March 27, 2024
One of the nation's most powerful public servants blindsided her two ministers by releasing key new details about former detainees' criminal records after the High Court's landmark decision overturning indefinite detention.
The 17-page document released on Monday, February 12, after questioning from Liberal senator James Paterson at Senate estimates revealed that of the 149 former detainees, seven had previously been convicted of murder or attempted murder, 37 of sexual offences and 72 of assault and violent offending, kidnapping or armed robbery.
Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil and Immigration Minister Andrew Giles had hoped to keep the document from public scrutiny, according to seven government sources who spoke to The Age on background, planning instead for the recently appointed Home Affairs secretary Stephanie Foster to provide verbal answers to Paterson's questions late in the afternoon.
Instead, the tabling of the document on the Monday morning derailed Labor's strategy for handling the release of the information, dominated news bulletins all day and reignited a furious debate about the release of the detainees.
In the days leading up to a Senate estimates appearance on February 12, Foster and departmental staff had met ministerial staff from the offices of O'Neil and Giles to discuss how to handle a request for information about the detainees from Paterson, the Coalition's home affairs spokesman.
Planning meetings between ministerial and departmental staff before Senate estimates hearings are standard practice. At this meeting, which was a video conference call, Foster was joined by three senior staff from the ministers' offices and five departmental officials were present to discuss how best to handle Paterson's request.
"Stephanie came into that meeting and said she had spoken to other secretaries and there was a general feeling that a letter like that should not be responded to with a written response," said a source, who asked not to be named so they could speak freely. "She came into the meeting with a clear sense of what would happen and what she would say [in the Senate hearing] ... she indicated she wasn't going to provide a written response to Paterson."
The Age has spoken to six other sources within the government, none of whom were at the meeting but all of whom have been told what was discussed, and all six agreed that Foster had indicated she would not provide a written answer to Paterson's question.
Rather than tabling written answers early in the day, Foster was expected to provide verbal answers later in the day, about 4.30pm. Instead, the document was tabled just after 9.30am.
Five of the seven sources The Age spoke to said it remained unclear why the plan had changed. They did not suggest malice or misbehaviour from Foster, a senior public servant, and said there might have been a simple misunderstanding.
"She blindsided the entire government and infuriated ministers," one of them said.
"It put us on the back foot immediately. The plan was it would be released later in the afternoon, she didn't have to do it so quickly, but suddenly they [the opposition] had all this information."
'It put us on the back foot immediately.' A government source
