ABC NEWS By Emma Elsworthy

Several people walking past a large ship, as the Sydney Harbour Bridge can be seen in the background
 

The Australian Border Force (ABF) has confirmed it received a concerned phone call from the state port authority about the Ruby Princess, hours before the cruise ship was due to dock.

Key points:

  • The Ruby Princess has been at the centre of a blame game between the ABF and the NSW Government
  • The ABF maintains NSW Health cleared the ill-fated vessel to dock in Sydney
  • The vessel has been linked to hundreds of COVID-19 cases and 15 deaths

The NSW Port Authority contacted the ABF in the early hours of March 19 and expressed "concern in relation to the health of the passengers".

The ABF said in a statement today the cruise ship was cleared to dock by NSW Health.

"The ABF officer made internal enquiries and subsequently advised the NSW Port Authority that the vessel had been cleared by NSW Health," an ABF statement said.

A report from Nine newspapers said the ABF officer instructed a Sydney harbour master to allow the ship to dock.

The ABF clarified it "did not seek to shape or influence any view or decision by the NSW Port Authority".

"This is not ABF's role," the statement said.

The Ruby Princess has been linked to multiple clusters of coronavirus cases in NSW and interstate since its 2,700 passengers alighted the ship without proper isolation protocol in place.

Fifteen deaths and at least 600 cases of COVID-19 have been officially linked to the cruise liner, meaning it is the single biggest source of coronavirus infections in Australia. 

 

When asked about who bore culpability last month for the ship docking in Sydney, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian responded, "all of us have to take responsibility".

But on March 25, ABF Commissioner Michael Outram said the NSW health department had given the green light for passengers to disembark, despite several people on board being tested for coronavirus.

"The Department of Agriculture officials advised my officers that NSW Health had conducted a risk assessment, had rated the risk as low and that health officials would not be attending the vessel," he said.

"As a result of that information, all of the passengers were given a green light to disembark."

Earlier this week, NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller announced the commencement of a criminal investigation into the communications and actions that led to the ship's docking and disembarking.

 

More than 30 officers from State Crime, Counter-Terrorism and Special Tactics and Marine Area Commands have begun investigating the Ruby Princess debacle.

Investigators will interview high-priority witnesses in coming days, but they urged those with relevant information to contact Crime Stoppers.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Current system selects for turkeys who can't see the big picture but mindlessly follow technicalities. Often the cause big stuff ups when the technicalities are out of context.

    Let me guess the applied their risk assessment algorithm and got low risk and the guidelines said no intervention. Never mind that any fool who stood back and looked at the big picture could tell that this was high risk. This was late in the game and well known that cruise ships were coronavirus incubators and if one was positive then many were. And that it was likely that one was positive.

    • You are correct WEC.

      When I was at work and people said 'when we ran a risk assessment", I would automatically ask can I see it.

      Usually, it meant, there wasn't one and they made the decision in their head.

      Secondly, if they did show there is usually many flaws due to it being quite simplistic or the indicators are weighted incorrectly or it was just a tick and flick exercise.

      Thirdly from a professional point of view, they properly haven't even asked the right question. In other word did they first look at the threat or they haven't collected data and spoken to people at the coal face. 

      I could go on and on, but I will leave it at that. 

       

This reply was deleted.

Latest comments

Hell On Eels replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"Let's wait and see. Anasta has also admitted it was "speculation",  based on loud noises.
NAS admitted he'd been approached, but 'like others' he was "waiting" to see how it pans out.
It's hard to know with R360. They have guaranteed funding for…"
21 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"I just don't see it going down like that. Ryles is his buddyguy, so let's just see who starts rnd1"
32 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"and I wouldn't call 1yr a "stint"...maybe a "stunt" or a "layover" but not a stint"
40 minutes ago
Blue Eel replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"Interesting way to look at it. Does that mean we are looking that way at others with no contract with us past this year, ie
Dylan Walker
Junior Paulo
Josh Addo Carr
Ryan Matterson
and the other 4 or 5
 "
42 minutes ago
Blue Eel replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"If it outguns Papalii in the preseason why wouldn't we play him in firsts. Love how Ryles said "we will just let them fight it out in preseason". 
 "
46 minutes ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"No they won't the position is Pezets to lose.Theyll say competition but there won't be Pezet will be Parras 6 next year.
Garrick and Simonsson to potentially to offset the loss of Lomax.god only at the Eels can you lose talent like Brown and the…"
47 minutes ago
Eli Stephens replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"It's gone quiet so let's wait and see, Braith hasn't said anything really since he broke that rumour "
51 minutes ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"So you'd prefer to sacrifice the 2026 season because you don't like the donkeys.  That's a great strategical move Coryn. Im glad you're nowhere near recruitment & retention champion. "
52 minutes ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"Hope not I don't care what anyone says we can't afford to lose Lomax.Our back 5 is piss poor without him."
56 minutes ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"Did you read what Ryles said.  They'll battle it out in the pre season and the 6 jumper isn't black and white "
56 minutes ago
Blue Eel replied to Rabz S's discussion Jonah Pezet Joins Parramatta Eels - OFFICIAL
""
57 minutes ago
Eli Stephens replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"Tbf just reading this post it sounds like something Braith said weeks ago lol, don't think any new Lomax info has come out "
58 minutes ago
Yehez replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"WHy? I think we truly wanted him long term but as we saw with Dylan, if someone's not in the plans they get dropped. Because Hawkins was leaving we thought might as well get this guy for 1 year to provide cover but also play when Moses away/injured…"
58 minutes ago
Poupou Escobar replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"Why bullshit? Do we owe him a spot in the 17? It's not like we need to worry about losing him. He's already gone."
59 minutes ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"FUCK FUCK fffaaaarrrrrrkk."
1 hour ago
Yehez replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"As long as Simonsson is around and up for it, this is no big deal and alleviates some space. If we sign Garrick, even better.
Simonsson - Penisini - Garrick - AddoCarr      is quite a good backline.
 "
1 hour ago
More…

 

Lomax Gone

Just listening to Braith Anasta who has stated that Lomax won't be playing with Parra in 2026 and that's he's basically signed with Rugby Union. Anasta reckons he will not play NRL again and will likely move to UK to prepare for the October start of…

Read more…
26 Replies · Reply by Hell On Eels 21 minutes ago
Views: 724

<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>