Dammit. I was hoping you might . Seems to me he wont allocate blame. Just a whole lot of errors and miscommunications. eg Dr shoukd have upgrded the number of at risk of covid people acccording to new panel standards but that wasnt conveyed to her. Should have had more test kits onboard but didnt blame Princess. And so on. Of course the Princess fanbois on CC are saying the report clears princess of any wrong doing.can you give me a quick summary?
In fact there were no findings against Australian Border Force; not only that, ABF was specifically cleared of any responsibility. The only mention of them in 'Key Finding's was:Most findings were against NSW Health and Border Force. Princess mostly did the right thing.
A "finding" against the ABF giving the wrong instructions IS a finding against them. They aren't responsible for health processes, which I don't think was at question.In fact there were no findings against Australian Border Force; not only that, ABF was specifically cleared of any responsibility. The only mention of them in 'Key Finding's was:
Passengers were incorrectly advised by the ABF during the cruise that their 14-day
period of self-isolation would commence from the date of departure from the
last overseas port visited by the Ruby Princess, being Napier on 15 March. This
inaccuracy was later clarified during disembarkation at the OPT on 19 March, when
passengers were provided with a fact sheet published by the Commonwealth
Department of Health which relevantly instructed them to self-isolate for 14 days
from their arrival in Sydney.
On p. 25 the report says (my bolding):
The relevant legislative provisions make it crystal clear that the Australian Border
Force (ABF), despite its portentous title, has no relevant responsibility for the
processes by which, by reference to health risks to the Australian community,
passengers were permitted to disembark from the Ruby Princess, as they did, on
19 March 2020. The absence of any such duty no doubt explains why the ABF is not
granted specific powers in relation to pratique, and why there are no appropriate
postings of medical practitioners or epidemiologists in the ABF ranks.
As this Report was being finished,
some interesting journalism was published that advanced the notion that a basic
misreading by an ABF officer of negative influenza results as meaning negative
COVID-19 results, had somehow contributed to the decision to let the passengers
go as they did on 19 March. As the body of the Report spells out, that is not correct.
It was the State’s Expert Panel that made the operative decision, relayed accurately
(if by a clumsy means) to the DAWE Biosecurity Officer who granted pratique. That
seems by far to be the most likely understanding of what happened, by dint of
administrative conduct that undoubtedly could have been more crisp and formal.
To repeat, neither the ABF nor any ABF officers played any part in the mishap.