Coronavirus live update Australia: Daniel Andrews tells Victoria hotel quarantine inquiry he does not know who made private security decision | Australia news

Andrews has been allowed to offer some reflection.

If I can briefly make a couple of very important points. Mistakes have been made in this program. And answers are required. Those mistakes are unacceptable to me. I want to thank you, madam chair, and the board of inquiry and all your staff for the work you are doing and will do.

I want to make it very clear to each and every member of the Victorian community that I am sorry for what has occurred here. And I want to issue an unreserved apology to all Victorians and I want to say to you, madam chair, I await the final report, the conclusion of your work, so we can understand better what has occurred, and so that I, as leader of the government, can take the appropriate action to ensure that these sorts of errors never occur again.

That’s the end of Andrews’ appearance.

Andrews says he would have been told about the Rydges hotel in May “about the time the outbreak became clear via testing, tracing and the normal work that I am briefed on routinely”.

Moses: “Sitting here today, can you recall what infection control protocols you were referring to when you made that statement to Ms Sales?”

Andrews says “I’m not an infection control expert, Mr Moses”, but says “I’m able to make reasonable assumption, I would have thought. But the answer is no, Mr Moses, I cannot detail for you any precise terms the infection control protocols that were or weren’t in a particular hotel on a particular day.”

Moses is taking Andrews to his comments to Leigh Sales on 1 July where he noted that “there are a number of staff who despite knowing about infection control protocols have decided to make a number of errors. I will give you one example. We think one of these outbreaks may be attributable to people sharing a cigarette lighter, something as innocent as that.”

He’s asked who told him that.

Andrews:

My only recollection is that that will not have come from one single source; it will have come from multiple sources. As a result of contact tracing, chains of transmission, and other information that is provided to me on a routine basis.

Arthur Moses SC, representing Unified Security, wants to cross-examine the premier.

That is being resisted by counsel for Andrews.

Moses wants to ask the premier about comments he made on ABC 7.30, where Moses quotes him as a saying: “We have some very clear suspicions about what’s gone on here. There are a number of staff who despite knowing about infection control protocols have decided to make a number of errors.”

Ellyard: I take it you’d agree that it’s a matter of great concern that such an inquiry has been necessary?

Andrews:

The need to have an inquiry, the reality that what has gone on here … is not only disappointing, it is unacceptable.

But Andrews won’t give a view specifically on what went wrong. He says he wants to see the board’s report before making his views known.

Andrews is taken to various documents that outlined changes to the program, including what has been referred to as a “reset”.

Ellyard: “What clearly emerges from those documents and the decision that the government has taken since late June is the recognition that there needs to be a greater focus on clinical matters and greater involvement of medical clinical expertise.”

Andrews agrees.

He also agrees the documents show the need for what Ellyard describes as “appropriate workforce, workforce with the skill sets and support that make them the right one for the job that needs to be done in a hotel quarantine”.

And he agrees the documents show the need for clear chains of command and lines of communication.

Andrews won’t give a view on what specifically went wrong.

I do not have a view. Also I do not know if it is appropriate to establish an inquiry and then seek to run it yourself, Ms Ellyard. You have looked through 200,000 pages of different documents and heard from many, many witnesses.

Andrews is asked what he was referring to when he said there were mistakes in the program.

I am referring to the fact this was a program designed to stop this wildly infectious virus from returned travellers into the community. That has clearly happened and that is clearly a failure and that is clearly the product of at least one area and perhaps other areas. I am not in a position to detail individual errors or mistakes or inefficiencies.

Ellyard notes the fact – which has been quite stunning at times – that different government departments have been cross-examining each other during the inquiry.

“That is evident itself that although there should not have been confusion there was,” she says.

Andrews says, leaving aside the cross-examination: “The fact that there is no agreement between agencies and departments is not desirable in any way.”