Coronavirus: Curfew data ‘secret’, as Victorian government lawyers lash detainment bill

Lawyers for the Andrews government will seek to keep the data relied upon to extend Melbourne’s coronavirus curfew secret by claiming public interest immunity.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews in Melbourne on Wednesday. Picture: Getty Images

Lawyers for the Andrews government will seek to keep the data relied upon to extend Melbourne’s coronavirus curfew secret by claiming public interest immunity when the matter comes before Victoria’s Supreme Court on Monday next week.

The move comes amid a separate backlash from the legal fraternity over hardline new laws the Victorian government is seeking to pass, which would empower authorities to detain innocent people on suspicion that they may be at risk of breaching coronavirus restrictions.

Supreme Court Justice Timothy Ginnane on Wednesday ordered Victoria’s Deputy Public Health Commander Michelle Giles to give a summary “of the data, including the approximate number of pages of data on which she relied”, in making any case for the curfew, which currently requires Melburnians to remain at home, other than for permitted work or medical care, between 9pm and 5am.

But government lawyers failed to meet a deadline set by Justice Ginnane of 2pm on Wednesday, indicating instead that they would make a public interest immunity claim on Monday when the curfew is challenged at trial.

The request for the data came after Associate Professor Giles made a statement to the court as part of legal action brought by Liberal Party member and Mornington Peninsula business owner Michelle Loielo, challenging the curfew.

“I had seen from the data a clear and direct correlation between the effect of the stage four restrictions and the reduction of case numbers,” Professor Giles said in her statement.

The infectious diseases physician had only been in her current role for nine days when she signed the order extending the curfew, making her the subject of the ­lawsuit.

Premier Daniel Andrews said earlier on Wednesday morning he did not know whether his government would be claiming public interest immunity to avoid handing over the data.

“The absolutely frank answer to you is I do not know, nor am I acquainted with what documents the court has sought or parties to that action have sought, and that I think speaks to the fact that I’m in no way involved in that matter,” Mr Andrews said.

The state and national peak bodies representing barristers meanwhile raised concerns about provisions in the Andrews government’s “COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Acts Amendment Bill”, which would allow any person the Department of Health and Human Services deems appropriate to become an “authorised ­officer” — and it would would empower these authorised officers to detain people based on the belief that they are unlikely to comply with emergency directions.