Five questions hotel quarantine inquiry needs to answer
If our leaders are to bring us out of this mess, we need to believe past mistakes will not be repeated, which can only happen if we understand what errors were made, when they occurred, and who was responsible, writes Susie O’Brien.
News
Don't miss out on the headlines from News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
The proverbial lunatics are still running the asylum. It’s alarming to think the people who got us into this mess are still in charge.
If we are to have any faith they will lead us out of it, we need to believe that past mistakes will not be repeated.
This can only happen if we understand what errors were made, when they occurred, and who was responsible.
The hotel quarantine inquiry, which has resumed this week, must provide these critical answers.
It’s no longer good enough for Premier Daniel Andrews to say he’s got no idea about “operational matters” as if the pesky details are beneath him.
Andrews says he will be held accountable but he must do more than “own those errors”.
The same goes for Jenny Mikakos, who must do more than apologise in late-night rants on Twitter.
Those who are found to have known about hotel quarantine breaches and done nothing must immediately stand down.
The time has come for the truth to emerge. The public is entitled to know why hundreds of people have died, why we are stuck inside our homes, why our businesses are closed, and our economy is $9 billion worse off.
Here are the key six questions the hotel quarantine inquiry needs to answer.
Who was responsible for the set-up hotel quarantine program and did they take any steps to make sure the arrangements were appropriate?
At this point the answers seem to be: Lots of people and bugger all.
We know the program, relying on private security guards, was set up in 48 hours and involved no fewer than seven departments, two agencies and several private firms.
No one seemed concerned that many of the firms involved had a terrible track record of noncompliance with basic industry standards.
Warnings from senior bureaucrats made in late May about the inappropriate choice of guards to do this vital work were ignored. Why was this?
Who first knew of problems in hotel quarantine and what did they do about it?
So far, the Premier has said he only learnt on June 30 that the second-wave infections were linked to hotel quarantine. There is much evidence to the contrary.
Mikakos says she first knew of problems in the program when the first case at the first hotel was identified on May 26.
Health experts say they identified problems with hotel quarantine as early as April 15, and told Mikakos at the time. Why was nothing done back then?
Why did it take until June 25 for a review of the training of security guards to be announced by Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton?
It’s been alleged that security guards, guests and hotel staff raised concerns about the quarantine process with Sutton and other health officials in late May.
But Sutton says he only learned about it from the media.
We also need to know why it took a full week after the review was announced for guards to be dumped from the program.
Were ADF guards on offer to help or not?
Federal Defence Minister Linda Reynolds says she offered ADF help as far back as March 27,
but this was not taken up.
Andrews at the time confirmed it had “been agreed that ADF will engage in support”.
So why has he repeatedly said he didn’t believe ADF support was on offer?
What happened to the request for 850 military personnel to help in hotel quarantine on June 24? Why was this request rescinded within 24 hours?
If it is shown that people in charge knew of the deficiencies in the system, but did not act, should they resign?
Yes, definitely. But the Premier doesn’t agree, saying “this virus doesn’t stop, neither do I, neither does my team.”
Pakula was in charge of running the hotel quarantine operation and logistics, and his staff even shot a video boasting about it.
At the very least he should go because if he didn’t know about the failures of his own program, he certainly should have.
If Mikakos is found to have ignored critical evidence, then she should go too.
The problem, though, is who would this leave in charge of the state at this crucial time?