Open letter to the Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Finance, Victoria

The word document, here. The HTML below:


Dated 18 October 2020

Dear Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Finance

I address you not by name but as the head of a major Victorian institution, the Treasury. Please do not take this letter as a reflection of any of your personal actions but as the performance of the institution you represent – the Treasury; for you are not alone but are advised on a daily basis by a large number of highly paid executives who have been hired to advise you honestly and forthrightly about all policy matters.

I begin by noting the comment made by the Treasurer of Victoria on his Twitter account on 10 September 2020 (the day on which I was handing over my laptop and pass to the head of the Treasury’s People and Culture branch): “These restrictions are keeping us all safe but they come at a devastating economic cost” ( Due to the word limitations on Twitter, the Treasurer perhaps failed to mention that the Government is keenly aware of the enormous mental health cost of the lockdowns which has led the Government to pour millions of dollars into mental health. It is also keenly aware that people are terrorised by the lockdowns and are not getting their essential health checks, which is certain to lead to an unprecedented increase in cancer and heart disease in the coming years.

The harm caused by the virus is an Act of Nature but the harm caused by lockdowns is an Act of Man. This Open Letter is about the enormous harm being caused to Victoria by the government (Act of Man) – not by the virus.

The Treasury, as an institution, is required to prevent such catastrophic man-made harm. That’s why I write to the Treasury, not just to the Secretary.

The people of Victoria pay millions of dollars each year to the Treasury so it can be populated with expertise from a wide range of fields, to assist the Secretary in advising the government of the day in a manner consistent with the laws of the State.

As Treasury is, above all, a trustee of the people, with only one goal: to create an economic and social environment that is conducive to the wellbeing and prosperity of all Victorians.

I do not know the Secretary’s precise salary but since Phil Gaetjens was paid $879,978 at the Commonwealth Treasury, I assume the Victorian taxpayers pay the Treasury’s Secretary at least $700,000 (Source: Such an amount is not paid to the Secretary by Victorians to merely be a Ministerial Adviser. Such advisers can, without much loss of integrity, interpret laws in a manner favourable to their political masters and even obey illegal orders – since their political aims and power games do not have to, at any point, overlap with the welfare of Victorians.

But the public service is different. Public servants are required to provide independent, frank and fearless advice to the government of the day and to oppose all actions that breach the laws. In proving his or her advice to the Treasurer, Secretary of the Treasury is expected to actively seek advice and inputs from across his organisation. That is why the Treasury hires people like me on its rolls – not petty pen-pushers but highly qualified, trained and experienced knowledge workers.

It was widely known from mid-February 2020 that the risk of dying from COVID-19 is skewed towards the elderly, especially those – amongst them – whose immune system is compromised by other illness. Accordingly, in late February 2020, I wrote to senior executives in the Treasury with initial suggestions about how this pandemic could be managed.

I have FOI’d my precise email from the Treasury but I recall that it included words to the following effect – that the wholesale social isolation that China and Italy are implementing is not an optimal strategy to minimise harm from coronavirus. I wrote to my bosses that the data are suggesting that the young in Victoria (below 40) can go about their business without much concern, that those between 40 and 60 can wear protective equipment (masks, gloves, etc.) and go to work while taking extra precautions at all times. And that those above 60 (and those with weak respiratory systems) should mainly work from home and minimise interactions with others. In my email I advised that doing so will minimise the (inevitable and unavoidable) hit to Victoria’s GSP and minimise health costs.

I should have probably clarified the health costs issue in my email – that it would include the prevention of the loss of additional lives from non-COVID-19 issues precipitated by the lockdowns, something that I have detailed in my October 2020 book, The Great Hysteria and The Broken State, which is available both as a print and kindle edition –

I recall that in response I was told in writing (or at least verbally) that this was a matter purely for the DHHS. I have FOI’d that email, if any, but recall clearly a senior official coming to my desk to explain this – so it might not have been in an email.

In addition, over the many months since the Victorian Government chose to impose lockdowns that are even more draconian than the Wuhan lockdowns, I repeatedly raised concerns with my team and my bosses. Except for some off-the-record emails and phone calls with a few colleagues who were equally concerned, the Treasury bosses basically said that pandemic policy is not their business. I was steered away from raising my concerns despite raising them repeatedly and despite my extensive past experience in risk assessment as a former executive of the Victorian WorkCover Authority. Please inquire into the endless attempts I made while at the Treasury to flag my concerns. My comments were even labelled – perhaps jocularly – as a “rant” by one of the senior executives, which is fine, but who then did not bother to ask me about the reasons for my deep concern. I also shared some of the 17 articles about the pandemic that I have written over the past year in my Times of India blog ( within the Treasury but no executive was interested in such information. It seems everyone had been told to put blinkers around their eyes.

Original Victorian pandemic policy was consistent with the laws

Fortunately, as I discovered after my resignation from the Treasury when I started conducting research for my book, Victoria’s 10 March 2020 Pandemic Plan said pretty much what I wrote to my bosses in February 2020.

It took a risk-based approach and “focused on protecting vulnerable Victorians”.  It stated that “older Victorians and people with chronic diseases are known to be at greater risk of COVID-19 infection”. And said that it would “ramp up risk reduction activity [for] at-risk groups”.

The 10 March 2020 Victorian pandemic plan also included the most important principle of all – of proportionality: to “ensure a proportionate and equitable response”. It wanted things to be “flexible and proportionate” and to “reduce [not eliminate] the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19”. It spoke only about flattening of the curve, not about the extreme suppression bordering on elimination that we have been seeing in Victoria – which is specifically forbidden by Australia’s biosecurity laws.

Victoria’s 10 March 2020 pandemic plan did have a strategy of workplace closures, when necessary. But any concerns one might have had about this strategy would have been alleviated because the plan also required the principles of risk and proportionality to be followed. As well, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 imposes stern restrictions on the powers of the Chief Health Officer to close down workplaces. Any closures under Victoria’s original pandemic plan would therefore have been extremely rare and well-targeted, not indiscriminate like what we’ve seen over the past six months.

Victoria’s pandemic plan did not say that Melbourne would be converted into a city-wide prison for a moderate pandemic (that too with a ring of steel) while everyone waits at home for a vaccine to get invented, tested, approved, mass-produced and punched into every Victorian.

In other words, the 10 March 2020 Victorian plan was a well-balanced response to what was always going to be a difficult problem.

The plan was also consistent with the Victorian Guide to Regulation, the toolkit for which is located on the Treasury’s website and which states: “It is not possible for governments to provide a completely ‘risk free’ society, or to prevent every possible event that might cause harm”. Further: “the direct and indirect costs imposed by regulatory approaches may not be … immediately obvious. Risk regulation that is poorly targeted or costly will divert resources from other priorities”.

In other words, both my February 2020 advice and DHHS’s own pandemic plan of 10 March 2020 were consistent with the Treasury’s long-established practice of risk-based and performance-based regulation.

In this regard I invite the Secretary’s attention to Section 9 of Victoria’s Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 which states: “decisions made and actions taken in the administration of this Act should be proportionate to the public health risk sought to be prevented, minimised or controlled; and should not be made or taken in an arbitrary manner”.

Nothing could be more arbitrary than the directives issued by the Chief Health Officer. Not one of them is justified by the science – and he refuses to publish the reasons for these entirely arbitrary orders – thus breaching another requirement of the Act.

Section 8 of Victoria’s Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 requires that those who impose public health measures must provide full information and allow the public to participate: “Members of the public should be given access to reliable information in appropriate forms to facilitate a good understanding of public health issues” as well as “opportunities to participate in policy and program development”. Sadly, despite my asking the Chief Health Officer at least 30 times, he has refused to provide or publish any reasons for his entirely arbitrary public health directives. That is because he has no reason that can stand in the court of law.

As I have continued to research the matter after my resignation it is becoming more obvious that Victoria’s lockdowns not only breach good regulatory policy practice (which the Treasury supervises on behalf of the Treasurer) but are in compressive breach of Victoria’s public health laws and a number of international covenants including the Nuremberg Code, UN’s declaration on bioethics and Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Regarding the risk posed by the virus, I agree that no one knew the magnitude of the risk posed by the novel coronavirus in February 2020, but by mid-April 2020 anyone with rudimentary arithmetic skills would have known that the pandemic was tracking far below initial estimates. For example, initial models (such as those based on the work of Neil Ferguson from the Imperial College) had suggested that Sweden would experience over 95,000 deaths from COVID-19 without lockdowns, with a bulk of these deaths occurring in April 2020. To date, 5,918 have died in Sweden. And, as Sweden’s State Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell regretfully admits, many, if not most of these deaths could have been averted had Sweden deployed more resources into its aged-care homes in the early days of the pandemic.

When precisely did the Treasury abandon its policy advice role?

As the Secretary can see, I have innumerable objections to the actions taken by DHHS and the Government since around the 20 March 2020 when Victoria’s pandemic plan and the laws of Victoria were abandoned. In my book I try to explain why this might have happened. Possibly, the hysteria created by the media made the situation too difficult for politicians to handle. But that is why we have hundreds of independent public servants like me, with the Secretary of the Treasury expected to provide the Treasurer with advice that he needs to see, even when society has gone hysterical.

I am confident that had the Secretary sought to obtain formal legal and economic policy advice from the Deputy Secretaries of the Corporate Services and Economic divisions on the DHHS’s radical change in plans in late March 2020, he or she would have been in no doubt that the shift in policy was inconsistent with both the original pandemic plan and the laws of Victoria. And, having obtained such advice, the Secretary’s role would have been to advise the Treasurer against the measures being imposed in Victoria.

I was, however, not made aware at any stage whether the Treasury had put its foot down on these ridiculous and unlawful “public health” “measures” by providing formal advice to the Treasurer. Instead, I experienced what I believe is the strongest culture of groupthink that I’ve experienced in my entire life (I have elaborated this in my book).

Now, there are two possibilities.

First, that the Secretary did advise the Treasurer in writing against these policies and the Treasurer did not accept the advice. If that did happen, I believe that the Secretary and all Deputy Secretaries ought to have resigned given they are also citizens and sworn to defending the laws of Victoria and the prosperity of all Victorians. When Victoria’s laws are breached on such a grand scale, I would expect senior public servants to speak directly to the people – a task that I, a lowly paid economist, am now performing.

The second possibility is that the Secretary did not provide such advice. It is not possible for the Secretary of the Treasury to tell me that pandemic policy is not within the ambit of the Treasury’s scope of work. In my almost 15 years in the Treasury I do not recall any major public policy area on which we did not provide written advice to the Treasurer from the perspective of enhancing the prosperity of all Victorians. So, if no advice was provided then it could only happen if the Secretary chose to back-off. If that happened, was it because of a written government directive to the Secretary or was it a political decision the Secretary made – who then acted as a Ministerial Advisor to the Treasurer.

There is yet another possibility – that everything I’m saying is wrong, that everything I have written in my book is wrong, that my interpretation of the science and the laws is wrong, that my interpretation of the Victorian Guide to Regulation is wrong – in which case I request the Secretary to publicly refute all the points I make in my book and refute the Victorian laws and Victoria’s pandemic plan of 10 March 2020 and all international covenants that I have cited.

The Secretary of the Treasury can defend his or her support for draconian lockdowns by proving to me that such lockdowns are consistent with the science and the laws and that masks are extremely beneficial when worn outdoors in the open air with no one around for tens, if not hundreds of metres. If the Treasury is able to do so, including by providing me with an appropriate cost-benefit test that confirms that there will be only benefits from lockdowns and no additional (man-made) mental harm, deaths or reduction in lifespan from the lockdowns, then – as I have said repeatedly (in my book and on Channel 9’s Current Affairs program last week) – I will be happy to support the harshest possible restrictions in Victoria. Please do note that the precautionary principle cannot be used as a basis to implement policies that are specifically prohibited and rejected by science, e.g. lockdowns and mandatory masks outdoors.

There are many other things I wish to raise with the Secretary but I will not do so due to paucity of time. Instead, I request Treasury officials  to read my 29,000-word book and 5,500-word paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society (

I do wish to note one thing, though: that by trying to get me to remove my posts against the Police State that Victoria has become, the Secretary of the Treasury (as an institution) indicated his direct support for police brutalities in Victoria. Please explain why the Secretary of the Treasury believes (and in particular the Executive Director who asked me to remove my criticisms) that it is necessary and beneficial to create a Police State in Victoria and attack the trust between citizens and Victoria Police – and the trust between citizens.

I look forward to the Secretary’s response that is posted on the Treasury’s website and shared with the media across Victoria and Australia. I do not have the resources to keep FOI’ing relevant information, so I request that the Treasury also publish – in the public interest and in the interest of transparency and good governance – all relevant non-Cabinet Ministerial briefs and other correspondence and internal working documents in which the Treasury has advised the Treasurer or the Treasurer’s Private Office on the legality and policy legitimacy or otherwise of the Government’s pandemic policy.


Sanjeev Sabhlok

[email protected]

This entry was posted in COVID-19. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Open letter to the Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Finance, Victoria

  1. Steve says:

    Country Deaths Deaths per million
    Peru 33,577 1,049.63
    Belgium 10,327 904.13
    Bolivia 8,407 740.5
    Brazil 152,460 727.84
    Ecuador 12,306 720.31
    Spain 33,553 718.11
    Chile 13,434 717.28
    Mexico 85,285 675.84
    USA¹ 216,873 662.88
    United Kingdom¹ 43,203 649.78
    Panama 2,529 605.48
    Italy 36,372 601.87
    Sweden 5,910 580.37
    Algeria 1,827 43.26
    Afghanistan 1,481 39.84
    Lithuania 110 39.43
    Mauritania 163 37.02
    Australia 904 36.17
    Bangladesh 5,608 34.76
    Pakistan 6,621 31.2

    So fantastic – we rate next to Afghanistan & Pakistan as 3rd world countries for covid death rates……
    I’d hardly call that an achievement.


    So lets see :

    * USA & UK, both had lockdowns, and have higher levels of deaths/million than Sweden – check
    * USA & UK both have ( like Australia ) a trashed economy due to lockdowns – check
    * Sweden had no real lockdowns, and still has a functioning economy and normal life – check
    * Australia on par with 3rd world nations for death rates – check
    * Australia has basically martial law in Victoriastan but its made no appreciable difference – check
    * Victoriastan figures have never never independently confirmed – check
    * Brown Pol arrest pregnant women and drag people out of cars for not wearing masks despite no proof it would have made any difference to our already laughably low death rate – check

    Its one big psyop……

  2. Jonesy says:

    Victoria..128.5 deaths per million

  3. Patrick Kelly says:

    #Steve Maaate, do the hard yards. If you want to post data, make sure it’s relevant to the topic. In this case:
    Deaths per head population – Victoria
    Deaths per head population – Rest of Australia

  4. Macspee says:

    Well said Sanjeev. I fear, however, that you words will go unread, unheard, unappreciated, and unacknowledged.
    Victoria has, along with other places but more so, lapsed into what the intelligentsia would like to call, but won’t, a state of exception following the theories of the German Carl Schmitt. Schmitts ideas were born in the Germany of the mid-30’s when Hitler used the Constitution to declare a state of emergency on dubious grounds that were ratified by the Supreme court (Schmitt approved). The suspension of the law leaves the state in a no man’s land of ‘no law’ that looks like law, is treated as if it is law but really is not and relies for its continuation upon the support of the police and the courts. So long as no one in a place of power is prepared to stand up and declare that this is not the law, the state remains in a state of suspension, of exception, where the law is ‘not law’ and life is excepted from the law.
    However for this view to be accepted, it being a theory beloved of the left, neo-colonial, post-modern cliques they would have to acknowledge that it applies to the theory and practice of National Socialism and Fascism, and also of Chairman Dan, but as that is wholly unlikely, the opportunity to write learned theses being limited by the need to remain true to the anti-capitalistic, anti-libertarian, anti-classical liberal , there may be a spate of exploding heads around the universities any time soon.
    Apologies for the little rant but am tied down trying to make sense of Gilles Deleuze and some other mad Gauls and couldn’t help it.

  5. Matt says:

    “There is yet another possibility – that everything I’m saying is wrong”
    Would have just been easier to start (and end) with this.

  6. Fair Shake says:

    # Dan could not Give a flying fuck how much damage he personally causes to the Victorian economy .

  7. David says:

    A very clear exposition thanks Sanjeev. The long march through the institutions, now nearing completion, is starting to show results. The public service will now only ever give advice that is frank and fearless when the governing party is from the right. Even if you are in agreement with the measures taken in Victoria, it must be at least a little disconcerting to know that these decisions are made in an echo chamber – albeit one in which no one has any memory of such deciding! The risk of getting it wrong has to be higher if alternatives are not debated.
    The problem is that when the right governs, they ignore the institutional takeover because to do anything about it would be to ‘politicise’ the public service! They thus leave it intact for the next government to enhance.

  8. Lee says:

    The problem is that when the right governs, they ignore the institutional takeover because to do anything about it would be to ‘politicise’ the public service! They thus leave it intact for the next government to enhance.

    Typically, those on the right and conservatives in government don’t want to do anything or upset the applecart, because they are worried it will set a precedence for a left wing government.
    Well, duh, the Left gives f..k all about “precedent”, and will go ahead and do whatever they want regardless, while ignoring complaints and criticism.

  9. mem says:

    In 2017, during flu season 3,969 people were admitted to hospital with influenza in Australia of which 8.9% were put into ICU and 1,255 died
    In 2019 during flu season (1 April-6th October) 3,915 people were admitted to hospital in Australia with 6.3% going into ICU and 902 deaths. Note the median age of death was 86 yr (<1-106 yr)
    Between 22 Jan and 6 Aug 2020 there were 566 hospital admissions due to the Covid (flu by another name) with 9.0% admitted to ICU and 247 deaths. (note I do not have the stats after 6 Aug but someone may be able to provide)
    My point is that while Covid flu appeared earlier in the year than most flu virus in Australia, it tracked in a very similar way to the 2017 flu and in August it was clearly not a pandemic If it had been managed correctly in Victoria using the agreed and staff trained'familiar pandemic plan instead of the Daniel Andrews run roughshod plan, my thesis is that we could have controlled it within the bounds of the 2017 flu and not broken the lives and businesses of the people of Victoria. There has never been a scientific or indeed any other reason given for abandoning the state pandemic plan. My worry is that Daniel Andrews may now also abandon the The State Disaster Plan for bushfire season and burn what's left of Victoria.

  10. mem says:

    Sanjeev, I forgot to thank you for your open letter. And I do so gratefully now. Not the least for you pointing out the abandonment of the State’s Pandemic Plan. This is extremely important as I believe this is the pivot point where the Andrew’s Government is vulnerable. Why did it abandon the plan? My guess is they saw the opportunity or putting money in the union coffers which feeds the ALP, Get-Up etc and using the emergency laws to push through a range of contentious decisions which it could sneak past scrutiny by closing down Parliament and diverting the media with daily death counts that were nothing other than a high flu season.

  11. Lee says:

    The Victorian government/AKA Dictator Dan is being deliberately obfuscatory about their modeling, plans, and the rationale behind their decisions, because they know what they are doing won’t stand up in court on account of being unconstitutional.

  12. Boambee John says:

    #3623243, posted on October 18, 2020 at 3:28 pm
    “There is yet another possibility – that everything I’m saying is wrong”
    Would have just been easier to start (and end) with this.

    We look forward to your detailed exposition of your arguments to support that statement, quoting the relevant laws.

  13. Matt
    #3623243, posted on October 18, 2020 at 3:28 pm

    “There is yet another possibility – that everything I’m saying is wrong”
    Would have just been easier to start (and end) with this.

    Take your hand off it champ, the false positives for the COVID testing are a joke, it is unreliable and unprofessional to use, conflating COVID deaths with COVID associated deaths is pure data fraud.

    This is one of the biggest hoaxes in history. Like the Hitler Diaries.

  14. Matt says:

    Maybe I’ll just start with one for you John.
    Sanjeev makes much of ‘Victoria’s 10 March 2020 Pandemic Plan’, but fails to note, either deliberately or accidentally, that this document is titled ‘COVID-19 Pandemic plan for the Victorian Health Sector‘ and says this:

    Scope and purpose of this plan
    This plan is intended as an overarching guidance document to inform more detailed planning at
    individual practice and institutional level.
    All healthcare providers should use this plan, and further materials provided by DHHS to determine how a pandemic may impact their service, their patients or clients and themselves as individual practitioners, and use those insights to determine further planning and preparedness activities required. Detailed operational plans will be required across all healthcare services in order to be fully prepared for the potential impact of COVID-19 on our healthcare services and community more broadly.
    This plan has a greater level of detail for General Practice and inpatient hospital services, because the
    bulk of acutely unwell patients will present there, however there are elements which are relevant across all healthcare providers.
    This plan is not intended as education for the general public. Information for the general public can be found at the DHHS COVID-19 website:
    This plan is not intended as a guide for the broader, non-health sector. The Victorian Action Plan for COVID-19 Pandemic is under development and will be available from the Emergency Management Victoria website once complete.

  15. The Lancet on the joke testing for COVID with unacceptably high rates.

    False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs
    Surkova, Elena et al.
    The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

    Published:September 29, 2020DOI:

    “I’m a medical professional”
    “Ignore The Lancet”

  16. John snowy Bowyer says:

    Mem can I use the figures you assembled?
    This sort of information needs to be seen on FB and Twitter repeatedly because then it gets it to more people.
    Maybe our laughable so called opposition could use this as a starting point for the much needed Royal Commission because Andrews little mate is just going to give him a big tick and ignore the bulk of the evidence. This is the crime of the century and I wonder how many more books will be written about the destruction of national economies?

  17. Snoopy says:

    The Victorian Action Plan for COVID-19 Pandemic is under development and will be available from the Emergency Management Victoria website once complete.

    The best followed plans are always drafted retrospectively.

  18. Boambee John says:


    This plan is not intended as a guide for the broader, non-health sector. The Victorian Action Plan for COVID-19 Pandemic is under development and will be available from the Emergency Management Victoria website once complete.

    Two questions.

    To what extent did the Victorian health sector adhere to the plan?

    How closely did the Victorian government adhere to the non-health sector plan after it was completed? Bonus question, when was it completed?

  19. Matt says:

    John – you asked for some evidence to back my statement, which I duly provided. No acknowledgement from you, just roll on to another question.

  20. Boambee John says:

    No Matt, I sought clarification of the relevance and significance of your “evidence”, which you seem unwilling to provide.

  21. Matt says:

    The document is available for you to make an assessment as to whether the health sector adhered to the plan. But whether they did or not wasn’t the point of my criticism.

  22. mem says:

    John snowy Bowyer
    #3623515, posted on October 18, 2020 at 7:45 pm
    Mem can I use the figures you assembled?

    Yes, by all means use them as they are public figures assembled from death stats from ABS and from National Infectious Disease data base. I would like to complete up to present but haven’t been able to do so yet from available data.What the figures do show is that when draconian lock downs brought in in Victoria there was no justification in the context of previous Influenza stats.

  23. Rob says:

    Noble effort Sandeev – no doubt your missive will stand the test of time.
    The truth will ultimately erupt to be clearly seen by all with the long term damage standing as testimony to the ignorance and stupidity of those who seek to govern.

  24. Woolfe says:

    Great letter full of facts and sense.

    It looks like Victoria is completely politicised though and left to it’s own would be a Venezuela sized failed state. Until the population and commonwealth realise this nothing will change.

  25. Alex Davidson says:

    The document is available for you to make an assessment as to whether the health sector adhered to the plan. But whether they did or not wasn’t the point of my criticism.

    What was the point of your criticism? That everything in Sanjeev’s post was wrong?

    Arguing over which plan applies to what is a distraction. The broader action plan you refer to exists only in Andrews’ head, but is supposed to be based on the influenza pandemic plan available on the EMV website. According to that plan the clinical severity of the current hysteria rates as low, leading to this type of advice in the appendix:

    Containment strategies:
    – Restrict public access to premises: Not suggested.
    – Social distancing: Not suggested.
    – PPE usage – the State controller will provide advice about the appropriate use of PPE: Not suggested.

    The Andrews mob haven’t been following any of their plans, as Sanjeev is at pains to point out. They have been acting as if the clinical severity was catastrophic – utterly disproportionate, and yet another reason for urgent measures to ensure our freedoms are not subject to majority vote and the rule of elites.

Comments are closed.