Pressure builds to haul Daniel Andrews and Jenny Mikakos back before hotel quarantine inquiry
An explosive letter from Jenny Mikakos has urged the hotel quarantine inquiry to treat parts of Daniel Andrew’s evidence with “caution”, renewing calls for him to be hauled in front of the inquiry for a second time.
Victoria
Don't miss out on the headlines from Victoria. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Pressure is mounting for Daniel Andrews and Jenny Mikakos to be hauled back before Victoria’s $6 million hotel quarantine inquiry after the former health minister launched a scathing attack on the Premier’s evidence.
In a bombshell final submission to the inquiry lawyers for Ms Mikakos have urged chair Jennifer Coate to treat aspects of Mr Andrews’ evidence with “caution”.
Ms Mikakos has also squarely blamed the Premier for the bungled program submitting his decision to “subvert” usual Cabinet processes may have contributed to errors made in the fatally flawed quarantine scheme.
She also disputed the claim that the decision to use private security guards had been a “creeping assumption” — saying it was instead an “actual decision” which the Premier must have known about before his March 27 press conference.
“It is respectfully submitted that the Board ought to treat with caution the Premier’s evidence where he sought to explain the reference to the use of private security in the Hotel Quarantine Program made by him during his media conference that commenced at 3pm on 27 March 2020,” the submission said.
“It is submitted that had the decision not already been made by that time, the Premier would not have announced the use of private security in the program.
“In this regard, it is observed that no evidence was led about what briefings were provided to the Premier by his office in advance of that media conference.”
The stunning submission sparked alarm across the political spectrum on Friday with government insiders shocked and the state opposition calling for the inquiry to recall witnesses.
But Mr Andrews refused to be drawn on the submission, saying the inquiry board could make their own judgment on his evidence.
“The inquiry was not set up for the avoidance of answers or avoidance of questions,” he said.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate that I try to conduct the inquiry from this podium or draft the report from this podium.”
Mr Andrews has not spoken to Ms Mikakos — once a close ally — since her resignation last month.
Opposition leader Michael O’Brien demanded Mr Andrews and Ms Mikakos return to the inquiry to clarify their evidence.
“We’ve always had a concern that this inquiry would not find out the truth. Those concerns seemed to be justified,” he said.
“If this inquiry is to have any public confidence, if this inquiry is actually about finding out the facts, it must recall the premier and the former health minister.
“They are completely at odds with each other, only one of them can be telling the truth.”
Shadow Attorney-General Ed O’Donohue has written to the Board formally requesting it hear further evidence.
In her submission, lawyers for Ms Mikakos blamed the Department of Health and Human Services for not properly briefing her and hit out at the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions for denying responsibility over the bungled scheme.
She also implied she wanted to cross examine ministers but feared the political fallout.
“A Minister in a Cabinet government or a Secretary of a department might consider it politically disadvantageous or improper to cross-examine a Cabinet Minister,” the submission said.
“Accordingly, the Board should critically review the evidence of the Premier and the Ministers (none of whom has been cross-examined by those who might be in the best position to contradict them) where that evidence is at odds with other evidence (and in particular, where it departs from contemporaneous documents).”
Ms Mikakos’s bombshell resignation sparked chaos in the government just weeks after the pair’s relationship began to break down.
It came after Mr Andrews nominated Ms Mikakos as bearing responsibility for the disastrous hotel quarantine operation, due to the Department of Health being the control agency in a pandemic.
Ms Mikakos had said it was a collective responsibility and said she accepted responsibility for the conduct of her department.
But the submission also revealed she tried unsuccessfully to get the board to tender an email, which discussed private security into evidence, so Health Department boss Kym Peake could be questioned about it.
The email, from senior DHHS official Nicole Lynch, was sent to public health officials at 2.48pm on March 27 to advise them on what had been “agreed’’ at National Cabinet – including that police would not “babysit” return travellers at the hotel and that state and territory government would instead “use private security”.
Ms Mikakos’ lawyers noted the document was not put to any witness, nor was Ms Lynch called to give evidence.
Minister for Industry Support and Recovery Martin Pakula said he would await the inquiry’s report before commenting.
“I clearly outlined relevant roles and responsibilities in my evidence to the board of inquiry, as did my department, and I don’t propose to make any further comment prior to the receipt of Justice Coate’s report,” he said.
MORE NEWS
VIC OPPOSITION: HOTEL QUARANTINE INQUIRY MUST REOPEN
ANALYSIS: WHY MIKAKOS’ LETTER COULD SPELL THE END FOR DAN