Bombshell email shown at Victoria’s hotel quarantine inquiry reveals Brett Sutton had ‘moral and legal’ concerns

An explosive email tabled at the inquiry into Victoria’s hotel quarantine program reveals Brett Sutton’s ‘moral and legal’ concerns.

Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton slammed the Victorian hotel quarantine program just two weeks after it began, saying it was “astounding’’ he had been cut out of it and warning of “moral and legal’’ unease.

The explosive email tabled with the board of inquiry into the botched quarantine program comes two months after Prof Sutton had denied major concerns, giving evidence in September that it was “not inappropriate’’ for someone other than him to be appointed state controller of the COVID-19 taskforce.

And on the day Victoria “eliminated” the virus, the inquiry revealed that a colleague of Prof Sutton’s believed there were “a number of instances’’ which led him to believe Prof Sutton “may have been aware, or had the opportunity to be aware’’ that private security was being used.

The extraordinary developments come as the inquiry reconvened briefly, dumping hundreds of pages of sworn statements and evidence late on Friday.

With the spotlight now firmly on the Chief Health Officer, an email was revealed showing Prof Sutton laying bare his concerns about the hotel quarantine program on April 13.

The email, written to deputy secretary Euan Wallace, shows Prof Sutton was deeply unhappy, saying the hotel quarantine program, codenamed Operation Soteria, was put in place “without even getting my approval or even input’’.

Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Daniel Pockett

He told Prof Wallace — appointed 10 days ago as the new Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services after Kym Peake resigned on the same day Prof Sutton filed his affidavit — his deputy CHO, Annaliese van Diemen, was “similarly excluded’’.

Victoria’s deadly second coronavirus wave was sparked by breaches at the quarantine hotels and led to 800 deaths.

The inquiry has so far resulted in the resignations of three senior public officials – former health minister Jenny Mikakos, Ms Peake, and former head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet Chris Eccles.

In two further affidavits to the inquiry, Prof Sutton said he did not instruct the DHHS lawyers to withhold documents from the inquiry which showed he had forwarded an email chain that discussed private security on the day the program was established.

Prof Sutton stuck by his evidence that he never knew private security — blamed for the quarantine breaches — was being used until after the outbreak at the Rydges on Swanston in May.

He maintained he never read or registered the mentions of private security in the email chain.

The health department’s Professor Euan Wallace. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Andrew Henshaw

And he said he did not recall his email exchange with Prof Wallace when he gave evidence on September 16, although he maintained that the matters raised were “consistent with my evidence and went to the heart of the concerns I had at the time; that public health were not briefed and were not involved and did not have operational control of matters in respect of which we felt we had a moral and perhaps legal responsibility’’.

In another extraordinary development, DHHS deputy secretary Jason Helps — one of those who was appointed state controller instead of Prof Sutton — revealed he blew the whistle on the DHHS’s failure to provide a number of emails to the board of inquiry including the one sent to Prof Sutton which referenced private security.

Mr Helps said he spoke up after re-reading the March 27 email in late September.

He said he was expressing his own personal view and had not spoken to Prof Sutton about what his knowledge was of the use of private security.

However, based on his five months as state controller, his knowledge of evidence before the board, and documents, emails and plan relating to hotel quarantine “there are a number of instances that arose throughout the course of the Hotel Quarantine Program which lead me to believe that Professor Sutton may have been aware or had the opportunity to be aware of the use of private security’’