Coronavirus Australia: Hotel quarantine inquiry to publish Daniel Andrews’ texts

A document prepared by Daniel Andrews’ office detailing the proposed use of private security guards in hotel quarantine was sent to the Victorian Premier late on the day the scheme was established.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. Picture: Darrian Traynor/Getty Images

A document prepared by Daniel Andrews’ private office detailing the proposed use of private security guards in the botched hotel quarantine scheme was sent to the Victorian Premier late on the day the scheme was established by national cabinet.

The Premier’s staff also prepared a statement and a question and answer document ahead of him announcing the quarantine scheme that mentioned the use of security in the program five times.

Documents released by the hotel quarantine inquiry on Friday­ also reveal that Jason Helps, who co-led Victoria’s response to the pandemic, said Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton “may have been aware or had the opportunity to be aware of the use of private security.”

The inquiry has been investigating how private security came to be used in the quarantine scheme, a move blamed for the devastating spread of the coronavirus out of hotels and into the community, but has yet to find answers to key questions.

The new documents make clear the Premier’s office was aware of the use of private security guards on the day the hotel quarantine scheme was announced. But the documents appear to shed little new light on who decided to use private security over Victoria Police and Australian Defence Force personnel and for what reason.

Mr Andrews received an email from his deputy chief of staff, Jessie McCrone, at 11.58pm on March 27 that attached quarantine information ahead of a press con­ference the next day.

The document, prepared by a policy adviser in the Premer’s ­office, details 25 questions and answers, and mentions the use of private security guards in two.

It asks: “What addit­ional measures have been implemented at the hotels for this new purpose?”. “Private security and additional cleaning have been arranged­ for the hotels, to keep travellers, and the broader Victorian community, safe,” it says.

The references to private security are significant because they confirm members of the Premier’s office were aware of their proposed use on the day the scheme was established.

In an affidavit released by the inquiry on Friday, Mr Andrews said he did not recall reviewing the afternoon statement before starting the press conference to announce the scheme.

Mr Andrews said that while he was told he was not given a copy of the 2.53pm question-and-answer document mentioning security, and does not recall receiving it, “it is possible that the oral briefing that I received immediately before my press conference was based, in part, on information contained in the Policy Q & As”.

He said he received the email from Ms McCrone at 11.58pm ­“attaching a briefing document” in anticipation of the press conference on March 28.

His affidavit does not state whether he read the document.

In a 9.49pm email, Ms McCrone sent a version of the Q&A that did not include the quarantine update mentioning the use of private security.

In an affidavit, Mr Helps said he became concerned Professor Sutton was attempting to deflect responsibility from DHHS to Emergency Management Victoria after the CHO said in July he only learnt private security were being used through the media. “These instances include circumstances where Professor ­Sutton was copied into emails referring to the use of private security, where deputies under his command were involved in correspondence referring to the use of private security, or where certain documents and policies which referred to the use of private security were specifically sent to Professor Sutton for approval,” Mr Helps said.

Mr Helps, who was appointed deputy state controller despite Professor Sutton wishing to take on the role, said his comments were his opinion and he had no direct knowledge of whether Professor Sutton actually knew of the use of private security.

Victoria’s former police chief commissioner has told the hotel inquiry he believes Mr Andrews’ ex-top public servant led him to believe during a phone call on the day the quarantine program was set-up that private security guards would be used. In a second affidavit released by the inquiry on Friday, Graham Ashton — who retired as the state’s top police officer in July — makes it clear that Chris Eccles planted the seed about the use of private security guards during the conversation.

 

Mr Ashton received a call from Mr Eccles at 1.17pm, on March 27, according to phone records released by the inquiry, and the two spoke for 136 seconds.

“Notwithstanding that confirmation, I have no independent recollection of that conversation,” he states in the affidavit. “I believe that at least part of this conversation involved Mr Eccles informing me regarding the potential use of the ADF to guard returned travellers during the transfer from their flights and the use of private security to guard them at the hotels. But my belief as to what he told me in this regard is based only on the inference which I draw from the contents of the text message which I sent to AFP Commr Reece Kershaw at 1322 on 27 March 2020.”

In the text, Mr Ashton states: “Mate. my advise is that ADF will do Passenger transfer and private security will be used.”

Mr Kershaw responds: “OK that’s new.”

Mr Ashton then responds: “I think that’s the deal set up by our DPC (Department of Premier and Cabinet) I understand NSW will be a different arrangement …”

Mr Eccles maintained in his affidavit that at the time of his ­conversation with Mr Ashton, he had no knowledge of any decision about the use of Victoria Police, AFP, ADF or private security personnel in the proposed hotel quarantine program.

Nor, Mr Eccles says, was he across “the particular matters the subject of the then Chief Commissioner’s text message to me at 1.16pm concerning the use of Victoria Police to do the guarding in the proposed hotel quarantine program”.

“I did not have the expertise to make such decisions,” he wrote.

Responding to the inquiry’s question about whether he had been the source of Mr Ashton’s ­information regarding the use of the Defence Force and private security, Mr Eccles wrote: “No”.

He referred to an earlier paragraph in which he says he “would not (and could not)” have told Mr Ashton of any ­decision to use Victoria Police, the ADF, the AFP or private security in the proposed hotel quarantine program or expressed any opinion on operational matters concerning the use of those personnel.

Mr Eccles also responded with a “no” to the inquiry’s question: “Whether or not you recall the conversation, do you accept that the inquiry would be entitled to infer that CCP Ashton had learned of the proposed use of the ADF and private security from you?”