Save the Children workers summarily sacked on Nauru must be compensated by the Australian government, which dismissed them on “no evidence or reliable information” an independent report has found.

The damaging report by the former chief executive of the high court Christopher Doogan, found Save the Children workers were fired under political pressure from Canberra as a “circuit breaker” to quell protests on the island.

On 3 October 2014, as asylum seekers on Nauru continued to protest against their detention and the Australian government’s asylum policies, a Daily Telegraph story quoted a leaked internal intelligence briefing that reportedly claimed Save the Children staff had fabricated stories of abuse of asylum seekers and encouraged self-harm to “achieve evacuations to Australia”. The story quoted the then immigration minister, Scott Morrison, saying police were investigating Save the Children workers who had misused privileged information.

Morrison also told a press conference that same morning the workers were being removed because they were alleged to have organised protests.



The story, and the allegations, were found to be untrue: the subsequent Moss Review found “no conclusive evidence” that Save the Children staff encouraged protests or self-harm. Morrison refused to apologise.

The Doogan report found that the intelligence report raised concerns about some Save the Children staff and counselled further investigation, but warned there was no firm evidence. However, this was manipulated by senior executives under pressure from Canberra into a directive to remove the staff from the island immediately.



“It seems reasonably clear that the information provided in relation to the 10 Save the Children staff members was not intended to be acted upon in the way it was acted upon. Rather, it seems that the intention was that further investigation would be undertaken before any action was taken.”

There was no further investigation and the targeted staff were not given any opportunity to respond to the allegations. The sackings were politically motivated, Doogan found.



It was, Doogan found, “apparent that contractor staff on Nauru were being pushed to provide names and information to support what was perceived in Canberra to be Save the Children staff providing inappropriate support or assistance to transferees in various way. As will become clear from the following outline, there was in fact no evidence nor reliable information on which to specifically name nine of the 10 Save the Children staff.”

(One named Save the Children staff member resigned before the removal directive was made.)

Tash Blucher, one of the sacked Save the Children workers, said there was little new in the heavily redacted report, beyond a very clear acknowledgement that there was no basis for the decision to sack her and her coworkers.

“It’s so redacted we can’t even work out who the decision makers were or how the decision making occurred,” she told Guardian Australia.

Blucher said the report was vindicating, but “at the same time all the major negative impacts remain”.

“Our reputations were publicly slurred. There still hasn’t been an apology and the other really distressing thing was having to leave our clients behind, and being really concerned about their wellbeing and what happened to them,” she said.

“That concern remains because – more than one year later – they are still in detention, they’re still on Nauru. Now there’s no not-for-profit organisation there to represent them or seek to improve wellbeing outcomes for them.”

Blucher said she and her sacked co-workers were victims of mismanaged decision making, but said while staff suffered, the consequences of the mismanagement on Nauru was far more harmful for those held in detention.

Lawyers for Blucher and her former co-workers continue to talk with the department.

“I’m happy that our lawyers will continue to work with the department for an outcome, but for us it’s really hard to talk about the issue of compensation because we’re all really keenly aware that the harm being done to us is tiny compared to people who have been detained there.”

The chief executive of Save the Children, Paul Ronalds, welcomed the Doogan report, said he was proud of the work Save the Children staff had performed on Nauru, working “with some of the most vulnerable children in the toughest of circumstances”.

“The idea that they would fabricate cases of abuse or encourage children to hurt themselves was always absurd. We have said this right from the very beginning. These were some of our most talented and hardest working colleagues, and children and their families on Nauru were the poorer for their absence.”

He said negotiations with the government should see appropriate compensation awarded to the sacked staff.

Ronalds again called for the Australian government to end the practice of mandatory and prolonged detention of children.



“We know from two years working on Nauru about the shocking impact that prolonged incarceration has on people seeking asylum. It is unquestionably harmful to their mental and physical wellbeing and must end.”



The immigration minister did not respond to requests for comments.

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, a consistent critic of offshore detention, and who was spied upon by security guards when she visited Nauru, said the island’s detention regime was run “with a shameless combination of secrecy and intimidation”.



She said the sacked workers deserve to be fully compensated.

“After accusing hard-working employees of coaching self-harm and dragging their names through the mud, we now find out that they had done nothing wrong,” she said. “They are innocent people who were sacked while they worked to protect the children in their care.”

Doogan’s report followed a familiar pattern of damning reports being quietly released at awkward times to avoid media and public scrutiny. The Doogan report was released late on Friday evening.

The earlier Moss review was also released on a Friday, a couple of hours after former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser died, having been in the government’s possession for several months.