A confidential email exchange, recently made public through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, has revealed that the controversial curfew imposed on millions of Victorians during the COVID-19 pandemic was introduced without direct public health advice. The revelation has reignited criticism of how the Dan Andrews government handled the crisis and raised significant concerns about transparency and governance during one of Australia’s strictest lockdown periods.
The curfew, implemented in August 2020, prohibited residents from leaving their homes between 8pm and 5am. Despite being framed as a health measure, the email exchange between then Chief Health Officer (CHO) Brett Sutton and his deputy, Dr. Finn Romanes, confirmed that the curfew was a political decision made by Cabinet rather than one driven by medical guidance.
The email, which was withheld for over four years, was finally obtained by Liberal Legislative Council leader David Davis. According to Davis, the state government resisted the FOI process at every step, including appealing tribunal decisions in court, in an apparent attempt to prevent the release of the documents. He argued that the government’s persistent obstruction underscores the sensitivity and political implications of the curfew decision.
Dr. Romanes, who had been absent from work in the days leading up to the curfew, wrote in his email to Dr. Sutton that he had not been privy to any prior discussion or documentation justifying the need for a curfew. He explicitly stated that the curfew was not initiated based on public health recommendations. The cabinet, not epidemiological data, made the decision to introduce the curfew as part of a broader state of disaster declaration.
In response, Dr. Sutton acknowledged that Romanes’ interpretation was correct, adding that while the curfew might help limit transmission—particularly among high-risk groups—its implementation was essentially a public order measure endorsed after the fact by health authorities.
Mr. Davis has labelled the curfew as a symbol of Premier Daniel Andrews’ “draconian” pandemic response, arguing that the decision lacked sufficient evidence and consideration. He further criticized the government’s actions during the Coate Inquiry into the pandemic response, claiming key officials displayed lapses in memory and failed to provide transparent answers.
In defence of the curfew, a spokesperson for Premier Jacinta Allan, who succeeded Andrews in 2023 and was part of the Cabinet at the time, stated that the government acted in the best interests of public safety. The measures, the spokesperson claimed, were intended to save lives during an unprecedented crisis and were always implemented in collaboration with public health experts.
However, a national review of Australia’s COVID-19 response commissioned by the federal government found that several restrictions imposed by states—including Victoria’s curfew—were disproportionate, inconsistently applied, and at times lacked strong justification. The review, led by experts including epidemiologist Professor Catherine Bennett, highlighted that the human rights implications of pandemic policies were frequently overlooked.
International studies have drawn similar conclusions. Research published in Health Psychology Open compared strict lockdowns in Scotland with Japan’s more voluntary guidance. The findings suggested that stricter rules correlated with more significant disruptions to individuals’ lifestyles, contributing to declines in mental health and overall well-being.
Likewise, a report by The British Academy noted that the societal impacts of lockdowns extended far beyond the immediate health crisis. These measures deepened existing inequalities and created long-term challenges related to mental health, employment, and social cohesion—effects that may persist for years.
The newly surfaced email adds to a growing body of evidence questioning the proportionality and necessity of some pandemic policies. With Victoria’s next state election scheduled for November 2026, the issue is likely to remain a point of contention, particularly as the public continues to grapple with the lasting consequences of prolonged restrictions.
