The 14 words that caused Clare O’Neil a whole lot of pain

It only took 14 words from Home Secretary Clare O’Neil for ears to perk up.

Buried in response to a question about a landmark High Court case, she said: “We were advised that it was likely the Commonwealth would win the case.”

The case she was referring to was that of a Rohingya man who challenged his indefinite detention. The government lost, with the court ruling that the indefinite detention was illegal and led to the release of around 100 detained people. Other inmates could follow.

To the uninitiated, O’Neil’s comments probably seem harmless.

But for those who understand the advice of the courts and the government, these comments came as a shock and were immediately doubted.

In a few days, she would return to her comments from the weekend. The record may have been corrected, but it once again leaves the government facing questions about how it handled the matter.

It has been two weeks since the High Court overturned a nearly 20-year-old legal precedent, ruling that the indefinite detention of immigrants is illegal.

By losing the case, he threw the immigrant detention system into disarray and left the government scrambling to respond, with more than 90 people, including murderers, child sex offenders and sex offenders, released in the community.

The answer is why O’Neil was doing this interview with Sky News. She wanted to defend the government’s actions to rush through new laws to protect community safety.

What shocked people about O’Neil’s “victory” comments on Sunday was twofold.

Not only is it highly unusual for a lawyer to suggest that he would “win” a High Court case, but it is also not a prediction that any lawyer worth his salt would have made in this case.

Many legal observers expected the court to rule as it did. In this case, we knew why the government was working so hard to ensure that the case never reached the highest court in the land.

Seeking to rewrite history

On Sunday, O’Neil threw his department in front of the bus by claiming that the Interior Department had made a winning prediction.

Returning to those comments this morning, in an interview with ABC, she attempted to rewrite history.

“I was not referring to legal advice when I commented on the Commonwealth’s perspectives in this matter,” she said.

“I will not, I will never speak about the legal advice provided to the Commonwealth.

“I was referring to ongoing operational and policy conversations with my department that we believe could change, or potentially change, the outcome of the case. Specifically, could we remove the plaintiff from the country and end the the decision of the High Court.”

The nuance she offered on Wednesday was absent in Sunday’s interview when she said:

CLARE O’NEIL: We knew there was a High Court action, we knew it was a 20 year legal precedent and we were advised it was likely the Commonwealth would win the case, it ‘that is, would allow us to do what we wanted to do. , which consists of keeping these people in detention.

But of course, faced with a High Court decision of this magnitude and importance, we had prepared well for the decision, and that is why a week and a day after the decision, after a major decision of the High Court, we had all the things in place that I referenced there.

JOURNALIST: Minister, who informed you that you were likely to win, and when did you recently receive this notice?

CLARE O’NEIL: Well, we have received this advice from the Home Office which tells us what our chances of success and failure are in each court case…

The government could insist it was prepared to accept the decision. His actions so far suggest otherwise.

For months, behind the scenes, the government did everything possible to prevent the case from being decided in court, knowing all too well the implications of defeat.

O’Neil confirmed Wednesday that the government was considering releasing the Rohingya man at the center of the case from detention, a move that would have prevented him from needing to be heard in court.

He had been in immigration detention for five years after serving a prison sentence for raping a 10-year-old boy.

The government also tried to convince six countries to accept it. That too would have ended the trial.

None of the options came to fruition, the matter went to court and the rest, as they say in the classics, is history.

Comments and facts do not agree

O’Neil’s comments on the legal opinion are not the first time the government’s comments have not matched the facts in this case.

Last week, the ABC revealed that some detainees had been released into the community without visas, a revelation that contradicted what the government had said. Immigration Minister Andrew Giles has repeatedly told Parliament that the detainees were only released under strict visa conditions.

After rushing legislation through Parliament last week, it emerged that all those released would be fitted with ankle bracelets to monitor their movements. Today, the government cannot, or will not, say how many people wear them.

The Coalition doesn’t have much to boast about either. He seems to have forgotten, or worse, blatantly ignored, that when they were in power, some of the 100 people affected by the court’s decision had already been released from detention centers.

The story still has months to play out.

The High Court will make public its reasons for judgment early next year and it is likely that even more people, who the government does not want in the community, may have to be released.

Lessons from previous governments

O’Neil is far from the only one who has spent days explaining his past comments.

His boss, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, faced accusations that his government kept secret an incident involving a Chinese warship, which left Australian navy injured, while he was on the world stage.

The Australians were hurt last Tuesday, Albanese spoke to Chinese leaders in San Francisco later in the week and only after holding his final press conference in the United States did the government issue a statement revealing the incident off the coast of Japan.

He has yet to face the media since, apart from a hastily arranged interview on Sky News on Monday, in which he refused to explain why he had not raised the issue with Xi Jinping in person.

The government insists it complained to China in the appropriate way – through diplomatic channels.

But others wonder if the injuries to Australian military personnel don’t rise to the level of a prime minister talking about it with his foreign counterpart, then what is happening?

With O’Neil and Albanese, the story became how the politician handled an issue, rather than the problem they were facing.

In opposition, Labor used to criticize Scott Morrison’s coalition government as too cunning and seeking to cover up what was happening at the highest levels of government.

He vowed to do better.

The problem with claiming a moral high ground in opposition and failing to achieve it in government is that it leaves you facing a harsher thud when reality sets in.