NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller has started a criminal investigation into the Ruby Princess scandal — a scandal which, at last count, has led to the deaths of 11 passengers.
The commissioner said preliminary inquiries into phone call logs, email correspondence, radio transmissions and other documents had raised concerns about potentially misleading conduct.
Here’s Inq‘s list of 10 questions the commissioner should ask.
1. Why did Carnival proceed with the Ruby Princess cruise from Sydney to New Zealand on March 8, given that COVID-19 infections had already hit cruise ships around the world, including their own? And were they aware that older people were especially vulnerable to the virus?
2. Why did NSW Health delay boarding the ship’s 2700 passengers for eight hours on March 8, but then decide to let the ship depart? Can it clarify that over 100 passengers had been reported as returning sick when the ship arrived in Sydney earlier that day?
3. When the ship set sail from Sydney were NSW Health and Carnival aware that passengers might be carriers of COVID-19 but not show symptoms?
4. Had any of the Ruby Princess’ 1000 crew been on board for the previous trip where illness had been reported? It is reported that around 200 out of 1000 crew members are showing symptoms of COVID-19, in addition to 16 who have already tested positive.
5. Why didn’t NSW Health board the Ruby Princess before it docked in Sydney on March 19 to investigate information from Ruby Princess that there were 104 “acute respiratory infections” on the ship, including 36 people who had “influenza-like illness”, before giving the passengers the green light to leave?
6. When NSW Health asked Ruby Princess if there were “suspected” cases of COVID-19 on the ship, what did the ship’s doctors say? And why didn’t NSW Health make its own conclusion that these may well be cases of COVID-19, even if there was no conclusive proof at that point?
7. According to information leaked by “officials” to The Australian, the Ruby Princess provided 13 swabs to NSW Health officials for testing — though about 48 swabs had reportedly been taken of passengers. If this is true, why were only 13 swabs handed over?
8. Why didn’t NSW Health wait for the results of the 13 swabs before releasing all 2700 passengers from the ship?
9. A seriously ill woman in her 70s was taken off the Ruby Princess to a waiting NSW Ambulance at 2.30am on March 19, straight after docking. Yet all the ship’s passengers were disembarked six hours later. Were NSW Health or the Ruby Princess aware that the woman was infected at that point?
10. Why did the Port Authority of NSW initially deny Ruby Princess’ permission to dock on the night of March 18 and then reverse that decision after a 17 minute midnight phone call with a senior Carnival Australia executive? What information did the Carnival Australia executive pass on about suspicions of COVID-19 on board?
And here’s a final question from Inq to Carnival:
11. Why won’t Carnival put its CEO forward for a live, on-the-record interview with an independent journalist, with no restrictions on questions?
Whose responsibility is it, ultimately, to test? Who is responsible/accountable for issuing and testing/results of test kits?
Regardless of the various damning details, isn’t it the responsibility of the federal government, via the relevant Minister (Dutton) to assure that the department has working system that can competently protect Australia. Surely if the Minister cannot give those assurances then he cannot guarantee he can do his job and should take immediate necessary corrective action to protect Australians? How can those matters be resolved with a police inquiry in one State (NSW)?
Mr Dutton has answered the case, by his unusual absence of presence .One may assume that the ABF will be gifted a few extra $millions for a complete makeover of new look uniforms & a new moniker ,thereby disappearing out of the picture.
Who is responsible for the border? BORDER FORCE!! Read their mission statement!
“Our mission is to protect Australia’s border and enable legitimate travel and trade.”
Thus the responsible minister is Peter Dutton.
“Rhetorical questions”.
Details are starting to leak about the communications between Commonwealth and State officials. The respective ministerial offices or even ministers may have been in the loop especially as two levels of government are involved. Is it really possible highly qualified health officials and the harbour master were overruled – or even deceived? If so, by whom? Ambitious ministerial advisers with limited real-world experience? Or actual Ministers? This is not the first time questions will be asked about decisions that may have put commercial interests ahead of the community. And it won’t be the last. There must be a lot of activity behind the scenes.
Re question 11 David why on earth should they or would they ? I agree it would be nice if they did but a bit of a reality check might help your thinking. The citizenry isn’t required to be answerable to the interrogating whims of journalists no matter how relevant or morally superior you care to frame it.
Hi Mark,
I would have thought that David was asking the question of a particular person who just might bear some responsibility in what happened and in doing so is performing one of the functions expected by the citizenry (and others) of journalists, that is getting and providing information. Even invoking the late Don Chip ‘keep the bastards honest’. I do feel your rant is a tad unfair on the journalist.
Yes OF I quite agree many, including me, would like answers and said it would be good if it happened. I was simply pointing out that journalists have no inherent right to demand this or to imply they should be able to, and it would be good to keep this in mind.
G’day Mark.
Must confess to invoking Don Chip with tongue-in-cheek. November 1972, after the Wednesday political advertising blackout, Don Chip (then a Liberal) wrote in the Friday afternoon Murdoch paper that if Labor won the election the flood gates to pornography would be opened. Such an honest bastard.
Question 12: Where was Home Affairs and Australian Border Farce? Aren’t they supposed to be all over boat arrivals?
Some further questions, Wayne;
– were Alex Hawke’s in-laws really on the Ruby P, and was he involved in any discussions on the disembarkation.
– if Alex Hawke’s in-laws were on the Ruby P, how many OTHER Hillsong Church followers were also on the Ruby P, and did their presence influence Hawke, or any other members of the Federal Government, or officials, in the decision to allow them to disembark unmolested?
Cos, something’s up, and the silence (‘gag orders’ of sorts?) is most disturbing.
Yes David…I have read this version of events on as number of blogs and websites. There must be some truth in it. If so, shouldn’t the powers investigating be asking Sooty from Marketing what he knows about the release of these cruise passengers…being a wholehearted supporter of Hillsong an’ all? Not to mention the in-laws of one of his NSW MPs allegedly being involved??
Time for some enterprising journalist to get hold of a passenger list, and check it out!
Something stinks to high heaven about this whole deal!!
At the end of the day, the buck stops with Border Farce!
Dutton’s silence is deafening!
The good thing is that this is one of those irritating niggles which is not going away.
And so, we should all have our ears peeled for that Smoko moment when he had denied for ever and a day, just like the Rose Garden invite for Brian Houston “gossip” which really was accurate information and then “put out the garbage” on talk back radio.
So, for clarity, the responsibility for granting pratique or port clearance is Border Farce’s and Border Farce’s alone.
The fact that this ship had reported having passengers on board who were ill and very ill with respiratory symptoms meant that pratique or port clearance should not have and legally could not have been granted.
At what level of command in Border Farce was the decision taken to allow a “plague ship” into port and grant it pratique??
Mikey Pezzullo, you may need to polish your “I’ll take that on notice” for the senate estimates, because by then, this “plague ship disaster” will probably be more than a bit smelly, eh!
The granting of pratique or port clearance is dependent upon a clean bill of health, which the Ruby Princess did not have!
Perhaps the NSW Coronial Inquiry that good ol mate Mick Fuller says will be instigated, will get to the bottom of it all.
Maybe there will be more neighbourly putting out of garbage bins to help get to the preferred result.
Maybe the phone call has already been made!
I saw Mick Fuller suggest there might be a coronial inquiry again yesterday. Is there something he knows about but doesn’t have the authority to investigate? But a coronial inquiry can? If so, why does he feel the need to communicate (and repeat) that? Who is this targeted at? It is not a media comment a police investigation would normally make.
Some of these questions are answered, at least in part, by our Constitution which, by section 51 endows the Commonwealth with exclusive powers over :
section 51 (IX) Qurantine : section 51 (XXVII) Immigration and Emigration
The Department of Home Affairs and Australian Border Force have exclusive powers in these areas so the oversight and denial of immigration and the ordering of quarantine can only be ordered by ABF .
There seems to be confusion over where Commonwealth powers end and state powers take over : sort that out !
Regardless of the various damning details, isn’t it the responsibility of the federal government, via the relevant Minister (Dutton) to assure that the department has working system that can competently protect Australia. Surely if the Minister cannot give those assurances then he cannot guarantee he can do his job and should take immediate necessary corrective action to protect Australians? How can those matters be resolved with a police inquiry in one State (NSW)?