Tuesday, 13 May 2025

COVID-19

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (19:07): (1609) My matter tonight for the adjournment is for the attention of the Attorney-General, and it relates to the requirement that government agencies and departments act as model litigants. This is a long-established principle. I have been involved in substantial litigation with the Department of Health over the recent period – and other departments, but specifically the Department of Health. What I sought through a freedom of information request were the matters around briefings to the chief health officer concerning the curfew on 2 August 2020. Many of us remember that fateful day. We remember Daniel Andrews standing there in his North Face jacket telling us all that he was acting on health advice. What we discovered was that that was a lie – a flat lie. The FOI sought to find information behind these decisions, and in the end VCAT ordered the release of a document – document 34. Judge English ordered the release of that document. The government appealed that to the Court of Appeal. It was a convincing loss at the Court of Appeal, and the court ordered the release of the document. The document contained damning information. For example, Dr Romanes stated:

… I have not seen any specific written assessment of the requirement for curfew …

Dr Romanes went on to say:

I note that the Cabinet briefings are not specifically containing a written consideration …

He sought to sign these orders locking up, in effect, putting under curfew, more than 5 million Victorians across metropolitan Melbourne – about 5.3 million Victorians across metropolitan Melbourne. This was very different from the other circumstances in other states, and Victoria of course had the worst outcomes on the pandemic. We had the highest death rate in Australia, the most economic damage and the longest lockdown in the Western world.

It is a very serious outcome and a reflection of the fact that much of the information, we now learn, was not based on health advice. The definitive point about document 34 and the reason it appears the government fought so hard against its release all the way to the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Victoria, is that this had, in documentary form, statements that showed that it was not based on health advice. It is extraordinary that the government would fight this all the way to the Court of Appeal, sucking up public resources – huge cost – and effectively trying to exhaust the applicant, which in this case was me. What I am seeking from the Attorney-General is an investigation of government FOI efforts to ensure that model litigation approaches are adopted by every government department and agency.