James Campbell: Truth evades inquiry as Sutton scandal deepens
The collective amnesia of Graham Ashton, Andrew Crisp and Chris Eccles stood them in good stead at the hotel quarantine inquiry. If only Brett Sutton could have been saved by his own failed memory, but the evasiveness has been on an epic scale, writes James Campbell.
Coronavirus
Don't miss out on the headlines from Coronavirus. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Poor Professor Brett Sutton.
If only his memory was as bad those of Graham Ashton, Andrew Crisp and Chris Eccles, he wouldn’t be in the spot he is.
The collective amnesia of those three gentlemen stood them in good stead at the Coate Inquiry.
When asked, the poor old Professor could have had similar trouble recalling in his evidence when he first became aware of the security guards situation in the hotel quarantine program. But instead he was positive the first he knew about anything was in May when he heard about it in the media.
His problem is this is clearly at odds with an email exchange from March which included the information he said he didn’t know.
Department of Health and Human Services’ solicitors, MinterEllison, have told the inquiry he “instructed us he had not read the detail of the email at the time and that the evidence that he gave to the board was truthful at the time and remains so” and he “stands by that evidence which was provided honestly”.
Fair enough. He was a busy man and can’t be expected to have read everything. It might have slipped his notice.
But another previously undisclosed email released on Tuesday makes it crystal clear “all policy and oversight of people in detention is being handled in a strict chain of command” and the man at the top of that chain of command was Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton.
So why did Sutton instruct MinterEllison to withhold the email chain from the inquiry?
His reasoning, according to their letter, was as he stood by his evidence he “further instructed us that he did not consider he needed to clarify his evidence and therefore the email did not need to be provided to the board for that reason”.
It is hard not to ponder whose interests that sentence is meant to serve — lawyer or client. It is certainly a neat piece of reasoning to argue that as you told the truth you have no obligation to disclose anything that might contradict what you said.
But are we really surprised after what has played out at this inquiry? The evasiveness has been on an epic scale.
On Tuesday Daniel Andrews was asked if he had heard from the hotel quarantine inquiry in the wake of the news it was to hold an extraordinary hearing later that day. He answered: “I think there may have been a letter … I haven’t seen the letter, but there may have been a letter, just asking for clarification on a number of not new issues.”
Really? There “may” have been a letter, Premier? As it turned out there had indeed been a letter, a letter asking him to provide another affidavit. What’s that about?
“I would say it is an exercise for completeness’ sake if you like, I’m not changing my evidence,” he explained on Wednesday. “It’s just a few developments in recent times, whether it be, whatever it is, for the sake of completeness, some basic questions have been put to me, and I will respond in due course.”
OK, nothing to see here, but on the face of it, hard to square with the inquiry’s view that it “must be emphasised that the relevant parties are being asked to address novel material, not the subject of previous evidence”.
Oh and Lisa Neville, the Police and Emergency Services Minister is also providing another affidavit about who she spoke to on the day the quarantine program was established but at this stage “it would be inappropriate to go into any more detail” about what that’s all about.
Of course.
MORE NEWS
NEVILLE ORDERED TO SUBMIT STATEMENT TO INQUIRY
VIC CASE AMONG ‘HANDFUL’ OF WORLDWIDE REINFECTIONS