The Victorian premier adamantly defended his government’s decision to impose a night curfew as part of the state’s stage-four lockdown, at a testy press conference on Thursday.
Daniel Andrews was grilled by reporters on the justifications for the Melbourne curfew after both Victoria’s police chief and its chief health officer claimed neither were responsible for the policy.
Andrews appeared to shoulder responsibility for the decision to impose a curfew, saying “that’s a decision that I’ve made”, adding that in matters of health and enforcement, the government was “free to go beyond” the advice it receives.
Controversy has mounted over the curfew as the government has to date failed to provide data to show it significantly reduces disease spread, or that enough public health law breaches were occurring between the curfew hours of 8pm to 5am to justify it.
The government has also failed to provide evidence to show it restricts movement significantly beyond other measures, such as closure of venues and bans on gatherings.
When pressed by Guardian Australia on data to support the curfew, the premier vowed to “try and get you some comparisons of some of the enforcement activity, pre-curfew and post-curfew”. Guardian Australia has followed up on this.
This comes a day after the premier said the state’s Covid-19 restrictions were informed by “science and data and doctors”. On Thursday, however, the premier was unable to present data to back the need for a curfew and said government decisions reserved the right to go beyond medical advice. Epidemiologists have also questioned the measure, along with restrictions on exercise.
“If you want to put it to the prime minister, has he ever acted beyond, in any sense, the advice that [health department secretary Prof] Brendan Murphy or [chief medical officer Prof] Paul Kelly have given him, I think the answer will be he has,” Andrews said.
“You always have to reserve the right to operationalise and deliver the advice of the medical experts and the principles that they want achieved.”
The premier’s remarks followed comments from the police commissioner, Shane Patton, to radio 3AW that he did not even know if police had been briefed on the curfew before it was introduced. “I was never consulted,’’ Patton said. “I’ve made enquiries to determine if anyone in the organisation was briefed on the matter.”
On Wednesday, the chief health officer, Prof Brett Sutton, said that while he was consulted on the curfew, it was not a measure he had suggested. “It was a separate decision-making pathway,” he told 3AW. Asked whether he would have introduced it, he said: “I’m not sure. I haven’t reflected on it. I think it has been useful. If I put my mind to it, probably.”
Andrews said the only thing the curfew was limiting was the public’s ability to exercise or buy supplies at night. Told the curfew and exercise limitations had a disproportionate impact on shift workers, he responded: “I’m not for a moment saying it doesn’t.”
He also said he needed to make the job of police “as simple as possible”. Asked about whether vulnerable populations were being disproportionately affected by the fines – with community legal centres reporting they had not successfully overturned fines they challenged on behalf of clients – Andrews responded: “No”.
“Ultimately, those matters, whether they’re overturned or not ... that’s not a political judgement, that’s not a policy judgement,” Andrews said. “Each of those matters are dealt with on their merits, and despite the types of clients that would typically be assisted by a community legal service, that has no bearing on the matter.”
Meanwhile, the federal health minister, Greg Hunt, said it was up to the Victorian government to reveal the origin of the more onerous restrictions. He added: “We were somewhat surprised to learn that not all of the restrictions were based on medical advice.
“I think that is very important,” Hunt said. “I do know, of course, that Victoria has a strong human rights charter … [The] Victorian human rights charter sets out under the relevant section that freedom of movement is a fundamental right in Victoria and so I am sure that that would only ever, ever be impinged upon if they have the strongest reasons.”
There were 51 cases of the virus recorded in Victoria overnight and seven deaths.
Andrews was asked whether a failure to get on top of Covid sooner in workplace settings, such as hospitals, had impeded the state’s efforts to control the virus. The government insisted for weeks that health staff were becoming infected in the community rather than the workplace, before admitting that the majority of health workers infected during the second wave had acquired the virus at work.
Andrews responded that hospitals had done an excellent job of protecting staff and providing safe workplaces, including personal protective gear.
Guardian Australia revealed earlier in September that WorkSafe inspectors had issued hospitals in the state with five notices for non-compliance with the Covid-19 plan, after conducting 22 workplace visits and 244 compliance checks since 20 July.
