Expats vs Ingrates?

Just as we were starting to think that Australia has largely beaten Covid, the past few weeks has seen the topic heat up again on a number of fronts, especially the thorny issue of border control.

First, a series of community outbreaks in and around Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne were all traced back directly or indirectly to returning overseas travellers. This again brought the hotel quarantine programme into the spotlight – and given the poor record of Victoria’s HQP management (which led to the Stage 4 lock-down for much of last year, as well as causing several hundred deaths among aged care residents), State Governments are under increased scrutiny not to stuff it up (again).

Second, there are something like 35,000 Australian citizens living and working overseas who are still trying to get home. Since many of them are based in countries with escalating infection rates (and extra-contagious strains of Coronavirus), it’s no wonder there is a lot of circumspection about bringing them back in a hurry. While I have a lot of sympathy for those expats who are stranded overseas, at the same time, they went abroad by choice. There is always a risk that international travel can be disrupted, as we have witnessed with increased regularity over the past 20 years, thanks to terrorism, volcanoes, tsunamis and geopolitical events. However, this has not stopped some expats complaining that their fellow Australians don’t want them back; some have been highly critical of this “smug” attitude: “we’re all right, but you can stay away and fend for yourselves”.

Third, the latest domestic border closures left numerous Victorian residents stuck in NSW. Many of them had only recently managed to travel interstate for the holidays, having just emerged from months of local lock-down. No doubt some of those affected may have a bit more sympathy for those Australians stranded abroad?

Of course, all these border restrictions might not be so hard to stomach if we didn’t have the spectacle of professional sports players being flown in (specially from overseas) to hit a few balls around. The fact that one cohort of these international visitors has managed to bring Covid back into the country is not helping. Nor the fact that a few of these over-paid sports “stars” and their partners appear to be acting like spoiled brats as they endure quarantine in 5-star hotels…..

Talk about being ungrateful.

Next week: The Day That Can’t Be Named…

Responsibility vs Accountability

One of the issues to have emerged from the response to the current coronavirus pandemic is the notion that “responsibility” is quite distinct from “accountability”.

In the Australian political arena, this is being played out in two specific aspects, both of which reveal some weaknesses in the Federal and State delineation. The first is the Ruby Princess, the passenger cruise ship that appears to have been a significant source of Covid19 infections from returning and in-bound travellers. In this case, blame or liability for the breach in quarantine measures is being kicked around between Border Force (Federal), and NSW Health (State): who was responsible and/or accountable for allowing infected passengers to disembark?

The second arises from the number of Covid19 cases among aged care residents in the Melbourne Metropolitan area. Here, the issue is the governance of aged care facilities as between privately-run homes (Federal oversight), and public homes (State operation). As an example of the strange delineation between Federal and State, “…the Victorian government mandates minimum nurse-to-resident ratios of up to one nurse for every seven residents during the day, the Commonwealth laws only call for an “adequate” number of “appropriately skilled” staff – both terms are undefined.”

As with all key areas of public policy and administration (health, education, social services), the relationship between different government departments and administrative bodies can be confusing and complex. In very broad terms, public funding comes from the Commonwealth (via direct Federal taxes and the redistribution of GST back to the States), since States have limited options to raise direct revenue (land taxes, stamp duty, payroll tax, and fees from licenses and permits). The Commonwealth funding can be allocated direct, or co-mingled with/co-dependent upon State funding. Likewise, service delivery can be direct by the Commonwealth, jointly with the States, or purely at the State (or even Local) level.

Within Victoria, there is an added dimension to the “responsibility” vs “accountability” debate, largely triggered by apparent failures in the oversight of the hotel quarantine programme. This in turn led to the second wave of Covid19 infections via community transmission (and the tragic number of deaths among aged care residents). The Premier has said he wasn’t responsible for the decision to use private firms to operate the security arrangements at the relevant hotels. In fact, the Premier appears not to have known (or wasn’t aware) who made that decision (or how/why it was made). But he does admit to being accountable for it.

Meanwhile, his departmental ministers have similarly denied knowing who made the decision, or they have said that it was a “multi-agency” response – maybe they are trying to shield each other in a strange show of cabinet collective responsibility, and to avoid apportioning direct blame to their colleagues. But if the government didn’t know who was supposed to be running the hotel quarantine programme, then surely the private security firms certainly couldn’t have known either – if so, who was paying them, and from whom did they take their orders and direction?

We are being drip-fed information on the failures in the hotel quarantine programme: did the AMA “write a letter” to the Victoria Department of Health & Human Services about their concerns over the hotel quarantine programme? did the DHHS provide “inappropriate advice” on the use of PPE by hotel security staff? did the Victorian Premier actually propose the hotel quarantine programme at National Cabinet, and then omit to request support from the police and/or the ADF?

It’s not surprising, therfore, that confusion reigns over who was responsible, and who is accountable; more importantly, who will be liable? What would be the situation if, for example, front line medical staff or employees in “high risk settings” have died from Covid19 as a result of community transmission within their workplace (itself stemming from the hotel breakout), and where there were inadequate workplace protections, especially if the latter were based on government advice and supervision?

The new offence of criminal manslaughter applies in Victoria since July 1, 2020. It will only apply to deaths caused since that date and as a result of “negligent conduct by an employer or other duty holders … or an officer of an organisation, which breaches certain duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (OHS Act) and causes the death of another person who was owed the duty”.

Finally, in reading around this topic, I came across an academic paper which discusses the treatment of responsibility, accountability and liability in the context of professional healthcare. In trying to define each from a clinical, professional and legal perspective, the author concluded that:

“….[R]esponsibility means to be responsible for ensuring that something is carried out whilst accountability moves beyond this to encompass the responsibility but adds a requirement that the healthcare professional provides an account of how they undertook the particular task. Liability moves the definition forward by adding a dimension of jeopardy to the definition of accountability. In a strict legal sense once the accountable person has provide their account they have fulfilled their duty. However, if the healthcare professional is liable rather than accountable for their action then the account they provide will be judged and, if found to be wanting, there may be a penalty for the healthcare professional.” (emphasis added)

I wonder if we should be assessing political and administrative liability by the same standard?

Next week: Startupbootcamp Demo Day – Sports & EventTech

 

 

Distractions during Lock-down

As Melbourne enters its second week of Stage 4 lock-down, I must admit to feeling a little frustrated by the whole “working from home” scenario. Even though, up until 18 months ago, I had worked from home for the previous 8 years, the past 6 months of enforced #WFH is starting to lose its appeal. The lack of social interaction is another factor, although I know we could be in a worse situation. This week I was supposed to be travelling overseas for a family wedding and to visit elderly parents – that’s not going to be happening for a while. In an attempt to cheer myself up, here are some lighter observations on how we have been keeping ourselves amused during lock-down.

  • Daily exercise – at least I can still get out for an hour’s walk each day, and perhaps grab a takeaway coffee in the process (but don’t take liberties by walking the 5kms with your mask off and empty latte cup in hand…)
  • Gadgets – online shopping has been a boon. I’ve acquired Bluetooth noise-cancelling headphones, a new iPad, a DAB+ radio, a stand-up desk, a ring-light, plus another batch of expensive Apple adaptors to cope with domestic hot-desking
  • Lounge wear – following on from the above, I haven’t worn a shirt with a collar, let alone a suit, in 6 months, so I’ve extended my informal wardrobe to embrace pyjamas that masquerade as lounge wear (or vice versa)
  • Hobbies – first it was sourdough, now my friends are into making butter, cheese and home-made gin. Others are into jigsaws, or acquiring puppies, while I read somewhere that sales of craft supplies are on the increase. Me, I’ve been catching up on home recording studio
  • Dine at home – I’m not a huge fan of takeaways (the food is often cold, and doesn’t travel well), but I’ve grown a liking for “prepare at home” meals that are keeping some local restaurants busy
  • Alcohol – latest data suggests daily consumption is up, which is understandable (but also a concern). I’ve been trying to maintain 2-3 AFD’s each week, and make sure I opt for quality over quantity
  • Clearance corner – I’m sure like me, most people have accumulated a pile of domestic items they no longer need; we are spending more time at home and discover the limits of our domestic space (and need to make room for the online shopping). Now we are waiting for the op-shops and council dumps to re-open…
  • Radio – I’ve mostly given up on TV; despite the “choice” presented by wall-to-wall streaming and end-to-end bingeing, I’ve actually found less to watch. Instead, I listen to more radio – ABC Jazz, SBS Chill, BBC Radio 4 Extra, and BBC Radio 6’s Freak Zone.
  • Small luxuries – if I can’t get to cafes and restaurants (and therefore, I’m not spending as much money on eating out), I figure I can bring some of those luxuries into my home. In addition to the Dine at home option above, I’ve also been buying quality produce from local suppliers – coffee beans, cheese, meat, small goods, wine (subject to the requisite numebr of AFD’s) and honey.
  • Reading – there have been some very timely novels published in the last 6-12 months, some of then scarily prescient.
  • Brain training – finally, because Lock-down is like Groundhog Month, I am getting into something of a daily routine, and with the lack of some external stimuli, I don’t want my brain to atrophy, so I’ve started using a brain training app – not sure of the results, but at least it passes a few more minutes…

Next week: Responsibility vs Accountability

 

 

Can we come out now?

At the time of writing, the Victorian government has just announced the State’s very own measures as part of the “3 Steps to Recovery”, designed to ease the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, in a controlled and manageable way. This follows last week’s meeting of the National Cabinet, where broad agreement was reached on a plan to help “prepare Australians to go back to work in a COVID-19 safe environment and getting the economy back to a more sustainable level“.

Even at the MCG, the advice is stay safe, stay home, and think of others

The biggest “winners” in Victoria will be our immediate friends and families (groups of up to 5 people can gather at each others’ homes), outdoor activities (groups of up to 10 people), wedding organisers and funeral directors (more people can attend ceremonies)…. oh, and the AFL (training can resume!).

But Premier Andrews has stressed that this is neither an excuse to host dinner parties every night, nor a reason to ignore established protocols and best practice on personal hygiene and social distancing. So no overnight raves or camping trips. And no dining-in at restaurants or cafes, and definitely no pubs, bars or clubs.

For some people, the continued Stage 3 restrictions seem too much to bear, with a few fringe elements (along with the anti-vaxxers and the anti-5Gers) being more vocal and more physical in their views. But they probably fail to see that no-one actually enjoys living under this regime, and nobody would do it if they had a choice or other safe options.

Thankfully, the majority of the population are willing to comply with the restrictions, however uncomfortable or inconvenient, because they realise the consequences of a second wave of infections (especially as we come into winter) would be worse than some temporary limitations on their freedom of movement. There is also a renewed albeit grudging respect for and trust in our political leadership (if not always felt towards individual ministers), and here in Australia we can also consider the political decisions and public advice in light of scientific data and medical evidence.

A large proportion of Covid-19 infections in Australia came via overseas travellers (cruise ships and ski trips), while some of thee first community infections came from gatherings such as weddings and religious services. And then there have been “hubs” within sectors such as aged care, meat processing and airport baggage handling.

There are still questions over plans to re-open schools, and sectors such as aviation, tourism and hospitality have a long way to go before “normal” service resumes. Parts of the retail sector have managed to survive thanks to on-line shopping and e-commerce solutions (supply chain logistics and delivery) but we should expect some businesses will never bounce back. Every employer will probably need to have a “Covid-19 Safe” operating plan before bringing staff back to work in significant numbers, whether as part of their best practices on risk management, or as a prerequisite to satisfy workplace health and safety obligations.

The apparent rush to get professional sport back on the field feels like a misplaced priority – especially given the controversy around NRL and AFL players who apparently lacked the self-discipline to comply with the social-distancing measures; and those players who are refusing the flu vaccine as a condition of rejoining their clubs. On this point, I rather admire the comments by Chelsea manager, Frank Lampard, who expressed his unease at the thought of professional footballers getting priority for Covid-19 testing, ahead of essential and front-line workers, simply to fast-track the resumption of the EPL.

Even with the various safety plans and gradual easing of restrictions, it’s up to each of us individually to be responsible for our own actions, and maintain a personal duty of care to each other so as not to risk spreading the infection, nor risk exposing others as a result of something we do or omit to do.

Next week: The Bitcoin halving – what happened?