Hotel quarantine inquiry: It wasn’t me, says former top Victorian cop Graham Ashton denies that he’s to blame

Graham Ashton wants Victorians to know, that as their chief police commissioner, he did not decide to use private security to guard quarantine hotels.

Former Victorian chief police commissioner Graham Ashton. Picture: David Geraghty

Graham Ashton wants Victorians to know a couple of things; as their chief commissioner of police, he did not decide to use private security to guard quarantine hotels.

And what’s more, the former top cop says the person who did make that fateful decision on the frantic afternoon of March 27 has deliberately and successfully covered up their role in the fiasco.

“I was not the decision maker for the use of security guards in the hotel quarantine operation and do not know who was,” he told The Australian, just hours after the Coate Inquiry found that he was partly responsible for the use of private security guards.

“Disappointingly, that person seems determined to remain anonymous,” he added.

Mr Ashton retired as chief commissioner in July, but was one of the star witnesses of the Coate inquiry amid revelations he had a critical phone conversation with Premier Daniel Andrews’ top public servant, Chris Eccles, at 1.17pm on March 27.

Shortly after that 135-second phone call, Mr Ashton texted AFP commissioner Reece Kershaw, telling him: “Mate, my advise (sic) is that ADF will do Passenger transfer and private security will be used.” A few minutes later he texted the AFP chief again, saying: “I think that’s the deal (private ­security) set up by our DPC.”

In her final 543-page report, Justice Jennifer Coate fails to identify who decided to employ private security — finding the decision was an “orphan” — but does lay environmental responsibility for the decision on Mr Ashton and Mr Eccles.

Justice Coate concludes that it was a product of Mr Ashton’s preference, and was likely raised as an option by Mr Eccles.

“While no request was made to Victoria Police to provide the ‘first tier’ of the enforcement model for hotel quarantine, the then chief commissioner of police was consulted and expressed a preference that private security perform that role and Victoria Police provide the ‘back up’ for that model,” she found.

“That position, expressed by the senior police representative present at the SCC meeting that afternoon, was clearly persuasive to those at the meeting,” Justice Coate found.

On Monday, Mr Ashton told The Australian that while he did not make the decision about private security guards, he did not object to their use.

“I did, however, support the ­decision when informed of it, along with every other person,” Mr Ashton said.

“Nobody raised any concerns about the decision at the time.”

Mr Ashton said he supported the use of private security only on the basis they would provide security, and not perform additional functions, which is what occurred.

“My view remains that if security guards had been used for their proper purpose of being sentry guards then no issues would have arisen with them,” he said.

“That was certainly the basis upon which I supported the decision. As I had no role in running the program, I was not aware that the guards were being used for broader duties.”

Of Mr Eccles, who resigned after it emerged he had been the mystery person who called Mr Ashton at 1.17pm, Justice Coate found: “I am satisfied that the first of those was Mr Eccles. The second was Mr Ashton.”

“I accept that Mr Eccles did not make the ‘decision’ within the strict meaning of that word as it ­relates to formalised government processes that would require documents to be produced and signed off,” she found.

“I also accept that Mr Eccles did not have the power to make any such decision on his own.

“With the benefit of Mr Eccles’s telephone records, I am satisfied that Mr Ashton first heard of the possibility of private security being used during the … call they had at 1.17pm … (I’m) satisfied that it was during that call that Mr Ashton gained the impression that private security could be used instead of police.

“Given that Mr Eccles had been present during national cabinet discussions, and given that all jurisdictions made some use of private security, I conclude that he was the one to mention private ­security as (at least) an option.”

Justice Coate found Mr Ashton promoted the use of private security at emergency meetings on March 27. “I am satisfied that Mr Ashton did have a view that the mention of private security by Mr Eccles was consistent with Mr Ashton’s view,” she found.