5 Levels of Compliance: FOI Reveals Citizens Profiled by Government During COVID-19

‘I’m worried that they’ll do it for other things too,” Libertarian Party MP David Limbrick said.

Australians protesting against government-mandated health restrictions, increasing powers, and the Pandemic Bill in Melbourne, Australia, on Nov. 6, 2021. Armstrong Lazenby

A state MP is warning that the profiling of citizens could happen again in the future, after revelations the former Andrews Labor government segmented Victorians into five different categories based on their willingness to comply with COVID-19 restrictions.

The state’s capital, Melbourne, experienced the most lockdowns of any city in the Western world during COVID-19, spending 262 total days under heavy restrictions.

An FOI document released to The Australian newspaper revealed that during the time, citizens were placed into five categories by officials.

The first was those who strongly supported and followed restrictions, the second, was those who supported and tried to follow restrictions, while the third group was those who felt restrictions were not needed anymore.

The fourth group included people who trusted their judgement over the government, while the fifth, were those who felt the restrictions were illegitimate.

Bureaucrats in Victoria used these categories the determine which group needed persuading on the importance of lockdowns, the FOI reported.

In an email to political intelligence firm QDOS Research, a senior bureaucrat from either the premier’s department said the third group was “probably” the main group to persuade, as they would be the most “reasonable” and only needed to “hear a good case” for lockdowns.

The fifth group was discounted as “not open to any form of sense or reason.”

Meanwhile, the first and second groups, who made up “the bulk of people,” were described as “pretty compliant.”

Limits of Human Rights Tested: MP

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Libertarian Party MP David Limbrick warned Victorians could see a repeat of this practice, as COVID-19 had tested the limits of how far the government could infringe on people’s rights.

“I’m worried that they could do it again, for anything really it seems. My main concern is that they’ve learned how to test the limits of infringing people’s rights. And I’m worried that they'll do it for other things too,” he said.

Mr. Limbrick suggested climate change or surveillance could be possible areas in the future where the government could profile citizens according to compliance.

“I think it’s pretty clear that they want to limit what people can do with the response to climate change. There’s talk around what they want to do about protests in the city,” he said.

“I think all these sorts of things that limit people’s rights. I’m worried that they’re going to, instead of basing it on a set of principles, they will base it on focus groups that will tell them what they can get away with.”

The Libertarian Party member of the Legislative Council (MLC) explained it appeared the five categories were used by the government to figure out how to talk to people.

“It looks looks like category one and two, just sort of went along with the government, category four and five, it looks like the government just gave up on them. And most of the messaging seemed to be targeted at category three who they thought were persuadable,” he said.

David Limbrick MP speaks during question time in the Legislative Council at the Victoria State Parliament in Melbourne, Australia, on Sept. 1, 2020. AAP Image/James Ross

“So on the one side, they had the public health advice which was telling them to enact all these really authoritarian measures,” he said.

“And the government had to try and figure out what the limiting factor was. And we were hoping that the limiting factor might be you know, respecting people’s rights. But as it turns out, the limiting factor was results from focus groups.”

Asked if former Premier Daniel Andrews was following the science when he locked down the Victorian population, Mr. Limbrick said, “I think he was following the health advice. But I am not convinced that the health advice was solely based on science.”

“There was a lot of precautionary principle, and they spoke about that at the time where they were just guessing, and making best guesses.”

The Epoch Times has contacted the Department of Premier and Cabinet for comment.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews (2nd right) departs with his family after announcing his retirement as premier and from politics, in Melbourne, Australia on Sept.26, 2023. AAP Image/James Ross

Victoria re-elected Mr. Andrews as Premier with a sweeping majority in the 2022 election, however, he stepped down in late September 2023 on his own terms, describing the role as an “honour and privilege.”

In his first major interview since resigning, Mr. Andrews expressed that politicians were voted for by the public, and therefore the public service was there to implement their agenda.

“There was a very clear message to the public service—you are there to implement our agenda, because that’s what Victorians voted for,” he said in a Socially Democratic podcast.

“You know, all this nonsense, about centralisation of power and control freak ... the premier’s office has got to be across everything, and has got to work really hard, and has got to help the whole team function as well as they possibly can.”