Several Queensland Labor MPs have claimed they have been “clearly misled” and “fed bullshit” by their own government about the urgent need to scrap human rights provisions for children in police watch houses, after Guardian Australia obtained a legal letter that appears to cast doubt on some of the state’s key justifications.
The government moved a series of last-minute amendments last week – without warning or consultation – including to override the Human Rights Act and legalise the practice of detaining children on remand in police custody.
The extraordinary situation in parliament has become a catalyst for some Labor MPs to ventilate longstanding concerns about the function of the government under the premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk.
The amendments were moved after a court challenge by the Cairns-based organisation Youth Empowered Towards Independence (Yeti), which brought an initial case earlier this month resulting in orders for the transfer of three young people from police watch houses who had been held unlawfully.
Yeti is the only organisation to challenge the lawfulness of watch house detention in at least 20 years. Its key argument – that watch house detention was outright unlawful – was ultimately not resolved by the supreme court.
The organisation had foreshadowed bringing a second case, and this prompted the state government to seek its own legal advice.
The youth justice minister, Dianne Farmer, told reporters the amendments were “urgent, urgent” measures because the Yeti case had raised issues with the state’s interpretation of the act, and that a second case would likely create severe issues in youth detention.
“If a further action was brought in the supreme court ... then it is highly likely that every single young person would have been transferred immediately from the watch house to a youth detention centre,” Farmer said.
Labor MPs who held reservations about the state’s tactics last week say they were told they needed to pass amendments with such urgency because Yeti had already prepared their case and could revive their legal arguments at any moment.
The letter, obtained by Guardian Australia, and sent on behalf of Yeti immediately after the court hearing on 4 August, appears to call that argument into question by offering a way to “avoid” further legal action from the organisation.
The letter argues that detaining children in watch houses is unlawful and says the organisation may choose to bring another case in the future. It states it may do so if the state continues to detain children in watch houses for “longer than the time necessary for Queensland Police Service to transport them to a Youth Detention Centre”, including without further notice to the state.
It notes Yeti may tender the letter to show police and the department had not taken urgent steps “to properly house children remanded to the custody of the Chief Executive in a Youth Detention Centre”.
But it also says Yeti would prefer not to bring a second case.
“Our client wishes to continue to assist during the transition to a lawful set of arrangements for youth detention in this state,” the letter says.
“It would be beneficial for all concerned if you would keep our client informed as to the progress of that transition and steps being taken in that regard, and anything it can do to assist, in order to avoid unnecessary further litigation.
“This would seem to be a preferable use of all the parties’ time and resources.”
The state government did not respond to the letter.
Genevieve Sinclair, the chief executive of Yeti, said the organisation had sent the letter partly to alert the state government to the fact it was willing to support transition arrangements that did not result in a sudden influx of young people in overcrowded detention centres.
“They took a nuclear solution to something we believe could have been managed much more competently,” Sinclair said.
“What they needed to do is consult, to make a plan for lawful transition. They needed to work with key stakeholders to ensure there was a lawful transition.
“We were more than prepared to work with them and explore alternative options.”
In response to a request for comment, Farmer said the solicitor general had given “specific advice” on the letter sent by Yeti.
“The government sought, and acted on, the advice of the solicitor general to ensure 30 years of established practice and process could continue in the best interests and safety of the community, young people in custody, staff and visitors to detention centres,” Farmer said.
One government source said the state would have likely had to act “very cautiously” and consider the prospect of a separate organisation bringing a similar case.
But MPs who were shown the letter by Guardian Australia on Tuesday said it contradicted what they had been told about the situation before being asked to vote last week.
They say they were told the urgency – and the scrapping of parliamentary norms to table amendments with no notice or consultation – was required because a second Yeti case was imminent and the result would place children at risk of harm.
“We were asked to override the Human Rights Act with a few days’ notice and no real scrutiny,” one MP said.
“To read this letter, we were clearly misled about the urgency of why it all had to happen with no scrutiny.
“We were told there was no other option.”
One MP said it would contribute to “necessary” leadership discussions that would occur when Palaszczuk returned from a holiday in Italy.
“People will be angry when they read this,” the MP said. “I cannot understand why we didn’t pick up the phone and talk about this.”
