Whether they did or not their handling of it has been a pyrrhic victory at best.
Jonathon Green's post, plus some of the responses here, all assume that the government did not intend to make Gillian Triggs, and their loss of confidence in her, the issue.
It overlooks other issues about her such as her assertion that there were armed guards at the Christmas Island detention centre, that it was 'like a jail', whereas in fact there are no armed guards and the children have a play area and access to a swimming pool.
Then she recommended $350,000 in compensation for a detained Indonesian man who beat his Australian wife to death with a bicycle.. She recommended he be released into the community despite also having been involved in 50 behaviour related incidents whilst in detention and prior to that having a long record of violent crime and bail violations since arriving from Papua New Guinea.
Then there was the recommendation of a $300,000 payout to a US born convicted fraudster after he had been deported because of swindling $744,000 from taxpayers and banks in Australia.
So the notion that the government have no genuine basis for declaring loss of faith in Ms Triggs seems somewhat misplaced to me.
Hmm, I'll have to think about that, Bintang. Rumpole is actually correct: I do rarely disagree with you.
Happy to consider any suggestions in the interests of the Enlightenment of Rumpole.
Good negotiators and good administrators are needed and should be there to serve a good Prime Minister. But the good Prime Minister will have other attributes, the most important of which are leadership and authority.
By whom ?TONY Abbott has hinted that human rights commissioner Gillian Triggs might have instigated talk of an alternative role after the government lost confidence in her.
Federal police are examining whether Prof Triggs was offered an inducement to resign from her role as the nation’s human rights chief.
Mr Abbott and Attorney-General George Brandis said they had no confidence in Prof Triggs following her report into children in detention.
Mr Abbott described the report as a “political stitch-up” designed to embarrass his coalition government.
Labor used question time on Thursday to quiz Mr Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on the detail of a discussion between the secretary of the attorney-general’s department Chris Moraitis and Prof Triggs.
Ms Bishop told parliament no job offer was made to Prof Triggs, nor was she asked to resign or any inducement offered.
“A role was raised that related to international affairs,” Ms Bishop said.
“As the secretary of the attorney-general’s department said in Senate estimates, it was a sensitive matter that he did not wish to give details of in Senate estimates so I don’t give details of it.” Asked about the difference between a job offer and a “role raised”, Mr Abbott told parliament: “There is a world of difference. It depends on who raised the issue of a role and no specific job offer was made.” Comment was being sought from Prof Triggs, although she did tweet her gratitude to her supporters.
“Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to tweet, email & write letters of support.Your encouragement matters to all at @AusHumanRights,” she tweeted.
Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus asked Mr Abbott whether he would allow the release of notes of the meeting between Mr Moraitis and Prof Triggs to clear the air.
“They’re notes that belong to the gentleman that made them whom we have total trust and confidence in,” Mr Abbott said.
Labor failed in an attempt to censure the government over the attack on Prof Triggs.
“Every day there’s a new lie from the government,” Mr Dreyfus said.
Mr Moraitis told the Senate hearing his notes relating to the episode were lost.
And you think Abbott has these qualities ?
Continual criticism of Labor is pointless, the Libs now have to fix their own ship, and it's apparent that they are just as bad as Labor and just as capable of making bad leadership choices.
"Mr Moraitis told the Senate hearing his notes relating to the episode were lost."
Julia if by that you mean Enlightenment about Labor I seriously doubt that for Rumpole it is possible.
In which case I DISAGREE with you.
There we go Rumpole. Are you surprised?
Malcolm Turnbull undermined his way into being Leader of the Opposition and he was a complete failure. He couldn't handle Question time, his people skills were poor, He lost all that the Liberals had gained and the polls dropped like a lead balloon. Because he is rich people assume he has skills he does not actually have. There is a lot more to being a PM than starring in Q&A. He is not an economist or an accountant, he is an investor and an investment banker. Very different.
But one of the following comments struck me as about right:
"Because he is rich people assume he has skills he does not actually have. There is a lot more to being a PM than starring in Q&A. He is not an economist or an accountant, he is an investor and an investment banker. Very different."
They're probably the ones that wouldn't back him. Rather than passing judgment as you are so keen to do, Malcolm Turnbull needs to let the exercise with Gillian Triggs run its course. He rushed in once before as opposition leader and that didn't end so well for him.They had reportedly told the Communications Minister “we’ll back you if Ministers bring it on”.
http://www.news.com.au/national/sev...leadership-spill/story-fncynjr2-1227240513824
Turnbulls speech about Triggs was a turn off and made me question if he has learnt anything at all. He played the wrong card at the wrong time.BACKBENCHERS have reportedly told Malcolm Turnbull he has the numbers to beat Tony Abbott in a leadership spill, but Liberal Ministers have to “bring it on”.
Bintang, I don't think anyone chooses politics for the money. It is much more about power.Maybe I am just 'grasping at straws’ but I have always thought that someone as rich as MT who is in politics does not need to be in it for ‘the money’, thereby offering hope that his judgments would not be clouded by the drive to maximize his tax-payer funded pension upon leaving office.
PS: The female lawyer we used to have as a PM was also not an economist or an accountant.
Bintang, I don't think anyone chooses politics for the money. It is much more about power.
Bintang, I don't think anyone chooses politics for the money. It is much more about power.
For Malcolm Turnbull especially so imo
And how did that turn out, huh?
THE conduct of Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has again been called into question amid revelations she signalled she would consider resigning the post if her reputation could be protected and she could secure altern*ative employment.
Evidence that Professor Triggs sent indirect signals to Attorney-General George Brandis just last month comes after a week of controversy in which she claimed to have been shocked by suggestions from the government that she might resign ”” even though it was revealed she instigated the meeting about her standing.
It also came one day after Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull defended her, a move interpreted as an attempt to distance himself from the strong attacks on her conduct from Senator Brandis and Tony Abbott.
Late yesterday, Professor Triggs “categorically” denied “any suggestion that the issue of a job and resignation” came at her instigation, saying she “stands by her evidence” at this week’s estim*ates committee.
However, multiple highly placed sources close to the government and the commission, together with the evidence at this week’s Senate estimates hearings, support the version of events that has Professor Triggs kicking off considerations about her future.
Professor Triggs ended last year deeply mired in controversy after a disastrous Senate estim*ates performance when she contradicted herself and failed to explain why she did not hold an inquiry into children in detention under Labor, when close to 2000 children were detained at any one time, but launched a public inquiry after the Coalition took government and stopped the boats.
Over the Christmas break and through the first half of last month, the president discussed her future with a number of other AHRC staff members and trusted colleagues.
Some of them urged her to stand aside for her own peace of mind and to protect the commission from further damage.
She indicated to them that she was thinking of taking that option but would need assurances that her reputation would not be damaged in the process and that she might obtain suitable alternative employment.
These considerations were relayed to the Attorney-General, who sent a response through the same back-channels that he would speak positively and publicly about her and he was certain consultancies in her special field of international law might be available.
However, on Tuesday, Profes*sor Triggs told the Senate estim*ates committee she was “deeply shocked” when, in a meeting with the secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department Chris Mor*aitis, the option of her departure was raised.
“He said he had been asked to deliver the message from the attor*ney that he required my resignation,” Professor Triggs said.
Mr Moraitis flatly denied this version of events: “I never sought resignation ”” I did not use the word ‘resignation’ ever.”
In his evidence, Mr Moraitis revealed that his meeting with the president came about only after Professor Triggs phoned him last month.
Subsequently, she confirmed this call had taken place.
“Professor Triggs asked me to expressly seek from the attorney his views about her role and her status as chairman, which I undertook to do on my return to the office,” Mr Moraitis said.
This evidence correlates with the timing and version of events relayed by other sources connected to the government and the commission.
It also squares with public comments by Senator Brandis earlier this month, when he told Sky News that Professor Triggs was a “very illustrious lawyer” and a “very decent” person.
“She is a good person, she is a fine lawyer, her heart is in the right place,” Senator Brandis said.
Close colleagues of Professor Triggs suggest that, after initially warming to the idea of resignation, her attitude had changed before the meeting with Mr Moraitis.
Her stance hardened as she considered her position and discussed the situation with other colleagues and human rights advocates urging her to dig in.
On November 22, The Australian reported: “It is understood the Abbott government and the minister who oversees the *commission, Attorney-General George Brandis, have lost faith in Professor Triggs.” That has been put firmly on the record in parliament this week.
However, writing in The Australian today, Senator Brandis argues the issue was never about the individual but more about the judgments and decisions made through the AHRC.
“How odd it is that when Malcolm Turnbull and I make substantially identical remarks about Professor Triggs, (Bill) Shorten should treat Turnbull’s remarks as a chivalrous defence and mine as ‘character assassination’,” he writes.
“In a democracy, it is not character assassination to call a public official to account, nor to subject their performance to public scrutiny.”
Turnbulls speech about Triggs was a turn off and made me question if he has learnt anything at all. He played the wrong card at the wrong time.
I won't spoil it by agreeing with you that there is little hope of Rumpole being disabused of his affection for Labor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?