Before discussing the consequences of “Lockdowns” becoming policy in Australia and across the world, it is informative to look at how they became policy in the first place. Most crucially, I would suggest that there were several aspects of this process that were immensely problematic. Firstly, “Lockdowns” became policy – and consequently normalized – extremely rapidly: in February of 2020, all Australian states as well as the Federal government had longstanding policies on pandemic control which made no allowance for the kind of extreme restrictions which have been bundled under the label of “Lockdowns”; somewhere between February and the middle of March they became policy in every state and at the Federal level, without any clear explanation of why this had happened or when the decision had been reached. The less restrictive policies which were replaced had been reiterated as late as March 10 and were furthermore consistent with a World Health Organization’s assessment of mainstream disease control proposals and the extent of evidence supporting these proposals. The “Lockdown” policy, by contrast, was not supported by any body of evidence, and was enacted in contravention of basic legal and human rights obligations. And lastly, it happened without any acknowledgement on the part of any member of government that policy had changed, and with scarcely a hint of debate or critical analysis of the new policies in either government or the press.
The rapidity with which all precedents regarding the restraints imposed on government were erased is staggering to recall. Some say this isn’t step that should be taken lightly; I say it shouldn’t be taken at all; the Federal and state governments of Australia leaped over that line like a fucking dressage horse. In the last week of January, the idea of a “Lockdown” was already drawing comment in the news as they were being imposed across China, but at this date they were still properly regarded as an extreme act taken by a totalitarian state. On January 23, reporter for the ABC posed the question to a colleague1:
ELEANOR HALL: The Chinese Government does exercise considerable control over its citizens, but is this unusual, even for China?
BILL BIRTLES: Oh, it's possibly unprecedented. I'm not completely sure if it's been done for other reasons, though, in the distant past. But a city of 11 million people, trying to cut the transport flows in and out of it for a non-defined period of time, yes, it's incredibly unusual.
On the 24th, an article for the Associated Press contained similar comments, adding that the tactics in question were unproven2:
...While sweeping measures are typical of China’s Communist Party-led government, large-scale quarantines are rare around the world, even in deadly epidemics, because of concerns about infringing on people’s liberties. And the effectiveness of such measures is unclear.
The ABC ran more stories on the Chinese lockdowns on the 25th, and posed such prudent questions as “How long can the shutdown be maintained?”3 Trying to answer the question, the article cited a similar “shutdown” which occurred in Mexico City for several days of 2009, presciently noting that “it came at an economic cost.” They also consulted experts, who in January 2020 had yet to be indoctrinated into, or intoxicated by, the Lockdown “consensus,” and gave answers that will serve to illustrate just how far public opinion would move in the next 50 days:
Mr Kamradt-Scott said three days would probably be the limit for most people’s tolerance of these kind of shutdowns.
“Beyond that you start to encounter growing levels of dissatisfaction and frustration,” he said.
Keep in mind, he is talking about the population of China, who had been long conditioned to tolerate authoritarianism, and still thought that even their limit would be as little as three days. Obviously Mr. Kamradt Scott greatly underestimated the resilience of human beings and their ability to adapt to extreme circumstances in a crisis, but his estimate is noteworthy nonetheless. It shows that the idea of similarly repressive conditions being imposed in affluent liberal democracies like Australia, let alone maintained for as much as six months, was beyond contemplation even as the calendar turned to February. The concept was still alien to even the World Health Organization, whose China representative Gauden Galea said that “trying to contain a city of 11 million people is new to science.”
Barely a month later, the first smattering of news items began to appear which hinted at the governments repressive outlook on pandemic control. The “EXTRAORDINARY powers [which were] enacted in Australia, allowing authorities to isolate people and ban them from travel,” still fell well short of the extremism which Australian’s would soon know as “Lockdown.” Even by the 28th of February, the fact that Lockdowns were still perceived by Australians as something alien which existed only a world away can be seen by the continued currency of first-hand accounts of the Chinese lockdowns from Australians who were caught up in them4:
I am one of only a handful of Australians left in Chengdu, a city of 16 million people deep in the Chinese heartland. There’s a heavy anxiety in the air. It’s an eerie landscape. KYRI THEOS P7
On March 3, in his daily update to the Victorian people, the Chief Health Officer Professor Sutton gave a brief glimpse of how the government planned to respond to the inevitable arrival of COVID-19 in our state, reassuringly stating that “many of us will be able to go about our daily lives and help others.”5 The same day, Scott Morrison said the Federal government “won’t rule out aged care lockdowns if coronavirus outbreak worsens.”6
In particular circumstances and in particular locations, if we had concerns, there is the ability to lockdown aged care facilities out of protection for the residents in those aged care facilities.
What is especially important to note about the PM’s public statements is that they emphasized the extreme vulnerability of the elderly to coronavirus, and (as quoted) he explicitly said that lockdowns were only being justified in this case for the protection of the people being locked down, not the generalized community. The Lockdowns we would be under soon after would require a different justification, and these statements could not have been interpreted as suggesting a communitywide lockdown might occur.
As late as March 10, the Victorian government released a ‘COVID-19 Pandemic Plan for the Victorian Health Sector', which consistent with existing plans of the Australian government, the WHO, and the governments of most other countries around the world. It did not contemplate “Lockdown.”7
On March 13, as Victoria’s total cases of COVID-19 rose to 36, Sutton’s tone definitively, if almost imperceptibly, changed8:
"I am reviewing this rapidly evolving situation daily and will be discussing recommendations around future mass gatherings with my Federal and State counterparts at today's Australian Health Protection Principal Committee meeting.”
As part of the clear shift in his messaging, Sutton made reference to “a number of new developments in the past 24 hours.” Namely “the positive test in a Formula One team member, the rapidly changing threat posed by the spread of the virus in Europe, and the cancellation and suspension of other mass gathering events around the world." It is odd to count the actions of foreign governments as a relevant consideration, except in anticipation of using their example as a justification in future. The phrase “rapidly changing threat,” is at best meaningless.
In the context as it is now known, it is more likely an attempt to lay the groundwork of hysteria which he would income to justify the decision that would come two days later when the Victorian government declared a State of Emergency.9 On the same day, the 15th, Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy admitted the government was “considering” Lockdowns, which had suddenly become policy in other countries and attracted notice10:
"It is a potential that could be the case…” he said.
Asked if it was possible a city the size of Sydney could be locked down, he replied:
"Potentially you could," he said.
By the 16th, although the full suite of policies we know as Lockdown still hadn’t been announced The Age nonetheless carried the headline ‘LOCKDOWN BEGINS’11, and references to the imminent possibility were now scattered liberally throughout the major newspapers. The Age article summarized the handful of measures that had been announced: the requirement for all arrivals to self-isolate for 14 days; the ban of events with more than 500 people.
Within days, Lockdown became the official policy of the Federal government and all State governments.
☀
In addition to the speed with which the policy was put in place, this was done without any evidence to support the policy, and in contravention of our governments most basic legal and human rights obligations. In Victoria, those human rights obligations are principally defined and protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which lays out the government’s responsibilities with respect to human rights. The most important principle for government to observe is proportionality: in other words, any act which restricts human rights must (i) be proportionate to the risk it seeks to avert, and (ii) must be the least restrictive measure which is capable of achieving that aim. To determine whether a given measure is proportional inherently requires an accounting of costs and benefits; the Victorian and Australian governments have both admitted they took no consideration whatsoever of the unintended costs the policy might causes, which implicitly means they simply disregarded their legal obligation to ensure the proportionality of their policies.
When called to testify before the Inquiry into the Governments Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, held by the Public Accounts and Affairs Committee of the Victorian Parliament, Premier Daniel Andrews was asked point blank what evidence or modelling his government had used to assess the costs of the policy and could not cite any. Instead, he fell back on a rhetorical argument he has often used in public statements and which amounts to a clear repudiation of the proportionality principle enshrined in human rights law which his government is bound by. To wit12:
“I suppose the issue becomes one of: what option do you have? What choice do you have?”
Chief Health Officer, Professor Sutton, was asked the same question and answered more explicitly that neither he nor his office had conducted any such modelling or evidentiary analysis13, echoing the Premiers dubious claim that the government faced an “impossible decision” between Lockdown and the catastrophe they maintain would have resulted from any other conceivable policy.
Professor Sutton’s testimony highlighted an even more problematic aspect of the governments neglect of proportionality when he was asked what steps were taken to ensure that the enforcement of his directive by Victoria Police would be carried out with respect for proportionality. He answered, incredibly, that this was a matter for Victoria Police. In other words, the unprecedent powers he had claimed under the pretext of the pandemic, including the power to delegate expansive new enforcement powers to Victoria Police, did not extend to establishing any means of providing oversight of how Victoria Police used these powers.
In addition to the neglect of their legal obligations, the State and Federal governments equally have displayed a basic contempt for the public. At a time when the extremity and consequence of their actions demanded accountability and consultation from them, they acted unilaterally, in consultation with no part of the community, and refused to even explain themselves or their justifications. Prime Minister Scott Morrison formed a National Cabinet to guide the national pandemic response, replacing the existing Council of Australian Governments; whereas COAG decisions are expected to be made public within a week, and can be accessed through Freedom of Information requests, the decisions of the national cabinet are released – or not released – entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister, and all documents associated with the cabinet are exempted from Freedom of Information requests. Commenting on this, the Prime Minister said that cabinet’s decisions about rules and processes affecting everyday Australians are “just not a spectator sport.”14
It remains unclear the Federal or state governments made the decision to impose Lockdowns on the whole population, or on what advice or reasoning the decision was based. There was almost zero public debate about the advisability of this decision in either government or by the press. For the most part, officials have refused to even acknowledge that Lockdowns constituted a change of policy, In fact, when asked by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee how the ‘COVID-19 Pandemic Plan for the Victorian Health Sector' which she had authored informed government policy, Health Minister Mikakos went so far as to pretend they were one and the same, saying15:
So the Government was very up-front with the fact that these measures would be disruptive, they would be wide-ranging.
☀
As we proceed to elaborate, in greater detail, the specific issues with the Lockdown policy, we should bear in mind the overarching theme which binds them. That is, the sudden and drastic ascendency of authoritarianism in this country which has been the primary result of the government’s response to COVID-19. Within that framework, we will now look closely at the lack of transparency or accountability for the governments Lockdown policy at any level, the lack of any consultation with the community or stake holders, the intolerance for dissent, including extreme manifestations like the use of police to harass and arrest journalists and the selective denial of the right to protest, and most importantly the disproportionate enforcement of these frankly illiberal polices by Australian police, and particularly Victoria Police.
Regarding transparency and accountability, there have been numerous and deeply concerning issues. Among the submissions to the PAEC Inquiry, the report submitted by the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties16 (or ‘Liberty Victoria’) highlighted a number of significant issues in this area. Perhaps the boldest move, if not necessarily the most impactful, is the temporary suspension of parliament under health directives, which this report aptly noted “removed important scrutiny at a time when it was needed most." Regarding the transparency of Victoria Police enforcement of health directives, it noted that “despite calls from stakeholders, Victoria Police has not released the demographic data with regard to fines that have so far been issued.”
The continued administration of justice was also identified as a problem area, about which the report noted that “the Government’s introduction of the option for certain matters to be heard by a judge alone represents a significant change to the operation of the criminal justice system,” impacting upon “the right to a trial before a jury,” which “is a fundamental tenet of the criminal justice system and an important safeguard to ensure a fair trial.”
Changes were introduced that would permit special hearings under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 to be conducted by judge-alone. In determining whether this takes place a court is to have regard to submissions by the prosecution, but not defence. Liberty Victoria is concerned this precludes consideration of submissions made on behalf of an accused person, an unnecessary abrogation of the rights of an accused.
Furthermore, “Parliament’s decision to delegate the power to legislate to the Executive branch of Government is a concerning shift away from proper oversight and accountability...”
This is particularly dangerous in relation to regulations that impact the rights and liberties of individuals, such as the process of bail applications and regulations that amend conditions in prisons and youth detention centres."
☀
Then there is the issue of consultation. Regarding the ‘COVID-19 (Emergency Measures) Bill 2020’, introduced to Parliament on April 23, 2020, the report notes that “there was no public consultation on the draft version of the Bill (even for urgent submissions) despite it being clear that the emergency measures would significantly impact the Victorian community.” Nor was there any consultation with stakeholders or community groups prior to the ‘hard lockdown’ of public housing towers:
“Indeed, many residents were not provided with notice and were left uncertain about their ability to access to food, medicine or other support services10 — and, in one case, access to their premature newborn baby."
Echoing their concern in this area was another notable submission by the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria17. According to ECCV, “the overarching problem cited both by community members and multicultural organisations” was a lack of consultation and coordination with multicultural organisations and ethnic associations – “One area in which this engagement gap had clearly negative repercussions was with regard to communications.” This directly affects the efficacy of the public health response, given non-English speaking members of the community can hardly follow health directions which haven’t been given in a language they understand.
More significantly, ECCV raised their concern that “discriminatory and poorly planned government interventions in a time of crisis can accentuate disadvantage.” This is true and applies not only to ethnic minorities but across the board, and we will see again and again as we examine the broader impact of Lockdowns that one of their primary consequences is to increase the power of the powerful and to further entrench the disadvantage of the powerless. Their submission points to a number of specific examples. Firstly, “a large group of migrants ... were excluded from the Federal financial relief package” and were consequently “left in an extremely precarious situation.” In addition to this, the “financial imperative to continue working whenever possible” affecting numerous low-income demographics “[puts] them at a greater health risk, in a clear demonstration of how discriminatory measures during a time of crisis can accentuate disadvantage.”
ECCV noted the impact of Lockdown measures on the mental health of multicultural groups, adding that this is another area “in which existing inequalities have been amplified.”
Multicultural and ethnic communities have faced additional barriers due to challenges accessing in-language support, disruption in trusted community networks, and the prevailing lack of culturally responsive mental health services.
… The sudden disruption in social relationships has impacted all Victorians. However, some culturally and linguistically diverse groups, including seniors and migrant women, have been more vulnerable to its negative effects.
The significant economic downturn which Lockdowns have caused will also have a drastic effect on demographics that were already subject to discrimination and barriers to workforce participation. ECCV noted that they had interviewed young people from migrant backgrounds and found that those who had been looking for work prior to the pandemic “reported a loss of confidence and lack of motivation in the current labour market, and negative impacts' on their aspirations. Moreover, for some of them, the pandemic also led to an increased level of responsibility within their families, including for interpreting, care roles, and financial pressure due to a drop in household income."
☀
The most significant of these issues, of course, is the heavy-handed and unequal enforcement of Lockdown by police departments. For the present, I will focus on Victoria Police. Of special importance is the concern expressed by Liberty Victoria, among other groups, that Victoria Police “may have been exercising their powers in a manner that disproportionately affects people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, what may be seen as lower social-economic backgrounds, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.” This concern is widely reflected in the anecdotal experience of disadvantaged groups, and by the facts gathered by community initiatives and media reporting; as noted previously, Victoria Police have been less than cooperative in providing transparent data or means of oversight. However, it is worth noting the statement given by then Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton “that the inconsistency and a lack of discretion in the enforcement of lockdown laws is eroding public confidence in Victoria Police."
Another issue which Liberty Victoria expressed concern about is “the reported use of move-on powers against homeless persons, in circumstances where the Stay at Home Directions themselves contain an exception for homelessness (for persons without an ‘ordinary place of residence’), and accordingly would not properly inform the execution of move-on powers." This was echoed by the submission made by the Fitzroy Legal Service18, who point out that providing homeless people with temporary crisis accommodation does not mean they are no longer homelessness, as people living in crisis accommodation fall under the legal accepted definition of homelessness.
We wish to point out that the expectation that long-term homeless communities would immediately be able to integrate into a new modality without extensive support is valiant but unrealistic. The issuing of multiple infringements is not to our way of thinking a meaningful response to that issue, and will merely clog court legal and health resources or worse, prison resources, as the recipients clearly have no means whatsoever to make payment, and would have multiple grounds for seeking to be excused from payment.”
The most egregious instance of government overreach, enforced by police, was obviously the so-called “hard lockdown” of nine public housing towers. This is a particularly alarming development and warrants the abundant criticism it has received. Among the specific concerns raised about this episode are:
· The heavy-handed, disproportionate and primarily law-enforcement management of a public health issue.
· The demographic of the public housing tower residents consisting largely of disadvantaged groups, groups who have been subject to racial discrimination and racial profiling, and in many instances refugees from authoritarian regimes who would have been especially shaken by the sudden paramilitary enforcement of an unexpected term of detention within their homes.
· Inadequate planning and community consultation resulting in residents who couldn’t read or speak English not being properly informed what was happening to them or the justifications for it.
· That the restrictions imposed upon them were unnecessarily harsh, not allowing them to leave their apartments for exercise or for work, and requiring permission to leave for medical reasons.
· The continued police presence at the towers long after the “hard lockdown” itself had been lifted.
Liberty Victoria’s submission aptly sums up the most important concern of all, stating in no uncertain terms that “Liberty Victoria does not accept that these measures would have been imposed, without warning or consultation, on other more privileged communities in Victoria."
This episode also prompted an appropriately outraged state Labour MP to send an email to his colleagues demanding answers – the questions he raised are still relevant, to wit19:
· “What did/does the public health plan look like for the public housing estates and when did we land on it? Do we have similar plans for other forms of public housing?”
· “What was the process and who made the decision to detain people in their homes with armed law enforcement?”
· “Why is everyone else given 48 hours notice of a lockdown but the people of the public housing estates were not?”
“Mr Gepp’s intervention comes after his federal Labor colleagues, former leader Bill Shorten and Wills MP Peter Khalil, last week raised similar concerns about the lockdowns. Mr Khalil, who grew up in social housing in the 1970s, said it was “concerning” that some of the most socio-economically disadvantaged and vulnerable people in Melbourne had faced harsher restrictions than all other residents.”
Another issue of considerable importance raised by Liberty Victoria is the measures instituted by Corrections Victoria in response to COVID-19, the efficacy of which is unknown but which clearly render the conditions of people in prison or otherwise detained considerably more onerous. They summarize the primary concerns as follows:
Since 28 March 2020, all prisoners on entry to prison custody are required to undergo a period of quarantine for 14 days where they experience significantly limited time out of their cell. The quarantine and isolation of prisoners has serious impacts on prisoners’ mental health and well-being. More recently, a number of adult and child prisoners and those working at adult and youth prison facilities have been diagnosed with COVID-19. This has led to an increase in the “lockdown” of prisoners, including children, who during lockdowns no longer get to leave their cells and have access to fresh air and sunlight. Liberty Victoria is very concerned about the physical and mental impact this will have on child and adult prisoners, in particularly those already vulnerable due to their existing health and mental health issues."
Additionally, "at the completion of their quarantine, prisoners are subject to further restrictions on their movement and their ability to receive visitors (including lawyers and family) has been barred." And even more concerningly, “programs aimed at rehabilitation have ceased or been dramatically reduced — prisoners are unable to access mental health programs, anger management counselling, alcohol and drug counselling, and other courses." Their proposal for “decarceration” wherever practicable with regards to children and young offenders is sound and should be prioritized by the government and Corrections Victoria.
With regard to the expanded role of police, Liberty Victoria notes “the increased reliance on, and deployment of, PSOs increases the risks of harmful interactions with members of the community as identified in the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission report, Transit Protective Services Officers – An exploration of corruption and misconduct risks.” PSO’s are being used as de facto police, despite having significantly less training. They appropriately recommend that the enabling changes to legislation, the expansion of the definition of “designated place” under the Victoria Police Regulations 2014, “should be rolled back."
Furthermore, they suggest that “the system of accountability and complaint management in response to issues relating to PSOs in Victoria is lacking” raising concerns that “with increased use of PSOs, there may be an increased risk in over-policing of vulnerable and marginalised neighbourhoods and communities." Lending substance to this concern is the fact that "one of the top reasons PSOs arrested members of the community during the initial months of the pandemic was for public drunkenness, an offence the government has committed to abolishing due to its disproportionate impact on the vulnerable.”
The Fitzroy Legal Service’s submission to the PAEC Inquiry, referenced above, lends considerable substance to these concerns. They note that concerns of police overreach and disproportionate targeting of disadvantaged communities “have been substantially borne out by the reports over the course of the pandemic.”
During recent months reports have been consistently made by community members living in and around housing estates of intimidating police presence. In the Yarra region, which rates third as the highest demographic for the issue of infringements, it is no secret that policing operations have focussed on breaking the drug market including during the course of the pandemic. We note reports of arrests and patrols escalated just prior to the announcement of the extension of the Richmond MSIR and the second site. Each search, arrest, prosecution for low level offending, to the extent they occurred during the public health pandemic records a risk management episode, should in our submission be analysed in the context of global harm reduction and public health principles. The exposure of scores of police and those arrested and processed, including those remanded, seems to have been out of step with other operational approaches to controlling transmission and supporting those with complex health and housing needs.” [Emphasis mine.]
In other words, the behaviour of police towards marginalized groups is clearly contrary to their purported focus on public health and pandemic control.
They further note that “the recent release of crime statistics paints a picture consistent with our supposition of targeting by virtue of stigma, poverty, homelessness, substance dependence, with the top LGA’s as follows: Melbourne (n=662), Greater Dandenong (n=343), Yarra (n=314), Frankston (n=306), Casey (n=267).”
“We note there is no coherence with heightened concentration of infection, and no meaningful way to attach prosecutions to the proliferation of breaches of the law. We further note that 65% of people who have been issued with infringements to date have a history of criminalisation, and that of the 14% of offenders concurrently processed by police for another type of offence, the most commonly recorded offence was drug possession.”
In other words, expanded police powers are being used to further their pre-pandemic goals of harassing drug users and other marginalized groups. As they suggest:
“We know from experience in advancing public health objectives, both as a service and participants in civic society, that with or without a legislative underpinning, coercive models focussed on curtailing liberty and rights can result in perverse outcomes that cause disproportionate harm and tragic outcomes.”
‘City of Wuhan in lockdown as authorities race to contain virus’, Eleanor Hall and Bill Brittles, World Today (The ABC), January 23, 2020.
‘More than 18 million locked down in 3 Chinese cities’, Ken Moritsugu and Yanan Wang, Associated Press, January 24, 2020.
‘Wuhan’s coronavirus lockdown is unprecedented, so how has China done it and what impact will it have?’, Pete Fuller, ABC News, January 25, 2020.
‘Life in lockdown ...with anxiety in the air’, Kyri Theos, The Australian, 02/28/2020
‘Coronavirus: Updated advice for Victorians, Professor Brett Sutton, Department of Health, March 3.
‘Federal Govt won't rule out aged care lockdowns if coronavirus outbreak worsens’, Eleni Psaltis PM (ABC), Mar 03, 2020
‘The COVID-19 Pandemic Plan for the Victorian Health Sector’, Department of Health and Human Services, March 10, 2020.
‘More COVID-19 cases confirmed in Victoria, Department of Health and Human Services, March 13, 2020.
‘State of Emergency declared in Victoria over COVID-19’, Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton, March 16, 2020.
March 15, 2020 | Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Web Edition Articles (Australia), Author/Byline: political reporter Stephanie Borys | Section: News
'LOCKDOWN BEGINS’, Shane Wright, Noel Towell and Jennifer Duke, The Age, March 16, 2020
'Testimony to the Inquiry into the Victorian Government's Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic, by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee of the Parliament of Victoria', Premier Daniel Andrews, August 11, 2020; pp. 17.
'Testimony to the Inquiry into the Victorian Government's Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic, by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee of the Parliament of Victoria', Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton, May 12, 2020; pp. 8.
‘What’s the difference between COAG and the national cabinet?’, Amber Schultz, Crikey, June 1, 2020.
'Testimony to the Inquiry into the Victorian Government's Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic, by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee of the Parliament of Victoria', Health Minister Jenny Mikakos, May 12, 2020; pp. 5.
'Submission to the Inquiry into the Victorian Government's Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic, by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee of the Parliament of Victoria', Victorian Council of Civil Liberties, July 2020
'Submission to the Inquiry into the Victorian Government's Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic, by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee of the Parliament of Victoria', Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria, July 2020
'Submission to the Inquiry into the Victorian Government's Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic, by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee of the Parliament of Victoria', Fitzroy Legal Service, July 2020
‘How did we keep a mother and newborn apart?: MP’s missive over towers’, Bianca Hall, The Age, July 13, 2020.
https://www.rebelnews.com/police_attacked_peaceful_protesters_and_media_before_lockdown_even_started