KInda. He had to implement the restrictions irrespective of the Richards - there's always going to be Richards. Saying he had to implement the restrictions because of the public non-compliance is incorrect - he had to implement them anyway, and would be negligent if he hadn't. Blaming the public as a trigger for the restrictions was wrong.
He should have simply said that we have to have these tighter restrictions to minimise the spread of the virus, and that's it. Non-compliance is a separate issue, but the general public do comply. He can abuse away on the non-compliant.
Any further restrictions would be for failure to control the spread, and not non-compliance. Non-compliers need to be dealt with accordingly. Currently we are allowed to travel locally to get to work if necessary, to go grocery shopping, get petrol, visit the doctor etc but are otherwise supposed to stay home. We can go outdoors for physical activity providing we maintain a safe social distance, and can't congregate in groups bigger than 2 people. There are still risks in doing these compliant activities. I dare say, without all the facts though, that the compliant risk may be greater than the risks from the non-compliant mainly because of the numbers involved - vastly more compliant than not (not saying that we might as well be non-compliant). Touching shopping trolleys, touching petrol pumps, exchange of cash and coin - these are still risks at this level of restriction.
Edit - Oh and the PM is now responsible for ensuring a system for compliance with restrictions whether he chooses to delegate that role to the state police (case at the moment) or at a national level (army etc) - not sure who has what powers, but that could change anyway.
Last edited by mauserand9mm; 03/31/20.
