Home›Questions on Notice›QoN 2923

❓ WA Parliament Question on Notice regarding Inpex FIFO worker who contracted COVID-19 and the subsequent actions taken by Inpex and the Department of Health. The questions cover shift changes, testing, contact tracing, and isolation protocols.

AnsweredQoN 2923Legislative Council

Asked

16 April 2020

Member

Hon Robin Chapple

Portfolio

Health

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to the Inpex FIFO ("Fly-In, Fly-Out") worker who contracted COVID-19 and was diagnosed after returning home overseas (when he fell ill), and answers to question without notice C289, answered on 2 April 2020, and I ask: I refer to the Inpex FIFO ("Fly-In, Fly-Out") worker who contracted Covid-19 and was diagnosed after returning home overseas when he fell ill, and answers to question without notice C289 answered on the 2 nd April and I ask : (a) did the worker who left the Maersk drilling rig, on 18 March, do so as part of a shift change: (i) if yes to (a), how many other workers left the rig on 18 March 2020, as part of that shift change; (ii) if yes to (a), were those other shift workers, referred to in (a)(i), tested for COVID-19: (A) if no to (a)(ii), why not; (B) if yes to (a)(ii), when were these tests conducted; and (C) if yes to (a)(ii), how many people were tested; and (iii) if yes to (a), was contact tracing carried out for those workers, referred to in (a)(i), who were colleagues on shift: (A) if no to (a)(iii), why not; (iv) if yes to (a), were the workers from the same shift placed in self-isolation for 14 days: (A) if no to (a)(iv), why not; and (B) if yes to (a)(iv), when were the workers informed and placed under subsequent self isolation; (v) if no to (a), why did the worker leave the rig on 18 March 2020; (b) by what method did the worker return to their home country: (i) what transit points were incurred in their journey back to their home country from the rig; and (ii) if by commercial, passenger aeroplane, which flights and transfers did they make as part of their journey from the rig to their home country; (c) was contact-tracing undertaken relating to people who may have come in contact with the ill worker during their travel home: (i) if no to (c), why not; (d) on what date was Inpex informed that the worker had contracted COVID-19, after he was diagnosed on 19 March 2020 in his home country; (e) on what date did Inpex move the non-essential workers off Maersk drilling rig and place them in isolation in the hotel in Broome: (i) of these workers referred to at (e), were they from the same shift, or a subsequent shift, to the worker who tested positive on 19 March 2020; (f) why did it take from 19 March 2020 until 22 March for Inpex to inform the authorities of the worker having contracted COVID -19; and (g) why did the Department allow the Inpex workers, in self-isolation in a Broome hotel, to leave the premises and visit bottle shops and other establishments?
I refer to the Inpex FIFO ("Fly-In, Fly-Out") worker who contracted Covid-19 and was
diagnosed after returning home overseas when he fell ill, and answers to question without notice C289 answered on the 2 nd April and I ask

AnswerView source ↗

Answered

10 June 2020

Responded by

Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health

Response time

9 days

I am advised:
(a) Yes
(i) 19
(ii) Yes, if they displayed symptoms as per testing protocol.
(A) Not applicable.
(B) 22 March 2020 and 23 March 2020.
(C) Two.
(iii) Yes.
(A) Not applicable.
(iv) Yes
(A) Not applicable.
(B) 22 March 2020.
(v) Not applicable.
(b) Commercial passenger aeroplane travel.
(i)-(ii) Broome to Perth (QF2659), then overseas transit points.
(c) Yes.
(i) Not applicable.
(d) 22 March 2020.
(e) 24 March 2020.
(i) The same shift.
(f) The worker presented for testing at his local hospital in his home country the day after developing symptoms on 19 March 2020. He was tested on 20 March 2020, and result was received on 21 March 2020. The worker alerted his own company, Maersk, who subsequently notified INPEX, the Australian based contractor for the drilling operation. As soon as INPEX were aware they alerted the Department of Health.
(g) As per protocol, all contacts who arrived in Broome were issued with self-isolation directions with WA Police present. Other INPEX workers who were in Broome at the time were not contacts of a positive case, and were therefore not required to self-isolate.

View on Parliament of WA