Coronavirus: Victorian CHO Brett Sutton ‘should lead response, not bureaucrats’

Brett Sutton should have led Victoria’s pandemic response instead of bureaucrats with no medical background, inquiry hears.

Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton. Picture: Daniel Pockett

Victoria’s Chief Health Officer, Brett Sutton, should have led the state’s response to the corona­virus pandemic instead of senior bureaucrats with no medical background, counsels assisting the hotel quarantine inquiry have submitted.

Ben Ihle on Monday said sidelining the state’s top public health official deprived him of a crucial “line of sight” into the state’s response to the pandemic.

Mr Ihle said if Professor Sutton had been appointed state controller overseeing the pandemic, hotel quarantine would have been run as a public health program ­instead of focusing on guest ­compliance.

“This was clearly a health emergency,” he said. “The board should agree that it was preferable, if not necessary, that he be appointed or someone with sufficient and equal qualifications.”

Poor infection control among security guards at hotel quarantine sparked Victoria’s corona­virus second wave, which has claimed more than 760 lives and kneecapped the state’s economy.

Under the State Health Emergency Response Plan, the Chief Health Officer is meant to become the state controller overseeing a response to a public health emergency, but the inquiry heard Department of Health and Human Services deputy secretary Melissa Skillbeck thought Professor Sutton would be too busy in his role as Chief Health Officer in responding to the pandemic. Ms Skillbeck, an economist by training, instead appointed senior bureaucrats Andrea Spiteri and Jason Helps, neither of whom had a background in public health, as state controllers in February.

Inexplicably, Professor Sutton was also appointed state controller a few days later but no one ­appears to have told him.

“There is no evidence Professor Sutton was advised of the fact of his ­appointment,” Mr Ihle said. 

When he gave evidence, Professor Sutton said he could readily see the infection risk created by using private security guards, many of whom were casually employed, but he wasn’t consulted.

Mr Ihle said a public health professional should have lead the state’s response to a public health crisis. “Given that he [Professor Sutton] was not so appointed, he was deprived of that visibility,” he said.

“Furthermore, he explained that as he was responsible for the people who were the subject of the powers he was exercising or authorising, it was important for him to understand the practical effect of those directions and the controls that they were enforcing.”

Professor Sutton told the inquiry he still believed he should have lead the response in the early days.

He along with then deputy chief health officer Annaliese Van Diemen and Public Health Commander Finn Romanes tried to ­intervene in hotel quarantine in April, citing concerns with the program’s governance.

An email endorsed by Professor Sutton said: “There appears to be a lack of a unified plan for this program, and there is (concern) that the lead roles have not had an opportunity to be ­satisfied there is a policy and set of pro­cesses to manage the healthcare and welfare of detainees, for whom the program is ­accountable.”

As deputy CHO, Ms Van Diemen authorised the forced detention of about 20,000 returning international travellers.

DHHS-authorised officers were present at the program but Mr Ihle said on Monday that the inquiry had not heard evidence from anyone who saw themselves as responsible for infection control or looking after the welfare and clinical needs of returned travellers.

“In fact, it appears that there was no one on the ground at the hotels with that responsibility,” he said.