Hotel quarantine scandal: Victorian Police Minister Lisa Neville asked to submit sworn statement
Victorian Police Minister Lisa Neville has been ordered to submit a sworn statement to the hotel quarantine inquiry about a call she received from the Premier’s private office in the crucial minutes when the use of private security was decided.
National
Don't miss out on the headlines from National. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Victorian Police Minister Lisa Neville has been ordered to submit a sworn statement to the hotel quarantine inquiry detailing a call she received from the Premier’s private office in the crucial minutes when the use of private security was decided.
Ms Neville confirmed she had been asked to provide a second affidavit to the inquiry to discuss two key phone calls she received on March 27.
In a statement to the Herald Sun, Ms Neville said: “the phone calls are consistent with my witness statement — and reflects the evidence I have already provided”.
However, she refused to name who the phone calls were from or discuss the substance of the conversations saying: “it would be inappropriate to go into any more detail ahead of that affidavit being provided to the Board.“
Ms Neville told the inquiry she received a phone call from Premier Daniel Andrews’ office just after 1pm on Friday, March 27, alerting her to a decision that National Cabinet had just made to introduce a quarantine program for returning overseas guests.
“It was via a phone call from the Premier’s Office, where just after National Cabinet had been concluded, so I think that was around 1.00-ish, so somewhere there or just after,’’ she said in evidence.
“That phone call indicated to me — my memory is two things: firstly, hotel quarantine and DJPR being the responsible Department to stand up that program.’’
The Herald Sun has previously confirmed that National Cabinet concluded at 1.12pm on that day.
The board of inquiry is zeroing in on what happened in the crucial minutes after National Cabinet, specifically in the six-minute window between 1.16pm and 1.22pm, where former Chief Commissioner of Police Graham Ashton apparently found out private security was going to be used.
Every government witness, including Ms Neville, has denied making the decision.
Ms Neville says she found out private security would be used at 2pm from Emergency Management Commissioner Andrew Crisp, at a meeting also attended by Mr Ashton.
It is not clear which is the second call Ms Neville has been asked to provide details on.
The inquiry’s requirement for Ms Neville to provide a further sworn statement comes after the board demanded Mr Andrews, his private staff, his chief bureaucrat Chris Eccles, and Mr Ashton, provided their phone records to the board.
The move cost Mr Eccles his job, as the records showed he had called Mr Ashton at 1.17pm that day — but had told the inquiry his records had showed he had not.
The fact Ms Neville has been asked to detail incoming calls means the board’s interest has been piqued by records provided by one of the small group asked to hand over their call logs.
All of them are only able to provide outgoing calls. The exception to this is Mr Ashton, whose entire call log has been provided by Telstra at the request of the inquiry.
Mr Andrews has also been asked to provide an affidavit as the board continues to tighten the screws on the upper levels of the Government over who made the decision to hire private security.
The board has not sought a further affidavit from former Health Minister Jenny Mikakos, indicating Ms Coate may be satisfied with her evidence — so far.
Ms Coate can continue to demand documents and information right up until she hands down her report, which is expected to miss the November 6 deadline.
Some Andrews Government sources believe Ms Mikakos, who resigned after her appearance at the inquiry, was used as a scapegoat, with the Premier telling the board she was the Minister responsible for the fatally-flawed program.
Ms Mikakos had used her closing submission to urge the board to treat “with caution’’ Mr Andrews’ evidence that he didn’t know who made the decision to use private security.
Jobs Minister Martin Pakula, who the inquiry was told was “rarely’’ briefed by his department secretary about the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions’ role in the program, has also not been asked to provide a further affidavit.
ANDREWS ORDERED TO MAKE SWORN STATEMENT
Premier Daniel Andrews has been ordered to make another sworn statement to the hotel quarantine inquiry after investigators gained access to his phone records.
The Herald Sun understands Mr Andrews is among the “certain parties” who a special hearing was told had been asked to provide affidavits answering further questions and handing over documents.
Former Health Minister Jenny Mikakos has previously warned the inquiry to treat “with caution” Mr Andrews’ evidence that he did not know who decided to use private security.
It is understood Mr Andrews has been asked questions in response to evidence given by former chief bureaucrat, Chris Eccles.
There will be no correction to Mr Andrews’ evidence.
SUTTON TOLD LAWYERS NOT TO PROVIDE EMAILS
Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton is under extreme pressure to explain why he apparently instructed lawyers to withhold from the inquiry an email showing he had engaged in a written discussion about private security on March 27.
He had previously told the board he didn’t know private guards had been hired until he saw media reports in late May.
This prompted former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett to call for Sutton’s resignation on Twitter on Wednesday morning
“Head of Premiers Chis Eccles did the right thing and resigned when found to have misled the Inquiry. Chief Medical Officer must now do the same for the same reason.”
“Honour before dismissal. The cover up is always worse than the crime. Go.”
The emails showed a Department of Health bureaucrat, at Prof Sutton’s request, briefed federal authorities on the fact private security would be used in the hotels months before the CHO said he became aware the guards had been hired.
It was revealed on Tuesday, that after the inquiry wrote to DHHS demanding to know why several emails had not been made available, the department’s lawyers said: “Professor Sutton 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.”
The inquiry published the previously-unavailable DHHS emails, including one showing Prof Sutton replying on March 27 “thanks very much’’ to DHHS colleague Braeden Hogan who had advised a Commonwealth COVID official that “private security has been contracted to provide security at the hotels.’’
Prof Sutton has previously said he didn’t register the email included a comment about private security.
The request for the Premier to make another statement comes after inquiry lawyers were given copies of phone records of Mr Andrews, his private staff, former Department of Premier and Cabinet secretary Mr Eccles and complete records from former police chief Graham Ashton.
The records have already cost Mr Eccles his job, after he gave evidence he didn’t speak to Mr Aston during a crucial six-minute period on March 27.
He resigned nine days ago after the records showed he had called Mr Ashton, although he denied discussing private security.
Mr Andrews on Tuesday would only say “there may have been a letter,” from the inquiry.
“I’ve got no knowledge of what they are doing today, they are an independent board and they’ll do whatever they think is appropriate,’’ he said.
Along with Mr Andrews, the inquiry has also demanded sworn statements from Prof Sutton, and Department of Health and Human Services secretary Kym Peake.
The health pair are in the sights of the inquiry after the DHHS admitted it did not hand over emails, including one which shows Prof Sutton at the top of a “chain of command’’ for people in hotel detention.
He had told the inquiry he was not “directly involved” in the program’s operation.
A DHHS employee, who had given evidence to the inquiry, raised concerns about the missing emails as early as September 28 — but the first the inquiry knew about it was when it emerged in the media a week ago.
The inquiry wrote to the DHHS lawyers, Minters, demanding answers on why six email chains which appeared to be relevant to their inquiries were not produced.
In an extraordinary sitting of the inquiry which lasted just 19 minutes, board chair Jennifer Coate left open the possibility of recalling witnesses to public hearings, saying she could not announce next steps until she received information back.
This includes answers from Mr Andrews, Prof Sutton, Ms Peake, and other “certain parties’’ who were not identified.
Counsel assisting the inquiry Tony Neal QC said the information and documents requested after the delivery of the phone records related to “novel material not the subject of previous evidence”.
“There is no basis for inferring or speculating that any view has yet been formed about the veracity or otherwise of evidence previously given by any parties on the topic of engagement of private security,’’ he said.
He said there were two separate issue which had arisen since the public hearings closed — the phone records, and the missing DHHS emails.
Ms Coate also indicated her report would be unlikely to be completed by the November 6 deadline, saying: “most unfortunately of course these new developments … may unsettle the due date for the report but I am unable to be clear about that at this stage absent of the material called for being delivered.’’
MORE NEWS:
AUTHORITIES KNEW OF BLOOD RISK SCANDAL FOR WEEKS