Delivery was 10 years so it was delivered on time. Abbott seen it as damaging to him. Before he shot his mouth off he could have put it all back on labor.
But he done an Abbott which he is famous for and will now suffer the consequences. He doesn’t have the right to criticize or lose confidence in any commissioner, that is not his role.

That other dork who was supposed to support the commissioner in her role apparantly didn’t even know his obligations, instead he sent a messenger looking for a resignation.

o sung wu,

As I implied in another thread, the greatest bulk of the criticism of Tony Abbott is a dubious narrative of speculative gossip that is the 24hour news cycle.

The media makes the news. That is concerning in itself, but more so where career politicians join in. That is the problem: too many career politicians who play at politics, while feathering their own nests and acting as cuckoos at the same time, keeping out men and women with sound records of personal accomplishment in the private sector where it matters.

Bumpf from the 24hour news cycle seems to suit the sort of sad *bleeps* who infest social media and need some 'shock, horror' to make them feel alive. They need to get out more.

There are those who are adept at manipulating the media and through them, the mob. We are right to loathe and fear them. Unfortunately Whitlam put many of them on the guvvy payroll, either unwittingly or by design to secure votes.

Tony Abbott is nowhere near as accident-prone as most who are around him, or are in public life elsewhere for that matter.

There are many sportspeople (usually men as the prevailing PC dictates it has to be) who are being targetted by the tabloids and the Twitterati all of the time. Some cricketers are presently being targetted. For the media it is about getting an audience for advertisers, NOW! and their dumbed-down 'punters' (as the media themselves describe them) have the attention span and memory of a gnat.

We must thank OTB for the link to the SMH article. It is very informative.

Brandis wants us to believe he flew the most senior public servant down from Sydney just to tell Professor Triggs that if she ever decided to leave her job that there would be another position made available for he within the government.

This same public servant contradicts Professor Triggs' firm recollection that the word 'resignation' was used, and so he would after it became apparent his boss could be in real hot water for attempted bribery of an independent commissioner if that were proven.

But when asked about his notes of the meeting he says he has 'lost' them. That may well raise even osw's eyebrow.

So we are being asked to choose between concluding Professor Triggs' is blatantly lying or that a extremely senior public servant is so unprofessional that he would accidentally lose his notes of such an important meeting.

Whew, that's a hard one.

Now to the former commissioner Dr Sev Ozdowski's remarks about the timing of announced inquiry being 'odd'. He actually said 'very odd'. His own inquiry into children in detention in 2001 during the Howard era was caused by the terribly punishing lengthy incarceration periods experienced by those kids. He spoke in a speech in 2003 of the three stages of deterioration:

Cont...

cont...

Quote;

1) In general, one could say, people can take up to 2-3 months of detention without major visible impact on them. They are relieved to be in Australia and believe that their new start in life is just around the corner.
2) After this their behaviour changes. We witnessed trauma, self-harm and family disintegration on our visits.
3) After one year in detention, the number of people requiring psychological and psychiatric help is staggering.

End Quote.

So what was the incarceration period back then?
“In January 2003, the average length of detention for children was more than one year and three months.”
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/long-term-detention-and-mental-health-dr-sev-ozdowski-oam-2003

In the months leading up to the election the average incarceration time was 3 to 4 months but after 6 months of Morrison this had more than doubled “The average length of time that a child spent in an immigration detention facility in Australia as at 31 March 2014 was 231 days”.
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention-2014

Which is when Professor Triggs announced to Morrison she was holding a fresh inquiry and also when Ozdowski made the comment about the timing being very odd. But there is no indication that he knew of the punishing escalation in detention times that had been occurring.

During the inquiry period and by the end of the Coalition's first year the figures had further dramatically increased to the levels which had prompted Ozdowski to call the first inquiry “more than one year and three months”. Remember his own words “After one year in detention, the number of people requiring psychological and psychiatric help is staggering.”

Ozdowski rightly asks why an inquiry wasn't instituted earlier when “Labor was at its peak of cruelty towards the boat arrivals”, this was when incarceration times were at 3 – 4 months. How much more cruel must he regard the Coalition with lengths more than triple Labour's?

But I actually agree with this criticism of Trigg's, the inquiry should have come earlier. If it had it might have tempered some of the cruelty dished out on these poor people by the likes of Abbott and Morrison.

The HR commission is a farce and was created to appease civil libertarians and the greens. I suggest it is abandoned and Triggs put to a more useful task.

SteeleRedux, "But I actually agree with this criticism of Trigg's, the inquiry should have come earlier"

That is the point is it not? Why did she delay the report if she believed things were dreadful?

Surely if the house is burning down you don't wait until the Fire Brigade has arrived, practically dealt with it all and then criticise them for the fire that someone else caused.

Tony Abbott is right to say that his government should be credited with effectively treating the problem and saving thousands, children included. -Since their parents and carers put the children's lives on the line to gain benefit for themselves later. Where economic migrants are concerned, children's lives are cheap, apparently.