t know who made the decision to hire private security companies; it’s not entirely clear which government department had oversight of the programme, as there was confusion and poor communication between departments; it’s also not clear whether the chosen security companies were on existing lists of Commonwealth- or State- approved contractors – and if they weren’t, what criteria were applied to employ them? And how did the other states manage to avoid the same level of community transmission that could have come from their own quarantine measures?
Anyone who has worked in or around government procurement will know how difficult it is to get on a contractor “panel”, and even then, the tendering process can be arduous and opaque. From my own experience, governments often use RFI/RFP/RFQ processes to glean as much intelligence as they can (with a view to keeping the project in-house), or to simply drive down the price, rather than to get the most qualified supplier at the best and most appropriate commercial rate. (And of course, there are examples of ex-civil servants forming their own businusses in order to tender for work they used to allocate – using their insider knowledge to the detriment of other bidders. In some cases, the civil servants don’t even wait to leave office….)
I appreciate there is a widely-held view that the breakdown in the hotel quarantine programme was not the only or direct cause of the second wave in Melbourne; but even if it were, it was the failure of the Commonwealth government to manage properly the private aged care facilities under their jurisdiction, which in turn revealed huge vulnerabilities in that sector, leading to the death of around 800 elderly Victorian residents from Covid-19. While I don’t doubt the inadequacies in aged care “settings”, I would have more sympathy with this argument if we had seen the same level of infections in aged care facilities in other states, particularly NSW, given that each state is under the same regime. The “mishaps” of the hotel quarantine programme sit front and centre as the root causes of the second wave, leading to the much severer lock-down #2.
Meanwhile, although the Premier likes to thank everyone for “doing the right thing” during the lock-down, he and his administration had a highly subjective attitude towards those members of the public who clearly weren’t doing the right thing. At times the rhetoric was merely ambivalent; other times it was highly ambiguous; occasionally it was disingenuous (if not wrong). This inconsistency and selective admonishment helped create further confusion among the public about how/when the various lock-down restrictions would be enforced. Worse, it sowed the seeds of growing discontent and underlying resentment in many parts of the community. And not helped by the apparent assertion that community cases among health care workers were all acquired in domestic “settings”, rather than in workplace “settings”.
Some of the other factors that may have contributed to Victoria’s second wave (and which have inter-state and national implications going forward as the domestic borders begin to re-open) include:
A highly centralised public health system (the current Premier was formerly the state Minister for Health, so no doubt he will have some views on that)
Inadequate PPE supplied to front-line medical staff and health workers in hospitals and clinics
Poor inter-departmental and inter-agency communication and co-ordination (plus those “creeping assumptions”)
A poor culture of “managing up” within ministerial offices (oh, and those “creeping assumptions”)
Confusion over respective roles and responsibilities, for example, as between the Chief Health Officer, the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Preventive Health Officer
“Track and trace” systems not fit for purpose
Lack of common definitions across the country – e.g., hot spot, complex case, mystery case, locally acquired case, quarantine and isolation periods, close contact, etc.
Lack of common IT systems for “track and trace” – so without inter-state interoperability, how is that going to work as people start traveling around the country again?
One “common” definition that definitely needs to be established is what constitutes a “household”? I’m not sure if there is a practical legal definition – maybe the Census form is one point of reference? (Perhaps another “test” is the supermarket offer, which usually says “only 1 per household”?) I would have said that a “household” is defined as a group of people who ordinarily live in the same dwelling or residence (whether a house, apartment, unit, rooming house, care home or hostel), regardless of whether they are related to one another, and regardless of whether they consider themselves as “living together”. Conversely “household” does not automatically mean everyone in your immediate or extended family. Where the lines have become blurred is when family members are frequently in each other’s homes for the purposes of sharing meals, care-giving or child-minding. The issue is not one of mere semantics – as we have seen, it is critical both in terms of preventing community transmission, and in enforcing quarantine and isolation measures.
Finally, I should also stress that I am very grateful to be living in Australia at present during this global pandemic, especially given the situation in many other countries. But at the risk of sounding parochial, I really would like to understand why Victoria got it so wrong (and has had to endure a second and onerous lock-down), and how NSW (so far) appears to have got it just about right.
Even if the recent Board of Inquiry into Victorian Hotel Quarantine Program does not reveal who actually made the now fatal decision to engage private security companies, it will have at least added a new phrase to the lexicon of public discourse – the notion of “creeping assumptions”.
To recap, based on the evidence presented during the public hearings, we have been led to believe that no single person, department or government agencymade the all-important decision. Instead, we are left to conclude that this was a decision made by default, based on a series of “creeping assumptions”.
What this suggests is that rather than a conscious or affirmative decision, the parties relied on their own interpretation of unfolding events and information flows to conclude that someone else had made the call to outsource hotel security, and as a consequence everyone involved simply went along with it. As I have pointed out before, the decision to engage private contractors is not the issue. But it does beggar belief that even if nobody could recall who made the decision, they could not point to the information that informed their assumptions, nor could they specify who instructed the drawing up of the commercial contracts. As a result, the Victorian Government has spent $6m to find out who signed off on $30m of expenditure.
Anyway, one of the consequences of these so-called creeping assumptions is that the decision-making was deeply flawed because it lacked process, scrutiny and accountability:
Process was clearly missing (unless the Inquiry finds otherwise), because of the absence of documented minutes or formal note-taking.
There was no scrutiny of the “decision”, to confirm the various dependencies and delegated authorities that initiated the contracts issued to private contractors.
And the fact that no-one can be identified as being responsible for the decision, could mean that no-one can be held accountable.
If nothing else, this will become a case study for students of politics, public administration, and corporate governance.
How old is old enough to know better? In particular, when can we be said to be responsible, and therefore accountable, for our actions? (All the recent political shenanigans around “collective accountability”, “departmental responsibility”, “creeping assumptions” and “ministerial conduct” has got me thinking….)
By the time we are 7 years of age, we should probably know the difference between “right and wrong”, at least in the context of home, school, culturally and socially – “don’t tell lies, don’t be rude to your elders, don’t steal, don’t hit your siblings…”
The age for criminal responsibility varies around the world, but the global average is between 10 and 14 years. In Australia, it is currently 10, but there are proposals to extend it to 14. While I can understand and appreciate some of the arguments in favour of the latter, I’m also aware that criminal intent (not just criminal acts or behaviour) can establish itself under the age of 10 – I’m thinking of the James Bulger case in the UK in particular.
Legally, 18 is the coming of age – for entering into contracts, getting married (without the need for parental approval), earning the right to vote, the ability to purchase alcohol and tobacco. But you can have sex, and start driving a car from the age of 16.
As a society, we appear to be extending the age at which we become “responsible adults”. The concept of “adolescence” emerged in the 15th century, to indicate a transition to adulthood. The notion of “childhood” appeared in the 17th century, mainly from a philosophical perspective. While “teenagers” are a mid-20th century marketing phenomenon.
However, we now have evidence that our brains do not finish maturing until our third decade – so cognitively, it could be argued we are not responsible for our actions or decisions until we are at least 25, because our judgment is not fully developed. In which case, it rather begs the question about our ability to procreate, drink, drive and vote….
Of course, many age-based demarcations are cultural and societal. Customary practices such as initiation ceremonies are still significant markers in a person’s development and their status in the community (including their rights and responsibilities).
Which brings me to social media – shouldn’t we also be responsible and held accountable for what we post, share, comment on or simply like on Facebook, Twitter etc.? Whether you believe in “nature” or “nurture”, some academics argue we always have a choice before we hit that button – so shouldn’t that be a guiding principle to live by?