I cannot understand the Abbott Government's furious
reaction to the Australian Human Rights Commission's
Report about children in immigration detention.
Even to the point that apparently moves are made
to get the Human Rights
Commission President Professor Gillian Triggs to resign.

I question the right of the government to attack the
independence and integrity of a Commission and its
President for merely doing
their job - namely, calling out governments for breaching
objective human rights law standards.

We're told that the Commisson did not politically target
the Abbott Government. The Commission called out both the
Coalition and Labor Governments and acknowledged
improvements under the Coalition.

This entire matter is very disturbing.

Your opinions please.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/saul-attacks-on-commission-unbefitting-our-government/6115078

She has shown she is prepared to use her taxpayer funded office for political purposes, & grandstanding.

She must go.

Someone who sees guns where there is no guns obviously lacks credibility.

The entire matter "is" very disturbing, Foxy.

Anyone who witnessed Abbott's hysterical rant in Question Time today would know that the govt is completely rattled by the report - and more rattled because it has absolutely no power to dispense with Trigg's services.

In Estimates today, those present were treated to a most disgusting performance by Ian Macdonald who, although, appointed to Chair the hearing, hadn't even bothered to read the report. His behaviour was abhorant.

But Brandis is the one who should be considering his position - not Triggs.

"The criminal code says it is an offence to offer “a benefit, or the promise of the provision of a benefit … with the intention of influencing a public official”."

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/24/liberals-senate-estimates-gillian-triggs-human-rights-commission

And why - if the the govt was so unhappy with her conduct - did Brandis (by means of one of his underlings) seek to offer her another position with the govt if she resigned as President of the commission?

The upshot being that it makes not one jot of difference whether the AHRC has or has not the "confidence" of the govt. It is an independent watchdog - and does not operate under the auspices of the govt.

@foxy
dont be perplexed
ask the lady herself
she knows she is guilty like hell for being mischievous
she should consider herself lucky for that offer of a lesser job

i say she should go and go quietly
maybe take up the alternative offer and learn to be a good officer

@poirot

i am still mulling over your in-depth and long analysis..as usual...very lengthy
hmmmmm....
ok...i give up... i am not clever enough...hhh

yeah, platypus...

The difference being that you're talking out of the top of your hat...like runner and Hasbeen.

None of you could give a hoot regarding the actual substance of the matter.

Now run along and play.....