Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
Cyrix400

Ruby Princess - Special Inquiry - Evidence To Date

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, NSWP said:

This is all too technical for me, i will graciousley withdraw your worship.

 

10 hours ago, MMDown Under said:

I agree.  I just took my first look.  I think you'd need to have followed from inception.  

 

Yes pretty technical - but here is my attempt to translate this gobblegook:

 

- the press got very excited about a week ago,  when they got hold of some documents which show the confusion by the Aust Border Force  (ABF)staff  when the Ruby Princess was cleared - the headlines screamed of the ABF 'mistake'. This related to the confusion by ABF  (No negative tests for covid, only negative tests for the flu done on board for the pax of Ruby)

- in light of this, the Commissioner sought further comment/ clarification  about it from the Commonwealth

 

The answer  came back that from the Commowealth that:

1. Yes, the mistake was made by ABF staff  - but

2. it did not make any difference anyway

3- because Health NSW was still responsible to do its job re health of the pax (biosecurity etc)

3. so no skin of the ABF nose - as  it was not their responsibility to deal with the health issues.

4. Conclusion - the ball has been bounced back to the State - Health NSW.

The  Commonwealth (ABF) is in the clear

 

Hope this might make it a a little bit more clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cyrix400 said:

 

 

Yes pretty technical - but here is my attempt to translate this gobblegook:

 

- the press got very excited about a week ago,  when they got hold of some documents which show the confusion by the Aust Border Force  (ABF)staff  when the Ruby Princess was cleared - the headlines screamed of the ABF 'mistake'. This related to the confusion by ABF  (No negative tests for covid, only negative tests for the flu done on board for the pax of Ruby)

- in light of this, the Commissioner sought further comment/ clarification  about it from the Commonwealth

The answer  came back that from the Commowealth that:

1. Yes, the mistake was made by ABF staff  - but

2. it did not make any difference anyway

3- because Health NSW was still responsible to do its job re health of the pax (biosecurity etc)

3. so no skin of the ABF nose - as  it was not their responsibility to deal with the health issues.

4. Conclusion - the ball has been bounced back to the State - Health NSW.

The  Commonwealth (ABF) is in the clear

Hope this might make it a a little bit more clear.

Thank you.  ABF would like the public to believe "Nothing to see here!".  One thing for sure the Federal Government and all the States need to spell out clearly which one is responsible for which task, and where they need to consult with each other.  This has been a big learning experience for Government and the Cruise Industry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MMDown Under said:

Thank you.  ABF would like the public to believe "Nothing to see here!".  One thing for sure the Federal Government and all the States need to spell out clearly which one is responsible for which task, and where they need to consult with each other.  This has been a big learning experience for Government and the Cruise Industry. 

 

That is exactly what the Commissioner was indirectly suggesting - to avoid future confusion, clarify responsibilities and improve procedures between the Federal govt and the States.

 

And to add to the confusion -  the Human Bio Security Officers are State Health Officers - but appointed as such and trained by the Commonwealth  - if this makes any sense- so they wear  these two hats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you for summation Cyrix400, some of these agencies can pass the ball better than a rugby league 1st grader.SS20JSY01M_South-Sydney-Rabbitohs-2020-Mens-Replica-Home-Jersey_1__1594118169.jpg.328b2011efbc3cca3639b78e757bae95.jpg

Edited by NSWP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cyrix400 said:

 

That is exactly what the Commissioner was indirectly suggesting - to avoid future confusion, clarify responsibilities and improve procedures between the Federal govt and the States.

 

And to add to the confusion -  the Human Bio Security Officers are State Health Officers - but appointed as such and trained by the Commonwealth  - if this makes any sense- so they wear  these two hats.

No that doesn't make sense at all.  I wonder who thought that was a good idea.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MMDown Under said:

No that doesn't make sense at all.  I wonder who thought that was a good idea.  

So they have powers and authority in both jurisdictions, like state police officers stationed at the borders, i.e. NSW Police stationed at Albury NSW, are also sworn as Special Constables for the State of Victoria and vice versa VicPol from Wodonga.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the ABF granted "pratique" - which presumably initiated the disembarkation process.  Presumably there are a number of inputs to that decision - I can't see how the ABF can consider themselves absolved if they did not seek, or take, the advice of NSW Health before granting of pratique - if ABF has no responsibility for the health issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NSWP said:

So they have powers and authority in both jurisdictions, like state police officers stationed at the borders, i.e. NSW Police stationed at Albury NSW, are also sworn as Special Constables for the State of Victoria and vice versa VicPol from Wodonga.   

Do they only report to one authority?  That would make sense.  However, not both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this Pandemic does not come with a book of instructions, and quite frankly it is no surprise that many rules and procedures are failing when put to a severe test. Many of the procedures that lead to the Ruby Princess episode, for want of a better name, had been quite adequate up until a maximum test. Very similar to that of a 5 Tonne cable failing when trying to lift a 10 Tonne load.

The incident with the ship is only one situation that has shown the inadequacy of previously considered adequate procedures. A lot of lessons are being learned the hard way, unfortunately sometimes at the cost of lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Russell21 said:

Unfortunately this Pandemic does not come with a book of instructions, and quite frankly it is no surprise that many rules and procedures are failing when put to a severe test. Many of the procedures that lead to the Ruby Princess episode, for want of a better name, had been quite adequate up until a maximum test. Very similar to that of a 5 Tonne cable failing when trying to lift a 10 Tonne load.

The incident with the ship is only one situation that has shown the inadequacy of previously considered adequate procedures. A lot of lessons are being learned the hard way, unfortunately sometimes at the cost of lives. 

You worded that well. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aus ATC said:

So the ABF granted "pratique" - which presumably initiated the disembarkation process.  Presumably there are a number of inputs to that decision - I can't see how the ABF can consider themselves absolved if they did not seek, or take, the advice of NSW Health before granting of pratique - if ABF has no responsibility for the health issues. 

 

Exactly WHO and exactly WHEN the 'pratique' was granted to Ruby Princess on 19 March is a bit of a mistery  - and the Commissioner was trying to get to the bottom of it - including what was  the usual formal process involved in granting pratique. 

 

It seems that the verbal OK to disembark the ship was given by ABF after their usual non-health checks. This was because  ABF saw that the on-line documentation previously supplied  by  Health NSW  staff (in their role as Commonwealth appointed Human Biosecurity Officers) had determined  that the ship was a low risk - and that Health was not interested in boarding Ruby Princess.

 

ABF repeatedly emphasised (in the press and otherwise) that  they are not qualified to assess health issues, and they always rely the State Human BioSecurity staff to make these decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MMDown Under said:

Do they only report to one authority?  That would make sense.  However, not both.

The additional powers would only be for emergency use, cross border issues, would be handy now for joint enforcement of border closures due to Covid.  In other words...'You cannot touch me I am over the border...Wrong !!!👮‍♂️

Edited by NSWP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Background

The NSW opposition has just woken up to the fact that the Commonwealth, which provided  a long and comprehensive 'Voluntary Statement'  to the Inquiry, felt that it was not  constitutionally  compelled by  the State Inquiry to allow for one of its witnesses (Border Force - Dept of Agriculture) to give evidence. 

 

A storm in the teacup, it seems, as the Commissioner did not pursue to challenge the Federal position - and the witness was not that important anyway.        (the old mistake about negative flu tests, not covid tests)    

The longish story is here with these headings - and a few quotes:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/09/ruby-princess-gladys-berejiklian-refuses-calls-to-extend-inquiry-to-hear-from-official-who-refused-to-appear

"Ruby Princess: Gladys Berejiklian refuses calls to extend inquiry to hear from official who refused to appear"

Shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus says government reneged on promise to ‘provide full cooperation’ at inquiry

"On Thursday, the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, claimed the government “had cooperated” because it provided a written submission, and angrily defended the actions of Border Force officers, despite the revelation one gave verbal authorisation for passengers to disembark and mistook negative flu test results for Covid-19 results.

In April, Morrison was asked to guarantee the commonwealth would fully cooperate with the NSW government-commissioned inquiry into the Ruby Princess debacle and not take steps to stymie Walker getting evidence from federal agencies".

Now, the Australian Border Force does not have a role in relation to clearing people on health grounds.  “We do not employ doctors and nurses at airports or at seaports.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when Fuller started trying to point the finger at 'the captain' right at the beginning,  he instinctively knew someone somewhere in a government department stuffed up. Probably sees minor ones on daily basis at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, christodan said:

I think when Fuller started trying to point the finger at 'the captain' right at the beginning,  he instinctively knew someone somewhere in a government department stuffed up. Probably sees minor ones on daily basis at work.

Minor ones? How about dealing with major stuff ups daily, that is why he gets paid the big bucks.  He is quite a nice fellow and competent, he was caught in a trap re Ruby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NSWP said:

 He is quite a nice fellow and competent

 

Sorry I can't agree. He endorses STRIP searching innocent CHILDREN.  That is abuse. Even the former Police  Commissioner expressed dismay at his attitude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, christodan said:

 

Sorry I can't agree. He endorses STRIP searching innocent CHILDREN.  That is abuse. Even the former Police  Commissioner expressed dismay at his attitude. 

Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2020 at 4:08 AM, BRANDEE said:

I gave a submission to the police months ago in the form of a questionnaire and it is not quoted in the report.  Also, I have been contacted through e mail this Monday from the NSWPolice .They want to speak to me regarding my experience on board the Ruby.  It says they are conducting an investigation into the deaths of passengers on the ship due to Covid. 

 

Nope..have had enough of their ****.  They didn't care to follow up months ago to see if I was dead or alive..I'm was only an international passenger. They are still trying to point fingers at Princess. Obviously, the Commissioners Inquiry Report means nothing to the police..they want their own show.  

 

 

 

BRANDEE - that’s very strange 🤔 that your submission isn’t there. I know we filled submissions out on around the same dates and mine on the 24 Feb to 8th March is included - for the very little it adds 🙄

Perhaps the Police are doing a follow up to gather evidence in the Class Action case - something I would want to stay MILES away from - for any reason 🧐

Rose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRANDEE, you sent your submission to the police, right? But the ones listed are from the Commission of Inquiry, right?The police may not be sharing "evidence" they collected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

BRANDEE, you sent your submission to the police, right? But the ones listed are from the Commission of Inquiry, right?The police may not be sharing "evidence" they collected.

You may be right, but I did see the The Strike Force BAST letterhead on some submissions. 

I figured my initial submission was not anti Princess but too anti NSWHealth to be used. (Not to say some of the burden is on Princesses shoulders but NSW Health had the ability to pull the plug on March 8th).

Either way, I do not plan to be part of a homicide investigation that appears to be aimed solely at Princess.  Of the initial 30 questions I am being asked to answer before being contacted in person by the  State Crime Command Force Homicide Squad...one asked if the NSWHealth/police force spoke to me on disembarkation.  All the rest are about on board experience and my actions/whereabouts during the cruise .  The last question asked if I self quarantined when I got home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Porky55 said:

BRANDEE - that’s very strange 🤔 that your submission isn’t there. I know we filled submissions out on around the same dates and mine on the 24 Feb to 8th March is included - for the very little it adds 🙄

Perhaps the Police are doing a follow up to gather evidence in the Class Action case - something I would want to stay MILES away from - for any reason 🧐

Rose

Yep..staying clear.  The information is going to be used in a homicide investigation and charge.  Not happy with the questions they are asking. I see them as a clear indication that Princess Cruises is being targeted as the only one at fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

BRANDEE, you sent your submission to the police, right? But the ones listed are from the Commission of Inquiry, right?The police may not be sharing "evidence" they collected.

 

4 hours ago, BRANDEE said:

Yep..staying clear.  The information is going to be used in a homicide investigation and charge.  Not happy with the questions they are asking. I see them as a clear indication that Princess Cruises is being targeted as the only one at fault.

 

As I understand it, the 425 statements of so that were submitted by pax to the police - and NOT to the Inquiry - were obtained from the police by the Inquiry under its Special Powers - but they were kept confidential and NOT published as exhibits (as to not 'prejudice police investigation' - whatever it might be - and most likely a dead end, when the Director of Public Prosecutions gets hold of it.

 

The statements/ submissions to the Inquiry - including when witnesses gave evidence - were published, except when the person sought otherwise.

 

During the closing arguments of the inquiry a senior barrister for Princess was at pains to point out that Princess did what was required of it - and should not be held responsible. He also  addressed the issue of the shortage of swabs, and provided evidence of the efforts Princess made to acquire them - form Aust, NZ and USA.

 

Hopefully it won't be  too long before the  Inquiry verdict and recommendations are revealed - and  what needs to be changed/ improved  to work better in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, BRANDEE said:

Yep..staying clear.  The information is going to be used in a homicide investigation and charge.  Not happy with the questions they are asking. I see them as a clear indication that Princess Cruises is being targeted as the only one at fault.

Good idea - you and your DH have been through more than enough already. It was the cruise to Australia that just keeps on giving - perhaps next time (if there is one) it will be a much better experience 😆

Who could have ever predicted 2020 😳

Edited by Porky55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, BRANDEE said:

Yep..staying clear.  The information is going to be used in a homicide investigation and charge.  Not happy with the questions they are asking. I see them as a clear indication that Princess Cruises is being targeted as the only one at fault.

Possibility Princess is in the firing line, but here police will have to produce the brief of evidence to the Dept of Public Prosecutions, before any criminal charges, similar to your District Attorney.

Edited by NSWP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2020 at 12:37 AM, BRANDEE said:

Yep..staying clear.  The information is going to be used in a homicide investigation and charge.  Not happy with the questions they are asking. I see them as a clear indication that Princess Cruises is being targeted as the only one at fault.

 

11 hours ago, NSWP said:

Possibility Princess is in the firing line, but here police will have to produce the brief of evidence to the Dept of Public Prosecutions, before any criminal charges, similar to your District Attorney.

 

I would not get too excited with the preliminary views of the police and others  (widely communicated at the time to the press - and claimed by the Princess to be completely unfounded at the Special Inquiry)  - that a criminal offense  MAY have been committed.

 

From what we know so far from the Inquiry evidence , it is quite unlikely that a serious  adverse finding against Princess would be made (even though things could have been done better by them, in a challenging and constantly changing environment).

And no criminal charges are  laid by our independent Director of Public Prosecutions before  they carefully consider IF the police brief shows a reasonable prospect of conviction on a criminal charge, under the criminal standard of proof i.e. beyond reasonable doubt. Any political considerations are not relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...