I read your first link. Don't have subscription to read the second.
Lets go through the original quote that I replied to again:
When the hotel quarantine began I did read somewhere that the proposition was put by someone that farming the guard duty to the security industry, rather than the ADF, was seen as a plus plus [that is reported]
by Labor [nope by public servant/bureaucrat]
, giving employment to some of the populous who were already under the gun [conceded in first point]
, and currying favour with the union responsible for the security industry [none of the reports mention this. Actually one reports says the union was against Unified getting the contract],
who it was said was "powerful" [but not powerful enough to influence who got the contract?].
I read the original lines as saying "those Labor politicians and their union mates have stuffed everyone up just to take care of the union mates". I pointed out that the private security industry exhibits the polar opposite characteristics of being strongly unionised. I also said that the typical "Labor + union" bashing is unsurprising from the Murdoch press. Nowhere did I comment on the general conduct of the Victorian government or whether their plan or action was good or bad.
From your link:
The appointment of Unified proved controversial because, unlike Wilson and MSS, it was not on the government’s preferred panel of security suppliers. Despite this, Unified ended up doing the bulk of the hotel quarantine work.
So both the government and the union did not prefer that company win the contract. So how is it "Labor + union" fault that they were hired (which was the sentiment I read into the post I originally replied to)?
PS: I am in general agreement with Derfred's post with minor differences (eg I think QLD border closure issue is magnified too much and unfairly compared with WA border closure which is absolute. It was only last week that SA and Tas opened their borders to NSW). But it is a difficult game the states are playing with their borders. It is not just the cases you know about, it is also trying to quantify the unknown cases floating around plus the risk posed by people who deliberately disobey the rules. That was why the other states slammed their borders shut against Queensland after the three women sneaked in from Melbourne. It wasn't the four known cases, it was the tens of unknown possible transmissions from them wandering around for 10 days. And once the number of cases gets away from you, it is an order of magnitude more difficult to reel it back. So it is understandable for states to be risk adverse.