Leaders play pass the buck over curfew order

Daniel Andrews won’t say who pushed for a curfew after his CHO and police chief distanced themselves from the decision.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. Picture: Sarah Matray

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has repeatedly refused to say who originally pushed for Melbourne’s 8pm to 5am curfew, after his Chief Health Officer and police chief distanced themselves from the decision.

Saying he was “ultimately accountable” despite evading repeated questions about whose idea the measure was, Mr Andrews faced pressure from industry groups, civil libertarians and Liberal MPs to dump what amounts to the greatest incursion on personal freedom in Victoria’s history.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton said on Thursday that as far as he knew, the curfew was “the Chief Health Officer’s” decision, and police had learnt of the measure only hours before it was announced.

His comments contradicted those of Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton, who on Tuesday said while he was consulted, the curfew was implemented via “a separate decision-making pathway” that did not involve him.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton. Picture: AAP

Quizzed at his daily press conference over who had been involved in devising the curfew, Mr Andrews said: “Decisions are made by groups of people, and I can’t necessarily pinpoint for you the exact individual and exact moment it was suggested that we put a curfew on.

“What I’m saying to you is, anyone who’s displeased with that or doesn’t think that’s a proportionate measure, well, that’s a decision that I’ve made.”

Mr Andrews announced the curfew on August 2, alongside a raft of other stage-four restrictions, which included confining Melburnians to their homes for all but an hour of exercise, permitted work, medical care and up to an hour of shopping for essentials, as well as the shutdown of entire ­industries.

“These are the decisions made because anything short of this will not keep us safe,” the Premier said at the time. The following day, Professor Sutton was asked whether the curfew was intended to prevent parties or family ­gatherings.

 

“Presumably,” he replied on August 3. “It was part of the state of disaster announcements and with a view on police being able to see the movement of people after that 8pm time.”

On Tuesday, the CHO more explicitly stated that the decision had not been made at his instigation. “I was consulted on it, but it was a separate decision-making pathway,” he told radio 3AW.

On Thursday, Mr Patton suggested otherwise when asked whose idea the curfew had been. “As far as I know, (it was) the Chief Health Officer’s (idea),” he told ABC radio.

“Our policy area received a copy of these guidelines a couple of hours before they were to be brought in for our information, as I understand, for us to be able to operationalise them (sic). We haven’t had any input into them.”

Mr Andrews sought to justify the curfew on Thursday by saying all of the current rules were about limiting movement to drive down coronavirus case numbers.

Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton. Picture: AAP

“Whether it be the curfew or the 5km rule or rules around how often you can leave the home to go shopping and how many ­people can leave the home to go shopping — all of these rules are about limiting movement,” he said. “Some of them limit movement in and of themselves and some of them make the job of enforcing the rules in a broader context easier and simpler.”

Liberty Victoria vice-president Julia Kretzenbacher said her group was “deeply concerned” by reports the curfew was not made on the “considered advice of public health officials and Victoria Police”, indicating that the CHO directions underpinning the measure may be unlawful under Victoria’s Public Health and Wellbeing Act, which requires authorised health officers to be satisfied that restrictions, such as a curfew, are “strictly necessary from a public health perspective”.

“This may lead to challenges to infringements issued in purported breach of a curfew,” she said.

“If we, as Victorians, are expected to comply with such extraordinary incursions into our human rights, then we are entitled to expect that such decisions are made lawfully, and on expert advice. That is no less than what the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) and the (Victorian) Charter (of Human Rights and Responsibilities) requires.”

Liberal MP and former human rights commissioner Tim Wilson has asked the Australian Human Rights Commission and its Victorian counterpart to examine whether the curfew is a violation of people’s “rights and freedoms” given they were not based on health advice.

Ai Group Victorian head Tim Piper said revelations the curfew was neither based on health nor police advice were an argument for it to be lifted immediately.