Is former Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton making veiled allegations?
In an interview on Neil Mitchell Asks Why, he admits he was conflicted throughout the whole Covid/lockdown ordeal—an ordeal that still scars Victoria three years later. The world’s longest lockdowns were sold as a two-week “circuit breaker.” Instead, Victorians got two years of hell—especially for anyone who refused the jab, and for those who suspected all along what Sutton now concedes: that some Covid directives were “probably never necessary.”
Too bad (for us) he didn’t speak up when it mattered. Sutton called the lockdown years a “horror show” and admitted the North Melbourne tower lockdown breached human rights—even laughing when Mitchell pointed out the obvious.
I doubt the families in those towers—who had no prior warning they were to be indefinitely locked in and quarantined—found it funny.
He pointed to inconsistencies inside government and bureaucracy. Like we don’t already know about that.
When asked about the 800 Victorians who died in the fatal Hotel Quarantine disaster, Sutton refused to be drawn in, saying he wouldn’t discuss public health orders and that he wasn’t working at the time. He agreed with Mitchell that Victorians would not agree to be locked down again. He said a future pandemic would be better managed if distancing, masks, and vaccines were not mandated.
In other words—voluntary.
He admitted the era traumatised him and his family. So too were Victorian children and the elderly, but he wouldn’t concede they were owed an apology. Sutton said that for several months he didn’t want to be in the job. Yet he shrugged off public anger, saying people “express opinions” when they see him in the street—opinions born out of the pain his decisions caused.
Sutton says he did his best to protect us. But in the same breath, he admitted he didn’t push back against Andrews’ harsh measures—being “in the belly of the beast”—Sutton still went along with him. Interesting—Sutton describing Dan Andrews as a “beast.” So what exactly is he admitting? Is he pointing to human-rights abuses such as vaccination by coercion, no jab no work, and harsh public-order measures by Victoria Police?
And what about when Andrews suspended Parliament—handing himself a dictatorship by default through its closure? No one talks about it. They should.
Asked if “doughnut days” were a good idea, Sutton said we should celebrate the good days—as if there were any. He refused to discuss the never-seen medical advice he and Andrews claimed to follow—the advice used to justify curfews, playground closures, shuttered businesses, destroyed lives, and in some cases, deaths.
Sutton told Mitchell he would accept ultimate responsibility. That implies his actions require accountability.
Well, we’re waiting. But shouldn’t responsibility ultimately fall on the head of Daniel Andrews? He could have spoken out earlier, exposed any wrongdoing by Andrews, and spared Victorians years of trauma and post-lockdown scars.
So the question remains: on what official and legal basis did Daniel Andrews and Brett Sutton shut down Victoria for almost two years—and do their actions warrant criminal investigation and charges?
Sutton appears troubled, burdened, guilt-ridden. Maybe he should just tell us the truth—the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The truth shall set you free, Brett Sutton.
