Foxy,

As for whitewashing I'm sure that you are referring to the period from 30/7/2012 to 30/9/2013 when hundreds were dying at sea 30 000 were in detention incl 5000 children and Labor set up the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres, and Triggs was as quiet as a church mouse.

Leoj's link says it perfectly:

"The woman to be honoured also presided over the AHRC during the ill-fated Queensland University of Technology case, which saw blameless students locked in a three-year legal battle against a complainant who took issue with their criticism of a computer lab segregated by race, further demanding substantial cash payouts to assuage her hurt feelings. Such is Ms Triggs’ managerial competence that the victims of that complaint were not notified for months that their ludicrously alleged racism had become the subject of official inquiry.

But none of that matters, of course. As is always the case when Ms Triggs gets her facts wrong (funny, but those lapses of memory always seem to serve her purpose of the moment), she has expressed regret “in hindsight” for the commission’s shoddy handling of the QUT affair while still refusing to apologise to the students whose lives have been forever affected. As good parents tell their children, it requires a measure of bravery and decency to apologise. Lesser individuals prefer to “regret in hindsight” the damage they do and leave it at that.

As twisted an irony as it is, Liberty Victoria prefers to ignore Triggs’ history of attempted gagging and thought-policing. The worthies who will hail her have instead elected to give her the award for “work and the courage she has exhibited in the face of very withering criticism from the government from time to time.” Translated, that means anyone who presides over debacle after debacle can still demonstrate merit by staying at their desk and promoting yet even more debacles. It is the equivalent of honouring a person mired in public disgrace who does not ask to be left alone with a revolver."

Dear Shadow Minister,

I've had my say in this discussion.

I have nothing further to add.

Cheers.

Foxy,

It's hard to defend the indefensible.

yep the defender of free speech. She now cheers Abdel-Magied and condemns Bill Leak. Nothing like a feminist choosing her sides. I wonder if she agreed with Greer criticising the size of Gillard's backside. I sure she believers herself to be logical even when she reported seeing guards with guns when their was no gun. Blind to whatever does not suite her narrative. Oh well for 300000 plus per year from the taxpayer we should drain the SWAMP.

What about the APS Values and Code of Conduct that should also apply to the AHRC? Or have previously well understood words like ethics and integrity lost all meaning? Forever muddied by the Progressives' ethical relativism, political correctness and 'Post Truth'?

"APS Values and Code of Conduct

1. APS employees' practices, actions and behaviours are expected to be of the highest ethical standards and represent the best value for the Australian community. The APS Values (the Values) and the Code of Conduct (the Code) provide the standard of behaviour expected of agency heads and APS employees.

2. The APS Commission considers that the duty to act with integrity and with the highest ethical standards imposes a reporting obligation on all employees with regard to suspected misconduct. In some circumstances, particularly for employees with managerial responsibilities, it could be a breach of the Code for an employee not to report suspected misconduct. APS employees therefore should report behaviour which is inconsistent with the APS Code of Conduct.

3. The APS Values and APS Employment Principles articulate the culture and operating ethos of the APS and provide the framework within which employment powers are exercised. The APS Code of Conduct and Values are provided at Attachment A. The Code is also set out in the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act) and is available on the Human Resources intranet site."

Dear Shadow Minister,

You stated, "It's hard to defend the indefensible."

No. it isn't.

To quote in part from the English author, Neil Gaiman
a quote that is very appropriate to this discussion:

"If you accept - and I do - that freedom of speech is
important, then you are going to have to defend the
indefensible. That means that you are going to be
defending the right of people to read, or to write, or
to say, what you don't say or like or want said. The
law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not
make distinctions between what you find acceptable and
what you don't ..."