‘I don’t agree’: Daniel Andrews contradicted in court by top health bureaucrat

A claim by Daniel Andrews has been contradicted in court by a top health bureaucrat, who said she didn’t agree with his public statement.

Unica Cucina e Caffe owner Michelle Loielo has taken the Victorian Government to court over the state’s former curfew. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

A top Victorian health bureaucrat told a court she did not agree with comments made by Premier Daniel Andrews that the state’s former curfew was to assist law enforcement.

Michelle Giles, who was acting as deputy public health commander when she signed the order extending the curfew from September 14, contradicted Mr Andrews’ previous statements that the purpose of the curfew was to assist police.

She was speaking on Thursday as part of a trial challenging the legality of the curfew brought by Liberal Party member and cafe owner Michelle Loielo in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Wearing a black blazer and occasionally sniffling, Prof Giles was calm under questioning from barrister Marcus Clarke QC.

“I’m aware of the comments, but I don’t agree,” she said.

“Particularly the law enforcement one, and I’ve always been consistent in my position about that. The curfew, in my view, was about reducing the movement of people. That was the public health rationale for the curfew.”

Victoria’s police chief and chief health officer have both publicly stated they did not request the curfew, and Mr Andrews told reporters on September 11 that it “simply means police have an easier job”.

On Thursday Mr Clarke put to Prof Giles that she did not use independent thinking to assess the directions she signed and acted out of “obedience” to the Premier.

“I definitely do not agree with that,” she said. “It was my decision. I was not dictated to by anybody.”

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has been contradicted in court by a top health bureaucrat. Picture: NCA NewsWire/ David Crosling

Prof Giles was appointed on August 3 as senior medical adviser in the Department of Health’s Case Contact and Outbreak Management team working to stop the spread of COVID-19.

She accepted an offer on September 9 to act as deputy public health commander while Finn Romanes, who usually holds the role, was on leave before she signed the order extending the curfew — which was first put into place from August 2 — on the evening of September 13, also reducing it from 8pm to 5am, to 9pm to 5am.

She told the court she was not involved in coming up with restrictions, including the curfew, but her role was to review and authorise them.

She said she believed the curfew would help stop the spread of COVID-19 because case numbers went down after it was originally implemented.

“The curfew in isolation – there is not evidence in support of that,” she said.

“But there is evidence to support the curfew as part of a package of directions that has been shown to reduce infections in Victoria.”

She said when stage 3 restrictions were implemented in Victoria case numbers continued to rise, but after stage 4 restrictions were introduced, including the curfew, they fell.

Michelle Loielo says she feels ‘dread and anxiety’ every time she hears the Premier speak. Picture: Valeriu Campan

Daniel Andrews has lifted Melbourne’s curfew. Picture: NCA / NewsWire / Ian Currie

“My understanding of the curfew, from a public health perspective, has always been about restricting the movement of people and interaction between people,” she said.

“My decisions are not about the economy, my decisions are about health.”

Mr Clarke asked her if she sought data before she made her decision on how the curfew would affect loneliness, depression, and anxiety; domestic violence victims; people who need treatment for cancer and heart disease; and how it would financially affect businesses — and she said she hadn’t.

“I did not specifically obtain any data on that,” she said.

“I saw myself as balancing the risk to the population from coronavirus, against the impact on individuals.

“What I was most worried about was the risk if I removed those restrictions too early, or too quickly.”

EARLIER

The woman suing the Victorian Government over the state’s former curfew says she feels “a sense of dread and anxiety” whenever she sees the Premier.

Michelle Loielo is asking the Supreme Court of Victoria to declare that the curfew – which was revoked from Monday – was never legal.

In her second affidavit filed with the court, she said she lived in fear that the curfew would be reinstated.

“Every time I see the Premier Daniel Andrews on the television, and every time I hear the Premier speak, I feel a sense of dread and anxiety,” she said.

Melbourne was almost deserted under the harsh COVID restrictions. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Andrew Henshaw

“I feel this way because I am insecure about whether he is going to reimpose the curfew simply because he has the power to do so.”

While the curfew was in place she feared being pulled over by police, she said – even though she knew she was driving for one of the four legal reasons to be outside between 9pm and 5am.

“On social media, I have seen video footage of the police arresting a pregnant woman in her home and smashing a car window to remove a woman from her car,” she said.

“I don’t know what the circumstances of those incidents were, but seeing that footage made me incredibly anxious, as a woman, driving home after curfew hours, that I might be pulled over in my car by the police.”

Ms Loielo is a Liberal Party member reportedly seeking preselection to run against Andrews’ Labor government at the next election.

She is a widowed mother-of-three who runs a cafe on the Mornington Peninsula and said her business had suffered a 99 per cent reduction in turnover since lockdown restrictions came into effect.

Defence lawyers on Wednesday argued the case was redundant because the curfew had already been revoked.

They said it was not the place of the court to rule on any potential future curfews.

But Justice Timothy Ginnane on Thursday said he would hear evidence and wait for the trial to play out in full before coming to a decision on whether Ms Loielo’s claims – that the curfew breached her human rights – had legal standing.

The trial continues.