Self Employed Australia

"Everyone needs an Advocate"

“Everyone needs an Advocate”

Rule of law

Report on Supreme Court hearing, SEA v WorkSafe Victoria, 21 June 2022

by Leave a Comment

This is to report to you about last Tuesday’s (21 June 2020) Victorian Supreme Court hearing. This was the first court hearing in our attempts to have WorkSafe prosecute all 26 individuals and government entities in relation to the Hotel Quarantine disaster of 2020. Here again is our (20 June) briefing note explaining the legal play.

Tuesday’s court hearing was about identifying a legal question as to:

(a) whether WorkSafe could decide for itself who to investigate or

(b) whether WorkSafe is required to investigate all the government individuals/entities we named.

The legal question WorkSafe seeks to raise rotates around the meaning of the word ‘matter’ in Section 131 of the legislation. This section reads as follows

(1)     If—

 (a)     a person considers that the occurrence of an act, matter or thing constitutes an offence …
… the person may request in writing that the Authority bring a prosecution.

(2)     …. after  the Authority receives a request it must—

(a)     investigate the matter; and…

WorkSafe says that the word matter in 2(a) has a different meaning to the word matter in 1(a).  WorkSafe accepts that the word matter in 1(a) means the individuals/entities SEA named. But WorkSafe says that matter in 2(a) means ‘topic’ (as defined in a dictionary) and that topic is whatever WorkSafe declares it to be – in this case the Hotel Quarantine Program.

Here is the transcript of the hearing. In the hearing His Honour the Judge wanted to clarify WorkSafe’s position. Here are some extracts from the transcript with WorkSafe’s barrister, Mr Craig QC, concerning the meaning of matter.

HIS HONOUR:   My personal experience both at the Bar and as a judge is that the question of what constitutes a matter can be a very thorny one, Mr Craig, and as we know in context and constitutional context, there’s an awful lots of pages in Commonwealth Law Reports taken up to addressing what is a matter.  Do you say none of those cases are relevant?… (Transcript page 20)

HIS HONOUR: …I would have thought a matter would embrace, on one view, that a matter would embrace an allegation of a specific ‑ of a breach of a specific provision of an Act. (Transcript page 20)

HIS HONOUR:  I just want to be clear on your submission.  Your submission is that where an individual passes through the gateway of 131 by alleging that another individual has committed an offence against a specific provision of the Act, as has occurred here, there is no obligation on the Authority to investigate that alleged contravention of the Act by that individual.

MR CRAIG:  That would follow, Your Honour… (Transcript page 23)

HIS HONOUR:  Can I ask you, have you identified any authorities in relation to the consideration of a matter outside of the well‑known constitutional framework?

MR CRAIG:  None that I can point to in the specific context … (Transcript page 25)

Here are some extracts concerning what WorkSafe considers is the complaint.

HIS HONOUR:  Just so I am clear on this, where in your written submissions do you articulate exactly what it is that you say the matter complained of in Mr Phillips’ correspondence is, what do you say the matter is? (Transcript page 17)

HIS HONOUR:  Have you put that in your written submissions?  I am just trying to pin you down in writing, if I may.

MR CRAIG:  …  We may not have, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  It is a pretty big omission, Mr Craig, if you will pardon me saying so, given the last half hour of your submissions.  I want to be precise. (Transcript page 18)

The conclusion to the hearing is that WorkSafe is to go away and redraft the question that WorkSafe wants the Court to consider as a preliminary issue (separate question) before the case proceeds to a final trial hearing.  A decision on the whether the Court will accept a redrafted question (if it accepts that it is appropriate and relevant to the conduct of the case overall), is likely around mid-July 2022.

WorkSafe was ordered and agreed to pay SEA’s legal costs for the day in court plus associated costs.

A full understanding of the proceeding is in the transcript. We have highlighted some sections. (Mr Rinaldi is SEA’s barrister).

To court we go! Finally, a first step. Prosecuting the Victorian Government

by Leave a Comment

supreme-courtIn September 2020, when we launched our action to push WorkSafe Victoria to prosecute the Victorian government over the hotel quarantine disaster, we said this would be a long campaign.

Well, finally, we have our first court action. This is in the Supreme Court of Victoria, tomorrow Tuesday 21st June 10.30 am EST. It’s taken a lot of work to arrive at this point. Our legal team is great. And again, heaps of thanks to everyone who ‘put in’ to enable us to fund the campaign. But this is just the first of many steps—so lots more to happen.

This is what’s happening:

  • WorkSafe Victoria says it doesn’t have to prosecute (or investigate) any individual or government entity other than the Department of Health.
  • For a lay understanding, WorkSafe says that that word ‘matter’ in the legislation is singular, not plural, and that therefore it only has to prosecute one entity. We say that’s nonsense.
  • Tomorrow’s Supreme Court hearing is to consider whether WorkSafe’s question (singular or plural) should be considered. It’s a question about a ‘Separate Question Application’ by WorkSafe.

Yes, the law moves slowly, but at least we have movement.

We’ve put together a 3-page summary of the legal play at this point. We’ve tried to keep it as clear for the lay person as possible but also legally accurate.

But to give you an overview, our (SEA’s) assessment—based on WorkSafe’s Separate Question Application and the content of WorkSafe’s submissions—is that WorkSafe is very concerned about SEA’s mandamus application. Further, that WorkSafe is seeking to avoid revealing the substance of its investigations into the Hotel Quarantine Program and having its investigations considered and assessed by the Court in an open and public hearing.

If you’re interested, you can observe tomorrow’s proceedings online.

The Supreme Court has provided the following information/rules for online viewing:

“Observers may follow the proceedings remotely via the following Zoom Link:

https://supcourt-vic.zoom.us/j/68458935011?pwd=MTd1YXBURWhLelBYWlR4RVBPdkRrUT09

Meeting ID: 684 5893 5011
Password: 107095

All those observing are to remain on mute at all times. Hearings must not be rebroadcast or transmitted (including by taking a photograph, screenshot, audio and/or visual recording) unless authorised to do so. This includes posting on social media.”

Remember, the 3-page summary should give you a good understanding of the state of play. We’ll keep you informed as events unfold.

2021: A Victorian Health Department Space Odyssey – Where is Hal?

by Leave a Comment

space-odysseyTry this piece of strangeness. We now have ‘proof’ that the Victorian Department of Health makes decisions and does things without any apparent human involvement.

The Department, we assume, must operate like Hal in the great, classic sci-fi movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hal was the super computer that ran the spaceship without human involvement. Somewhere in the Health Department ‘Hal’ must exist.

The ‘proof’ of Hal is contained in a 4 October 2021 memo to executives in the Health Department. On 29 September 2021 the Victorian WorkSafe Authority announced it was prosecuting the Department of Health over the 2020 Hotel quarantine disaster which resulted in over 800 deaths. The 4 October memo states:

“WorkSafe have advised that no individuals from the department are, or will be, charged.”

Here’s what this means. WorkSafe has found sufficient evidence of breaches of work safety laws to start a criminal prosecution of Health. We updated you on this last week. In other words, the Department did or failed to do things that has resulted in criminal charges being laid. BUT. According to WorkSafe’s advice to Health, no humans committed any of the criminal things. The Department acted criminally but no human acted criminally. Go figure!

But see. We told you so. It’s Hal! And now like the children’s book ‘Where’s Wally?” we have to ask ‘Where’s Hal?’

Here are just some of the questions that must be asked:

  • How did WorkSafe conduct a criminal investigation without interviewing any humans?
  • Or did WorkSafe interview and question humans?
  • If WorkSafe did interview humans, did any of those humans explain how the Department does things without humans making decisions or doing those things?
  • Can humans in the Health Department explain how the Department operates without humans making decisions or doing things?
  • Did WorkSafe meet or see Hal?

Of course, these questions are all nonsense and just as nonsensical as WorkSafe only prosecuting Health but not individuals.

In truth a government department is just a bunch of humans making decisions and doing things. A ‘department’ does not and cannot act criminally. Only humans act criminally. There is no Hal in the Health Department. Only humans.

But WorkSafe is acting on a fantasy, a Space Odyssey.

This is not just an isolated Victorian issue. It cuts to the heart of whether government in Australia operates impartially so that no-one is above the law, including government itself. It’s no joke. It’s serious!

Here’s the Health memo obtained through FOI.

Note the 104-page Charge Sheet but with all important information blanked out!

Prosecution of Victorian Health over 2020 Hotel Quarantine Disaster—Update

by

It’s been a little while since we updated you on the legal process of prosecuting the Victorian government over the 2020 Victorian Hotel Quarantine disaster that resulted in over 800 deaths. What’s at stake is whether governments hold themselves accountable to the same standards to which they hold the rest of us.

It’s quite clear that our Not Above the Law Campaign forced Victorian WorkSafe to prosecute the Department of Health. We have to ask the question: how genuine is that prosecution? We’re chasing this and here’s an update:

  • The prosecution of Health was announced on 29 September 2021 and involved the laying of 58 charges. Since then there has been NO, that’s ZERO, further information.
  • We decided to check things out. We went to the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court and were told that there was an online directions hearing on 26 May.  Members of the public could attend and we were told we’d receive an email link. The link arrived. We dutifully attended only to discover that we’d been sent the wrong link. Goodness—what an unfortunate mistake by someone!!!

SO

  • We tried to hunt down the case number. What an effort that was, given that the case name has not been made public from what we could discover. Victory! We discovered the name. It’s Victorian WorkSafe Authority v The Crown in the Right of the State of Victoria (Department of Health). Case number M12097325. If you want to follow the case, check the Magistrates’ Court website, choose the “Criminal List” button in the top left corner and put the case number in the appropriate box. Members of the public have a right to attend, but it seems you’ll need to ring the Magistrates Court to receive a link (assuming you’re sent the correct link) or else attend the hearing in person.
  • Next step is that we’ve applied to the Court for the release of all court documents. We’re after the charge sheet, summons, prosecution summary and so on. Lawyers tell us that in criminal cases (OHS charges are criminal) such documents are ordinarily public documents. But the release will be decided at the next hearing date, Friday 17 June at 10 am (a Committal Mention). It will be interesting to see if WorkSafe and Health both apply to keep the documents hidden from the public.

Justice is something that must be done and must be seen to be done! But, goodness, with the Health prosecution there seems to be a lot happening to keep it ‘unseen’. We’re chasing this up and will update you after the 17 June.

Morrison’s dead flat small business pitch

by

election-2022-pitchLast week Morrison made his pitch for the small business vote. It fell dead flat. That’s strange really.

It’s almost an Australian political truism that political parties cannot win government in Australia without a sizable chunk of the small business vote. So, for Morrison, who’s supposed to be ‘Scotty from marketing,’ his seeming blindness to this alleged truism is odd.

Morrison’s pitch was that by lowering overhead costs and energy bills he’d create a vast number of new small businesses. This pitch is not specific and applies generally to any business (or family) in the economy. There’s no ‘joining of the dots’ between the pitch and the lives of the self-employed, small and family businesses.

Again, it’s strange that Morrison has totally missed his small business target. The Coalition in fact has a substantial history of not only spouting the small business mantra, but of having substance to support the mantra as well. Take some examples.

John Howard created the Independent Contractors Act to protect the status of the self-employed. Tony Abbott committed to the introduction of a Federal Small and Family Business Ombudsman and put the wheels in motion for unfair contract laws for small business.  The Abbott-era commitments were finalised and delivered under the Turnbull coalition government.

Self-employed, small business people profile strongly on the measure of informed and swinging voters. They are extensive seekers of information. This again is why Morrison’s dead flat small business pitch seems so strange at this election.

At the 2019 election Morrison promised to introduce security of payment laws for small business. He’s done this. And it’s good. It’s strange that he’s not pitching it.

He also promised to ‘beef up’ unfair contract protections for small business people. The Bill was ready to go. But strangely this major pro-small business Bill was deserted immediately before the election was called. Did the ‘big end of town’ get to Morrison to pull the Bill?

Then there is the elephant in the room. The Australian Taxation Office has been crucifying small business. The ATO has destroyed small businesses in the research and development space—claiming dodgy use of grants—but the ATO subsequently admitted that it was wrong.

The ATO has been attacking small and family business trusts, forcing trust beneficiaries to pay tax when (even the ATO admits) the beneficiaries have not received any income. The ATO has also sought to change trust distribution rules retrospectively, thereby creating tax debts in the past where, under then-existing ATO rules, no tax debt existed.

In the 2021 Budget the Morrison government declared in Parliament that “We are backing small business in over the ATO. No longer will the ATO be able to garnishee and takeaway (alleged tax debt) while the dispute is in train”. But this promise turned out to be false. The implemented policy only enables small business people to ‘apply’ to have a disputed debt ‘paused’ until appeals have been heard.

Morrison’s pitch to create large numbers of small businesses falls dead flat if those new (and existing) small businesses find themselves under unfair attack from the ATO without the protections afforded by a rule of law regime.

To win and retain the small business vote the Coalition has historically made a policy of substance that it then delivers when in government.  This time Morrison is not selling what he’s done and not promising anything new for small business.

It’s almost as if Morrison has abandoned the small business vote. How odd!

Closing the construction watchdog will harm self-employed tradies

by

Unfair contract laws

In March we praised the Morrison government for moving to ‘beef up’ the unfair contract laws for small business people. Albanese’s Labor also supports this, which is great. Unfortunately, the Bill did not pass through Parliament before the election was called.

Integrity Commission – ATO

Labor has made a big noise about Morrison failing to establish a Federal Integrity (anti-corruption) Commission. Here’s our assessment of the issues and politics of this. Morrison has a model, but Labor wants one based on the NSW Commission. The NSW Commission is, however, accused of being a kangaroo court that the High Court found breached the law. The Morrison model would, for the first time, make the ATO accountable to an external body. That’s a policy we strongly support.

Industrial relations

Last week Morrison announced he would move on some industrial relations reform. Labor attacked and Morrison quickly reversed his stance. Here’s our assessment of the politics around this issue. Essentially, we say that the ‘big end of town’ wants changes to suit themselves. But we reckon that the ‘big end of towners’ are incompetent in managing their workplace relations.

Construction Industry Watchdog

If there’s one Labor commitment that stands out, it’s that an Albanese Labor government will close down the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC).  We see this as highly negative for self-employed people in the construction sector. We strongly oppose this Labor policy.

Here’s our longer assessment, but in summary:

  • The ABCC has brought some discipline to the mafia-like behaviour of construction unions. Over the last two years the ABCC has had the courts impose fines totalling some $5.7 million for illegal (thuggish) behaviour.
  • What’s extremely important is that the ABCC operates a Security of Payments system in the construction sector. It’s a vital service. All construction firms within the ABCC’s jurisdiction are required to pay their subcontractors within payment terms. If they are late, they must report this to the ABCC. Subcontractors can lodge complaints with the ABCC over late payment.
    If contractors do not pay on time, they risk sanctions that ultimately include being banned from all Commonwealth-funded work. Over around the last 5 years the ABCC has recovered some $10.7 million in outstanding payments owed to subcontractors. Some major contractors have been disciplined.
    An external review of the ABCC reports a “reduction in the number of delayed payments” and “greater efforts being made to pay subcontractors on time.” This is critically important.

There’s no doubt that should Anthony Albanese’s Labor win the election, one of its highest priorities will be the elimination of the ABCC. The outcome would be renewed, unrestrained thuggery on construction sites. Further, small business tradie subcontractors would again carry the risk of not being paid. A bad outcome for all except for the thugs.

(Disclosure: Ken Phillips is a member of the ABCC Security of Payments Working Group along with representatives from the ACTU and Building Industry Associations.)

We’ll produce more election assessments on issues for self-employed people over the coming weeks.

Update – Hotel Quarantine Prosecution – Supreme Court Victoria – A bit boring but important!

by

prosecutionFinally we’re able to give you an update on how things are developing in our efforts to prosecute the Victorian government (and individuals) over the 2020 Hotel Quarantine disaster.

We informed you that, on the 14 February 2022, we lodged an application in the Victorian Supreme Court for an order to require WorkSafe to comply with (what we say) is the required investigative process under the Act. Details are here: https://selfemployedaustralia.com.au/notabovethelaw/

The first ‘Directions’ Hearing has now been conducted with an ‘Order’ issued setting out dates by which both our and WorkSafe’s lawyers are required to lodge documentation. That is, we’re now in the legal ‘administrative’ process that will eventually lead to a court hearing. The next Directions hearing is listed for 27 July 2022. We believe a court date is likely to be set at the 27 July hearing. Here’s the Order setting out the dates.

Now it’s a ‘long haul’

After all the effort to raise the membership funding for the case, securing the legal team and initiating the legal process, we are now in the ‘long haul’ phase of the legal process. There won’t be any major ‘new’ developments to announce as we work through the legal process. So—“sorry”! Nothing ‘dramatic’ for some time!

We again thank everyone who has become an SEA member enabling us to fund both the legal effort and the necessary related general campaigning. With the budget secured for the anticipated legal costs, we are continuing to work on membership funding for the broader, supportive ‘Not Above the Law’ campaign. All efforts continue!

As we’re now in the ‘long haul’ legal process, it’s good to remind ourselves why we are doing this. Remember that, at this stage, our legal process seeks to require WorkSafe to do its job and explain why it is only prosecuting the Department of Health and not the individuals we say should also face prosecution.

Victoria’s top radio journalist, Neil Mitchell, probably best explained what concerns the community. On 4 October 2021 Neil said the following on Melbourne radio 3AW:

He referred to “… this enormously controversial decision not to prosecute personally, Daniel Andrews or any of these ministers, over the catastrophic breaches in hotel quarantine …”
(that) “… raise crucial questions, that must be answered about the process that led to the decision not to prosecute personally, but only go after the health department as an entity.”
Mitchell asked “…Who made the decision not to prosecute the Ministers or the heads of departments or in fact the Premier…?”

Our Supreme Court action cuts to the heart of the “…enormously controversial decision not to prosecute personally, Daniel Andrews or any of these ministers…”  As far as we’re concerned, we’re not only fighting for justice but also for our democracy. No-one should be above the law.

Confronting bullies in our own (Australian) backyard – Unfair Contracts

by

bullyIn a world full of bullies, the ‘little’ person must have the power to stand up against aggressors. If bullies rule, our democracies, the rule of law, justice and fairness are simply empty, meaningless terms thrown around like useless confetti.

In Australia we are lucky to have a government and a parliament that are finally moving hard to stop big business bullies in their dealings with consumers and small business people.

There is a Bill before Parliament at the moment, ready to be passed, that gives real teeth to unfair contract laws. What might seem like technical change to obscure law known only to a few people is, in fact, a huge step for fairness in how the Australian economy works. Everyone is affected, even if few understand how.

Simply put, when this Bill becomes law:

  • It will be illegal for big business to have unfair contract terms in their standard form contracts with consumers and small business people.
  • Fines will apply to anyone who tries to push an unfair contract on to consumers/small business. (Up to $500,000 for individuals and $10,000,000 for corporations.)

The implications of this are massive. Businesses that want to screw over consumers and/or small businesses with unfair contracts will be forced to dump those contracts. (Think phone, internet, car and other equipment leasing, land sales and on and on.) This is a huge economic reform that will make for a fairer and stronger Australian economy. More people will be able to do business and buy things with real protections against unfair contracts.

For us, this journey started in 2009. At Self-Employed Australia we believe we played a pivotal role in making this happen—along with many others that we need to thank. The sequence of events was as follows:

A full timeline and details of the events is here.

There are many people to thank, reflecting the very best of the Australian parliamentary process and the public service:

  • The Abbot government committed to the laws for small business.
  • The ALP, Greens and Senate independents ensured that the laws had reasonable meaning.
  • SEA played a pivotal advocacy role to this point (2016) against opposition and dirty play by ‘big end of town’ types.
  • Rod Sims and the ACCC were champions in highlighting the weaknesses in enforcement and pushing for ‘beefing up’.
  • The Morrison government has worked through to ensure that the ‘beefed up’ laws are now before parliament.
  • The ALP, Greens and independents all seem clearly supportive of the new laws.

The ‘beefed up’ Unfair Contract Bill is now before parliament.

For the ‘big end of town’ lawyers who say that these laws break contract integrity, we reply as follows: The Unfair Contract laws embed or codify the ‘structural’ principles of commercial contract in statute. They ensure that standard form contracts have a measure of power balance such that they engender contract trust—that is, the contracts have integrity.

We do, however, have one major concern. Australian governments, state and federal, routinely break the unfair contract laws. They reckon they are exempt. And most often they are. We need all Australian governments to amend laws to hold government agencies accountable to the same contract laws they expect of the rest of the community.

There’s more work to be done.

We lodge court action against WorkSafe Victoria. No-one should be above the law

by

supreme-court-victoriaAfter a lot of preparation we have today lodged in the Supreme Court of Victoria an application for a ‘writ of mandamus’ against WorkSafe Victoria related to WorkSafe’s failure to prosecute individuals and others over the 2020 Hotel Quarantine disaster.

We will shortly also issue subpoenas to 26 individuals and government departments to require them to answer questions. This will include the Victorian Premier, Chief Health Officer and others whom we have cited as requiring investigation. See the list here.

Our writ of mandamus is an application to the court asking it to issue an order to require WorkSafe to do certain things. What we are asking is quite simple.

  1. WorkSafe is prosecuting the Victorian Health Department for breaches of work safety laws to do with the Hotel Quarantine disaster. WorkSafe has told us that because it is prosecuting Health it doesn’t have to prosecute anyone else or do anything else.
  2. We say that under the work safety laws WorkSafe must supply to the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions materials from its investigations into each of the other 26 individuals and departments we have named, if WorkSafe chooses not to prosecute them, and give us reasons why they are not prosecuting them. Our writ of mandamus asks the court to look at the law and decide who is correct, us or WorkSafe.
  3. If we are correct, the court would (presumably) order WorkSafe to (1) give us reasons for its decision not to prosecute the other 26 individuals and departments, and (2) hand its investigative materials to the DPP so that the DPP can advise WorkSafe (in writing) whether she considers that prosecutions should be brought in relation to any or all of the other 26 individuals and departments. Ultimately this would require a copy of the DPP’s written advice to WorkSafe to be handed to us.

This perhaps looks like a small legal step. But in fact the implications are vast. Is WorkSafe doing its job correctly at law or not? The court will decide.

In November last year we explained our legal strategy. See here. This is now being put into action.

This would not be possible without the huge support received from all SEA members. Our big thanks for all the $ contributions.

If you are keen to know the full details of our court action here is:

The originating application (3 pages)

The supporting affidavit (the first 13 pages) and all correspondence with WorkSafe and others (the remainder of the document and, yes, it’s lengthy!)

We have kept you updated on our efforts through our dedicated Not Above The Law section on our website. A quick summary for you, however, is as follows:

  • Section 131 of the OHS Act enables anyone to lodge a request for investigation by WorkSafe if WorkSafe has not investigated an incident for 6 months. WorkSafe must then investigate.
  • 29 Sept 2020 SEA lodged a 131 application on WorkSafe. WorkSafe had 9 months to investigate and decide to prosecute or not and was/is required to notify SEA.
  • 29 June 2021 (9-month deadline) WorkSafe informed SEA that it had not completed its investigation. SEA then triggered an additional 131 provision that required WorkSafe to refer the matter to the DPP for the DPP to review and make a recommendation.
  • 5 Aug 2021, WorkSafe informed SEA that it had not supplied its investigation to the DPP. This means that WorkSafe is failing to comply with its statutory obligation and has put the DPP in the position where it also is failing to comply with its statutory obligation.
  • 29 Sept 2021. WorkSafe announces that it is prosecuting the Department of Health. WorkSafe tells us that it doesn’t need to do anything else.

The specific relevant section of the Occupation Health and Safety Act states the following:

Section 131 (3) If the Authority advises the person that a prosecution will not be brought, or that it has not brought a prosecution within 9 months after receiving the request, the Authority must refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions if the person requests (in writing) that the Authority do so.

We have made the required request for referral in writing twice.

We will keep you informed as events unfold.

ABC’s Dr Norman Swan says badly degraded Victorian Health capacity to blame

by

norman-swanThe ABC’s Dr Norman Swan explains why Victoria did so badly with Covid in 2020. Watch his comments here (47sec): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3h8mS-6VUM

Dr Swan says Victoria has

“… 88 different health services which don’t look after the population unlike most other states (the Victorian government)… long ago degraded … the public health capacity, and in 2009 they ran the white flag up … Dan Andrews was the Health Minister.”

This analysis by Dr Swan reinforces why we must proceed to push for the prosecution of the government and responsible individuals (Premier, etc.) over the 801 Hotel Quarantine deaths in 2020. If WorkSafe fails to do its job by prosecuting individuals, the degraded Victorian health system will continue to put people at risk. It’s unsafe.

Running parallel to Dr Swan’s comments is an analysis by a public administration academic who case studied the 2020 Hotel Quarantine program. His report Hiding in plain sight: Vulnerability, public administration, and the case of Covid-19 hotel quarantine sets out a table that shows all the actions and inactions of the government that led to the 801 deaths disaster. The paper says:

“The Covid-19 HQ Inquiry found that a series of actions and inactions surrounding decisions by politicians, practitioners, and policymakers with responsibilities for public administration portfolio areas gave rise to accidents which brought failures and subsequently a crisis into existence.”

“… the leadership and functional expertise at group as well as individual levels was unable to take meaningful action to ensure that the program was fit for purpose.”

However, the paper focuses exclusively on the notion that the disaster should be treated as a learning experience for public health administration. Some people might believe that no individuals need to be held to account to enable ‘learnings’ and change. Such a position would be plain wrong—even dangerous and unsafe in our view.

We see this attitude too often in public administration. The people who make the decisions (politicians and bureaucrats) are rarely held personally accountable for their decisions. The ‘blame’ is isolated and attached to the ‘system.’ But this is not the standard applied to business or the community. Small business people, in particular, are held personally accountable for every action they take. We say the public sector must be held to the same community standard.

This is why we say that Victorian WorkSafe is making things dangerously unsafe in only prosecuting the Department of Health and not the individuals who were the decision makers in the Hotel Quarantine disaster. Community standards of individual responsibility must be applied. No one is above the law.

More developments and news soon.