Coronavirus quarantine inquiry: Brett Sutton admits to ‘inconsistencies’ on hotels

Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton has accepted there is an ‘apparent inconsistency’ between­ his testimony to the hotel quarantine inquiry and emails he was included in.

Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton. Picture: David Geraghty

Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton has accepted there is an “apparent inconsistency” between­ his testimony to the hotel quarantine inquiry and emails he was included in that discussed ­private security.

But Professor Sutton is standing by his evidence that he first learned private security was used to guard returning travellers at the disastrous scheme through media reports in May.

“I accept that there is an apparent inconsistency,” he said in an affidavit released by the hotel quarantine inquiry on Friday.

“I do, however, stand by my evidence that I was not aware of the use of private security guards until the outbreak occurred.

“Although I accept that private security was referred to in emails that I received, I did not read or register the information that ­private security guards were being used in hotel quarantine.”

At 5.52pm on March 27, Professor Sutton forwarded an email asking for details on Victoria’s hotel quarantine program to senior­ health bureaucrat Braedan Hogan.

When Mr Hogan responded at 6.43pm, Professor Sutton said: “Thanks so much, Braedan.”

In his affidavit, Professor Sutton said he only skimmed the email to check the questions had been answered, as he did not think operational matters concerned him. “I did not read it,” he said.

“I saw that there were responses in red font, so I was aware that responses had been provided but I did not read them.”

The emails emerged after Professor Sutton gave evidence. He said he remembered speaking with Minter Ellison lawyers about whether they changed his testim­ony but said it was not his responsibility to decide what was handed over to the inquiry.

“I did not instruct Minter Ellison or solicitors to the department that the emails (in exhibit 230) not be produced,“ he said.

Professor Sutton said he had been advised that another email, dated April 1, which discussed guests taking smoking breaks under the supervision of private security, was a draft and was never sent.

Jason Helps, who co-led Victoria’s response to the pandemic, said he believed Professor Sutton may have been aware of, or at least had the opportunity to be aware of, the use of private security. Mr Helps said he became concerned Professor Sutton was trying to deflect responsibility for the program after he made public comments about learning of priv­ate security through media reports.

“At the time, I felt that these comments were an unfair reflection of the governance of the hotel quarantine program and roles of the public health team and the emergency management branch,” he said. Mr Helps, who worked for Emergency Management Victoria, was appointed to lead the state’s response to the pandemic, despite Professor Sutton wanting to take on the role. In his affidavit, ­Professor Sutton said he still believed­ he should have been appointed­ state controller.

Mr Helps said after reviewing his emails he found a number of instances in which Professor Sutton could have learned private security was being used at hotel quarantine. “These instances include circumstances where Professor Sutton was copied in to 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,” he said.

Mr Helps said his comments were his opinion and he had no direct knowledge of whether Professo­r Sutton actually knew of the use of private security.

Fresh emails released by the inquiry show Professor Sutton was uneasy about being excluded from running the hotel quarantine program, despite believing he and Deputy Chief Health Officer Anna­liese van Diemen were ultimately accountable.

In an April 13 email to then Safer Care chief executive Euan Wallace, Professor Sutton said it was “astounding” the prog­ram had been established without consult­ation with him or Ms van Diemen.

He said Ms van Diemen was “effectively the maker of the entire [hotel quarantine] scheme and has responsibility in law for it”. Speaking of tension with EMV, he said he felt uneasy that the agency had excluded the people­ with accountability from the governance of the program. “There is clearly a disconnect with our EM colleagues, perhaps especially in EMV who understand their role as controller of the scheme and effectively ­excluded those with significant ­accountability.”