The detention of thousands of Australians in Melbourne’s COVID-19 hotel scheme may have been unlawful and a hybrid scheme that allows more travellers to quarantine at home should be considered an inquiry has heard.
In closing submissions to the inquiry, counsel assisting Ben Ihle has made the shock claim that the failure to test the detainees for the virus and provide for their mental health needs raises serious questions over whether the detention was lawful.
Mr Ihle also hinted at the possibility that the Victorian Government could face lawsuits from detainees who were locked up on the grounds that there may have been breaches of the state’s human rights laws.
Victoria’s bungled hotel quarantine scheme has been linked with the deaths of 778 people and 18,000 infections.
RELATED: Daniel Andrews fires back at reporter’s question
RELATED: Inquiry hears Andrews Government responsible for 768 deaths
Earlier, the inquiry heard evidence that the basis of the hotel scheme was “flimsy” because there was a question mark over whether a large number of international travellers were failing to quarantine before the scheme was established.
After Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the scheme on Friday, March 27, the states had less than 48 hours to get the scheme up and running.
Given that daily reviews are a legal requirement of detaining individuals under the public health act, Mr Ihle said there were serious concerns whether or not this had occurred.
“Now, whilst it is not incumbent upon this Board of Inquiry to make legal conclusions as to the lawfulness of what was undertaken, it is suffice to observe that serious questions arise as to the sufficiency of those reviews,’’ Mr Ihle said.
“As the Board is aware, under section 200(6) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act it was a requirement for daily reviews to be conducted in respect of the ongoing detention of each individual in hotel quarantine.
“Ongoing lawful detention is probably dependent on those reviews being appropriately conducted.”
While the Victorian Department of Health had sought and received legal advice from independent counsel as to how such a review could be carried out it was not clear the main elements had been fulfilled.
“The advice was that an authorised officer must ask themselves, is the continued detention of this person reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce the serious risk to public health?’’ he said.
Murray Smith, who the Commander of COVID-19 enforcement and compliance in the Department of Health and Human Services, gave evidence that there was only one criterion considered in the daily review: whether the person had completed the required 14-day period of quarantine.
“On that evidence, it is clear that the daily reviews were not conducted in accordance with the advice the Department received,” Mr Ihle said.
During the inquiry, a human rights and refugee lawyer Hugh De Krester gave evidence that it was clear enough to him during his own detention in hotel quarantine with his wife and children that daily reviews were not being conducted.
“I asked three different people who I was told were the DHHS authorised officers or team leaders whether our detention was being reviewed daily. One officer seemed surprised by the question and told me we were being detained for 14 days,’’ he said.
“Another told me that the nurses do the review, presumably referring to the daily nurse welfare check and another told me that detention wasn’t really reviewed.
Mr De Krester said that those conversations led him at least to believe that a number of the DHHS authorised officers seemed to be completely unaware of the legislative requirement to review detention daily.
The inquiry was told that the failure to test detainees for COVID-19 for the virus before they completed their 14 days of quarantine was a serious failing given it was already known that you could have the virus with few symptoms.
In the beginning, COVID-19 testing was initially only offered on a voluntary basis to those who displayed symptoms of COVID-19 and even then only on a solitary basis.
This was despite substantial powers vesting within the Chief Health Officer and by delegation the Deputy Chief Health Officer under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act existed.
“Those powers were never used,’’ Mr Ihle told the inquiry.
“The outbreak team identified that a person held in quarantine at the Stamford Plaza was released at the end of his 14 days without knowing that he had COVID. He was released into the community and infected the very first person he came into contact with, being the person who drove him away from the hotel.”
The inquiry heard there were serious concerns about the mental health impact of detention on the returning travellers with estimates that up to 20 per cent had an underlying or undiagnosed mental health issue such as anxiety or depression.
“Through no fault of their own, people who were detained in a quarantine system, like the Hotel Quarantine Program, are simply unable to meet their own needs for food, for medical attention and for mental health care,’’ Mr Ihle said.
“All people in the program were vulnerable and at the mercy of the Government and its agencies to meet their basic health and human needs.”
But the private security guards viewed people who were distressed as “problematic” or troublemakers.
“Nurse Jen also spoke of an incident where a person in quarantine had threatened suicide and the department staff member telephoned the person to follow up and told the person word to the effect that they should stop threatening suicide when they want a cigarette,’’ Mr Ihle said.
Finally, Mr Ihle said the entire hotel scheme could raise concerns under Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
“As I have noted already, it is not the work of this Board to make findings or determinations as to whether the detention and/or review of the rushed passengers was unlawful or what flows from that legally,’’ Mr Ihle said.
“That would be going beyond the purview of the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference, and they are questions more appropriately dealt with by a court.”
Mr Ihle said a hybrid model where some travellers can quarantine at home after “triage” checks on arrival may be a better option.
“A hybrid model involving initial reception into a quarantine hotel for triage, taking into account all relevant factors for each returned traveller with increased compliance mechanism would have proved to be less of an imposition, not only on the lives and freedoms of those returned travellers but also on the program itself,’’ he said.
“Such a model may be at least as effective as an objective of containing the virus.”
https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMimQFodHRwczovL3d3dy5uZXdzLmNvbS5hdS93b3JsZC9jb3JvbmF2aXJ1cy9hdXN0cmFsaWEvdmljdG9yaWFzLWJ1bmdsZWQtaG90ZWwtcXVhcmFudGluZS1zY2hlbWUtbWF5LWJlLXVubGF3ZnVsL25ld3Mtc3RvcnkvZmU5OWQ1YzJhNzdmMjgxNGRkZWY4OWQ1MzM5YTI5MTPSAZkBaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAubmV3cy5jb20uYXUvd29ybGQvY29yb25hdmlydXMvYXVzdHJhbGlhL3ZpY3Rvcmlhcy1idW5nbGVkLWhvdGVsLXF1YXJhbnRpbmUtc2NoZW1lLW1heS1iZS11bmxhd2Z1bC9uZXdzLXN0b3J5L2ZlOTlkNWMyYTc3ZjI4MTRkZGVmODlkNTMzOWEyOTEz?oc=5
2020-09-28 23:48:57Z
52781090367807
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Victoria’s bungled hotel quarantine scheme may be unlawful - NEWS.com.au"
Post a Comment