Hotel Quarantine Program - "Wiping the runny nose vs Treating other symptoms and signs"

To clarify upfront - The thoughts shared in this article are my own personal opinions and are not on behalf of any Organisation, Association or Group that I am engaged by or associated with. I will also say, the below is not to detract attention from any performance deficiencies or negligence that has occurred from any involved parties throughout the Hotel Quarantine Program. It is to provide a more rounded understanding of the entire situation faced to help stop it happening again. I am also hoping some of the elements outlined below are of assistance to any newer members of our industry in supporting their journey.

Any tenured Security Leader or Manager globally will tell you, to effectively commence security operations for any type of client there are key stages that should occur. This is regardless of whether the service provision is for a warehouse, bank, hotel, retail client or any other.

An initial scoping meeting with the client to map out the totality of the duty expectations and a risk assessment to identify any site and/or service-related specific risks are two of the basics. Those identified risks are then prioritised and reviewed with what I will call for simplicity sake "ALARP Goggles". ALARP is short for "as low as reasonably practicable" which in basic terms means weighing risk and its potential consequence against the time, trouble and money needed to control it whilst taking into account needed operational efficiencies and organisational culture. Post this occurring, a range of preparatory items needs to be developed to ensure a smooth commencement. This includes items such as the development of operating procedures, assignment instructions, safe work method statements and a site-specific induction program to make sure the personnel are “job-ready”. With the quarantine hotels, there are also obvious unique hygiene, infection control and waste management risks that would have needed to be included in this process.

Without boring "non-security" people to tears, the ideal process would then be to review all of the preparatory material and simultaneously map that against your workforce from a suitability vetting perspective. A gap analysis can then be conducted to identify resource gaps and additionally, knowledge/skills gaps and based on this, training/induction content can be refined and scheduled accordingly. This also gives you the opportunity to identify if there is a need for any subject matter experts (SME) to assist with content development or refinement and subsequent training delivery.

With the risk, procedural and training framework items completed, the personnel selection and briefings actioned, remaining items include the actual shift logistics and issuance of any related equipment and PPE (as well as incident registers, sign on documentation etc).

If you asked the "Average Joe or Jane" Manager in the industry, how long the above takes, you would get answers between 7 to 30 days depending on the scope and scale of the engagement (how many sites spread over what area), uniqueness of the client environment and the industry experience of the people involved (specific firms and people may have robust templates that just need adjusting, not full development).

Now let's walk through that wardrobe back from Narnia and into reality.

Across both NSW and Victoria, after the National Cabinet Meeting that occurred Friday March 27th where it was decided to detain returning travellers for two weeks, Security firms in both States were provided often less than 36 hours’ notice to have 30 or more guards active onsite on a 24/7 basis (which equates to more than 135 guards a week using a generic ratio of one fulltime 24/7 position equals 4.5 guards to allow for contingency). In NSW, a Group Project Introduction Briefing occurred on the afternoon of Tuesday 31st March, sites were then allocated to security providers on Wednesday 1st April around 6 pm for a 6:30 am start Thursday 2nd April. Yes, that is just over twelve hours.

Whilst I could use this juncture to expand on my last point to respond to the "Armchair Academics Court of Facebook" statements that the work was just issued without any tender opportunity, I will save that for another post where hopefully they can also share, from their vast experience, how they would have managed the risk of returning passengers whilst the stakeholders developed the tender scoping document, waited for submissions to be lodged, reviewed the submissions and selected a shortlist, interviewed the shortlist etc...... get the picture?

So whilst there has obviously been failings at varying levels in various areas from security providers (which the reviews will work through), what part has the overall system played in setting the project up for failure?

For those not involved and not aware, the NSW Project has had the Public Works Advisory, NSW Police, the ADF, Private Security Firms and the Department of Premier and Cabinet working collaboratively. External firms were also brought in to assist with the elements of the audit process with the NSW Police Security Licensing Enforcement Directorate also auditing items under its scope. Each of those separate organisations also suffered the exact same time pressures/constraints and from direct personal experience liaising with various stakeholders, I can say with confidence that all have felt the pressure of this project.

I also need to say I find it comical reading various articles across both States where it is stated 'NSW success is due to not using private contractors" and in the associated image, in the forefront, the ADF are bringing in luggage but in the background, there are licensed security personnel. In the background and unnamed ... rather fitting when you listen to the Victorian Opposition Leaders recent blatantly ignorant statements.

But what could have been managed better? What learnings have occurred from this project that can translate into corrective action measures for future projects (or even for the current Quarantine program)?

I will bounce some ideas off you all now:

How about a combined approach to the development of Quarantine program training and induction materials through engaging with Industry Specialists across both States? (Don’t I keep hearing we are all in this together?)

How about the development of a specialist panel to identify all program unique risks and then map them to a “Quarantine Program” training/induction syllabus and initial version Safe Work Method Statements that could then just be overlayed with any individual site-specific content to help ensure consistency in approach? This could also be updated as the program progressed as these items are "living documents".

How about ensuring this panel had representation from Security, Safety, Risk and Healthcare key stakeholders (including from the Private Sector) as well as Hotel Management representation to capture all of their relevant perspectives in the initial mapping?

If the above had been actioned as part of initial directions simultaneously with the other actions that occurred post the National Cabinet Meeting on the 27th, today's media would be sharing a different story. Would there still be some issues that occurred, of course, this isn’t a Silver Bullet or magical pill and we are dealing with human being’s at every stage and level whom in this environment are also dealing with their own levels of stress and duress. It would, however, substantially have reduced issues that occurred, provided clarity and consistency across a number of key areas and allowed the management of various stakeholders in this project to focus on other key elements instead of chasing our tails post-project commencement.

As I mentioned in my first paragraph, this article is not to make any excuses for what has occurred to date but rather to additionally shine the light on attributing items that are simply not getting mentioned. The Security Industry is a rather voiceless industry that often gets labelled with the same tag that Michael O’Brien conveniently used in his recent 3AW interview as “not fit for purpose and suitable for wearing lanyards around their necks and guarding pubs”. I will save my full response to his comments for another post.

Although elements of this article won’t be popular, I am hopeful it stimulates some thoughts and some robust discussions on actual tangible improvements that directly translate into enhanced awareness and improved resilience.