Damning email exposes truth about Dan Andrews’ contentious Melbourne Covid restriction

An explosive secret email has exposed what really went on behind the scenes when Daniel Andrews locked down millions of Victorians during the pandemic.

An explosive secret email the Victorian Government tried to bury has exposed the truth about former premier Daniel Andrews’ contentious decision to lock millions of Victorians in their homes during the Covid pandemic.

The document between two senior officials reveals a nightly curfew introduced in mid-2020, banning people from leaving their homes after dark, was proposed without any formal input from health authorities.

It wasn’t until hours after Mr Andrews announced the curfew that Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton and his deputy Finn Romanes discussed it.

A nightly curfew imposed by then-Premier Daniel Andrews in 2020 was not the result of advice from health experts as he claimed. Picture: AAP

David Davis, Liberal leader in the Legislative Council, obtained the email exchange under a Freedom of Information request, which he said the government had fought hard against.

“The detailed exchange was very late in the day, just over two hours before the curfew was due to come into effect at 8pm, [and] shows it was not conceived by health officials,” Mr Davis said.

“It was not based on ‘health advice’ but was announced by Andrews peremptorily.

“In the exchange Romanes seeks approval from Sutton to sign the curfew order. But it is clear there is little detailed ‘health’ material behind the decision.”

Melbourne was subjected to the strictest and longest lockdowns in the world. Picture: Getty

Mr Davis said the contents of the exchange show why “Labor used every legal trick and manoeuvre in the book” for the past four years and seven months in a bid to block its release.

The government pushed back on Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal orders and then took the matter to the Victorian Court of Appeal but lost.

“Now we can all see why the Andrews and Allan Labor Government wanted to cover up the embarrassing facts behind the curfew decision.”

David Davis obtained the emails via a Freedom of Information request, which the Victorian Government fought for years. Picture: NewsWire / Andrew Henshaw

Just after 5pm on Sunday August 2 in 2020, Dr Romanes emailed Dr Sutton some two-and-a-half hours after Mr Andrews announced the curfew.

Dr Romanes explained he had been off work for two days and was not aware of any “key conversations and considerations” about the curfew and had not “seen any specific written assessment of the requirement” for one.

He also noted “the idea of a curfew has not arisen from public health advice in the first instance”.

“In this way, the action of issuing a curfew is a mirror to the State of Disaster and is not occurring on public health advice but is a decision taken by Cabinet and announced today, as an important step in the response,” Dr Romanes wrote.

It was his duty to sign the premier’s directive to lock down most of the state with a nightly curfew from 8pm to 5am.

The email sent by Finn Romanes after Daniel Andrews announced a nightly curfew.

Given the lack of guidance from health officials before the decision was made, Mr Davis said there was no determination that it was “truly necessary”.

“Other states and territories did not impose this style of harsh curfew. Surely the ‘health evidence’ can’t have been that different.”

Half an hour after sending the email, Dr Romanes received a response from Dr Sutton.

“Your assessment is correct as I understand it,” he wrote to his deputy.

“As a Public Health direction mirroring the curfew already decided in the State of Disaster, I am supportive of you authorising it as such. There appears to be merit in it limiting opportunities for transmission, perhaps especially in high risk cohorts.”

Daniel Andrews said the decision to impose a strict nightly curfew came from health advice he had received. Picture: Getty

Mr Davis said the email is “clear” that it was Mr Andrews and his cabinet who made the decision to enforce the curfew – “not health officers”.

“The damage wrought on Victorians by Andrews’ draconian mismanagement of Covid still persists.

“That is why it is important to get to the truth. After all, we didn’t get truth for the Coate Inquiry where everyone’s memory faded. It is only through the drawn-out process of FOI that Labor has been forced to cough up its tawdry secrets.”

Victoria had the world’s strictest and longest Covid lockdowns.

Brett Sutton's email response to Finn Romanes.

In September 2023, Mr Andrews stepped down as premier and was replaced by Jacinta Allen, who was part of his cabinet during Covid.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Ms Allen said the government “did what was needed to protect Victorians” during the pandemic, while “working closely with public health experts”.

The spokesperson said the response “protected the lives of livelihoods of Victorians during an unprecedented event”.

“As a part of the overall public health response to this once-in-a-100-year pandemic, and witnessing the severe impact overseas, the measures rolled out were necessary to protect all Victorians and save lives, especially the most vulnerable in our community.

“Every public health order – including this one – had to be made by the Chief Health Officer or an authorised officer who had been authorised by them to make such orders.”

Victoria’s next state election will be held in November 2026.

Premier Jacinta Allan defended the government’s response to the Covid pandemic. Picture: Getty

A review of Australia’s Covid response, commissioned by the Commonwealth and conducted by epidemiologist Professor Catherine Bennett, economist Dr Angela Jackson, and senior bureaucrat Robyn Kruk, found leaders often failed to adequately consider the human rights consequences of their decision-making.

And some of the steps taken by state governments “became increasingly inappropriate over the long term and were too heavy handed and controlling”.

“Some restrictions were poorly justified in extent and/or duration, disproportionate to the risk and inconsistently applied across the country,” the report read.

“One of the most common phrases we heard during the Inquiry was ‘building the plane while it was flying.

“There was little clarity as to roles and responsibilities, particularly between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments … [and this] caused significant distress, delays and increased risk of harm in key areas of the pandemic response.”

The review also criticised different states having their own unique responses – some strict, some lax – while each telling the public they were being guided by the same science and health advice.

“Effectiveness was inferred from overall reported case numbers, but this is a very limited approach to evaluation and did not reveal which [restrictions] were effective and whether the stringency settings were right.

“There was no ongoing monitoring of proportionality of responses … [and] interventions such as lockdowns should only be used as a last resort, not as a frontline disease control measure.”

The email from Finn Romanes to Brett Sutton shows the curfew decision was made without health guidance.

Brett Sutton was Victoria’s Chief Health Officer during Covid. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Geraghty

They said the impact of strict restrictions on both children and broad mental health and wellbeing will “likely be felt for some time.

“Once more was understood about the virus threat and our healthcare system’s resilience had increased, the pandemic response should have shifted from a reliance on the ‘better safe than sorry’ precautionary principle, where fast actions not necessarily informed by evidence are required, to a risk based approach grounded in evidence.

“However, aspects of the response continued to rely on the precautionary principle, maintaining a low risk tolerance for COVID 19 case numbers, with inadequate consideration of the broader health, economic and societal impacts.”

A study published in the academic journal Health Psychology Open compared the strict restrictions imposed by Scottland’s government with the relaxed and optional advice issued by officials in Japan.

“Scottish participants’ health behaviours were characterised by greater change, typically negative, most likely due to greater lifestyle disruption, whereas Japanese participants’ behaviours were more-stable,” it found.

“Negative changes to health behaviours were typically associated with poorer mental wellbeing and isolation.”

The impacts of Covid restrictions, including lengthy lockdowns, have been observed by researchers. Picture: Getty

In late 2021, The British Academy was asked by the UK Government to produce an independent review on the long-term societal impacts of the pandemic.

“There are of course many impacts which flowed from lockdowns, including not being able to see family and friends, travel or take part in leisure activities,” its report read.

“But there are a set of deeper impacts on health and wellbeing, communities and cohesion, and skills, employment and the economy which will have profound effects upon the UK for many years to come.

“In sum, the pandemic has exacerbated existing inequalities and differences and created new ones, as well as exposing critical societal needs and strengths.

“These can emerge differently across places, and along different time courses, for individuals, communities, regions, nations and the UK as a whole.”

Originally published as Damning email exposes truth about Dan Andrews’ contentious Melbourne Covid restriction