Coronavirus: Doubt over Daniel Andrews’ testimony

New claims by former Victorian health minister Jenny Mikakos put Daniel Andrews under more pressure as text messages emerge.

Premier Daniel Andrews gives his daily COVID-19 briefing in Melbourne on Friday. Picture: Penny Stephens

Former Victorian health minister Jenny Mikakos has cast doubt on Daniel Andrews’ testimony to the hotel quarantine inquiry, blaming the program’s failings on the Premier’s subversion of cabinet processes.

Ms Mikakos’s new claims, provided in a submission to the ­inquiry, came as Mr Andrews came under further pressure to explain if his office was involved in the decision to deploy private contractors to oversee quarantine. New Victoria Police disclosures show details of communication between Mr ­Andrews’ private office and the Department of Premier and Cabinet on the day the national cabinet signed off on the quarantine program.

The police submission to the inquiry noted that a member of the Premier’s private office sent a text message to the Premier’s ­department’s at 1.19pm on March 27 referring to “security” and that “Simon is getting to me ASAP” — likely a reference to Jobs Department secretary Simon Phemister.

Victoria Police said the text showed there was “ongoing” communications about the logistic ­aspects of the program, including security, between the Premier’s private office, his department and Martin Pakula’s department ­before any input was sought from police, and ahead of Mr Andrews referencing private security at a media conference hours later.

Ms Mikakos also revealed a previously undisclosed email that she said added to the weight of evidence that an “actual decision, not an assumed one”, was made to use private security guards during the March 27 national cabinet meeting, “or soon after”.

In the email — titled “National Cabinet Outcomes” — Department of Health national cabinet director Nicole Lynch wrote that state and territory governments had agreed private security would enforce quarantine where police did not want to take on the role. “Enforcement by S&T governments keen for police not to babysit, but called in as needed (e.g. use private security),” she wrote.

In a direct assault on his credibility, Ms Mikakos urged inquiry head Jennifer Coate to treat evidence given by Mr Andrews “with caution”, declaring the weight of evidence points clearly to an ­“actual” decision being made to use private security guards, despite the Premier, ministers and department heads claiming ­ignorance.

The division prompted fresh discussion among Labor figures on Friday about Mr Andrews’ long-term hold on the leadership, with members of his own Left faction expressing renewed anger at his treatment of Ms Mikakos, who resigned in protest after he blamed her for the quarantine ­debacle.

Senior Labor sources said there was widespread internal discussion about both how long Mr Andrews would remain in the role and who might replace him.

While Mr Andrews retains backing from his support base, Left sources said his behaviour ­towards Ms Mikakos, and his ­failed attempt to engineer her ­replacement, had caused him to lose the trust of many in the party.

The two-year anniversary for the 2018 election win is on ­November 24 and party figures want to treat it as the launching pad for the 2022 campaign. “It’s looking more and more likely he has run his race,” one Labor MP told The Weekend Australian.

Facing questions at his daily press conference about the claims by Ms Mikakos, Mr Andrews rejected her allegation that he had subverted the cabinet process but said the criticism would be a matter for inquiry to report on.

In her final submission to the inquiry, Ms Mikakos said accepting the government’s use of private security guards had stemmed from a creeping ­assumption, and not a decision, had “insufficient regard to the ­realities of governmental operation and decision-making”.

She said the inquiry “ought to treat with caution” the Premier’s evidence where he sought to ­explain his reference to the use of private security when announcing the quarantine program on March 27. “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,” she said.

Ms Mikakos said the haste with which the program was set up saw “usual cabinet processes subverted”, with the Premier, through the Department of Premier and Cabinet, giving ­responsibility for the scheme’s design and implementation to Mr Pakula, the Jobs Minister.

Ms Mikakos said the fact that no cabinet or cabinet committee process was engaged for the setting up of the quarantine program is “the root cause of some of the ­issues which have been ventilated before the board”.

“In particular, the failure to follow ordinary cabinet-led decision-making processes is the cause of the differing views which have been given by witnesses as to who had overall responsibility.”

She said the lack of process might also be a “cause of the ­obscurity” as to who decided to engage private security guards.

“More importantly, such a process would have enabled differing views and potential risks and weaknesses with the program to be identified and ­addressed prior to its establishment,” she said.

She said the features of the program identified as critical to its failure — hotels, inadequate cleaning, and the use of private security guards — remained the responsibility of Mr Pakula’s department until July when the program was moved to the Department of Justice.

But while the Department of Jobs, Regions and Precincts admitted it could have played closer attention to private security, it insisted it was acting as a support agency to DHHS.

“DJPR acknowledges that it could have done more to scrutinise and respond to the extent of subcontracting by the private security companies engaged by it to provide security services to the COVID-19 hotel quarantine program once that issue came to DJPR’s attention,” the submission said.