Fox,

You are always putting the cart before the horse. It is the actions of the head of the Human Rights Commission that have affected the "independence and integrity of the Commission and undermines confidence in our system of justice and human rights protection."

The AHR is one of those quasi judicial entities that are the bane of modern politics. Its President is unelected and is not directly responsible to the Parliament as are the Ministers and mainstream departments.

There has been a proliferation since Whitlam of quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals along with all sorts of other qangos. Their existence often reflects government unwillingness to bite the bullet on issue/s and at times, political idealism. One wonders what problems cannot be entrusted to departments where there is an array of skills and resources available.

Some have played an reasonably worthwhile role at some time. All ought be reviewed ASAP. -Particularly in view of the claims from both sides of politics that there is scant room in the Budget for the most pressing services.

If the Parliament cannot be its own watch-dog, why have it? Better still, why have all of those well-paid senators polishing seat leather when they could be making a contribution to Australia for their pay and benefits?

I'm not sure why Ms TRIGG should go personally ? She does seem to be of the 'left' as inherent in many of her opinions ? However she's a well credentialed jurist which such a position requires. Moreover she has been appointed for a term of five years, as such, short of any malfeasance, she should be permitted to serve out her tenure.

It's not unlike other government appointments; the Governor General, or a High Court Justice, even police commissioners, as examples, they're appointed, for better or worse. They'll occasionally make statements, the government of the day doesn't agree with, still they must be allowed to express an opinion, therefore they should be encouraged to discharge their duties, and be permitted to get on with it, without any political interference ?

Tony Abbott also denied there had been any wrongdoing, saying on Wednesday that Professor Triggs "was not asked to resign and no inducement has been offered".

"It's obvious that Peta Credlin is being used as a scapegoat for the failures of Tony Abbott's boys' club," Senator Hanson-Young said.
"The sexist behaviour of Coalition senators yesterday made them look like Neanderthals."

Ms Credlin's position has been under further scrutiny this week after an explosive leak from inside the Liberal Party headquarters. The party's honorary treasurer, Phil Higginson, said it was not a sustainable situation to have the federal director Brian Loughnane, who runs the party's administrative wing, married to Ms Credlin, who runs the government's political arm.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott faced a "cavalcade of complaints" in Tuesday's Liberal party room meeting, including repeated questioning from WA MP Don Randall about why former chief government whip Philip Ruddock was axed.

Mr Abbott was also confronted by South Australian MPs Andrew Southcott and Rowan Ramsey about the future submarine project, with Mr Ramsey warning the Prime Minister he would be breaking an election promise "if the hulls aren't welded" in South Australia.
And Liberal MPs Craig Laundy and Andrew Laming raised concerns about the attack on the Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs and the issue of children in detention.

Treasurer Joe Hockey also briefed MPs that a discussion paper on foreign investment would be released shortly for public consultation.
Muslim community leaders have voiced their anger at Prime Minister Tony Abbott over his national security speech on Monday, saying it did nothing but inflame tensions and belittle the efforts of Muslims leaders working to decrease community antagonism.

The Lebanese Muslim Association condemned the "aggressive rhetoric against Muslims" employed by Mr Abbott on Monday, labelling it "politically opportunistic" and unnecessary

It is interesting to read the various opinions on
this subject. However, according to Prof. Ben
Saul, Professor of International Law
at the University of Sydney and a barrister -

"The governments' responsibility is not a reasonable
and civilised disagreement about law and fact."

"It is an indefensible political attack on the
independence and integrity of a Commission doing
its job. Namely calling out governments for
breaching objective human rights law standards."

"The Commission did not politically target the Abbott
Government. The Commission calls out both the Coalition and
Labor Governments and acknowledges improvements under
the Coalition."

Questions were raised about the timing of the Commission's
inquiry. We are told that "The Commission has fully
explained the timing of its inquiry, driven by the longer
periods of detention under the Coalition, the need for
a break after finishing another inquiry, and the 10 year
anniversary of its 2004 report."

The explanation is also given that "the report is not dated
or historical. As long as a single child remains illegally
detained the report is current. In fact, there are
about 300 children in detention."

We're told that "as importantly - the report's findings
are current for the thousands of children that were
previously detained, since the psychological legacy
of protracted detention lasts for years. These children
need help too."

Finally, according to experts in International Law, like
Prof. Ben Saul - "the Commission's assessment of the
law is correct. Under Human Rights Law, children must
not normally be detained and detention must be a last
resort - only when alternatives are unavailable."

"Detention must last for the shortest possible time, meaning
days or weeks, not months or years. The best interests of a
child must always be paramount."

"Collaterally detaining innocent children for long periods to
either punish or dissuade their parents, or to deter
speculative future arrivals is illegal and wrong."

"The former Immigration Minister Scott Morrison should
not be congratulated for this as the PM suggests."

It is a proven fact that "detaining children has never
been necessary to stop the boats. A point demonstrated
conclusively by the fact that boats continued to arrive
even when detention was bipartisan policy for two decades.
We must instead look to other factors - like naval
interdiction - to explain why the boats have slowed or
stopped now."

As stated earlier "if anyone should be seriously questioning
their judgement and position - it is the Attorney-General.
By pressuring Prof. Triggs to resign on grounds not recognised
in the Commission's statute Senator Brandis sought to
improperly interfere with the tenure of an Independent
Statutory Office Holder."

That is simply wrong.

Lol!...the govt and Foreign Minister now denying in question time that an alterantive job was offered to Triggs.

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

Here's what Brandis's underling, the Seecretary of the Dept, said of his conversation with Triggs:

"Later in the committee hearing Moraitis offered a slightly different account. He said he had, at Brandis’s request, told Triggs she had lost the confidence of the government, and of Brandis himself. He denied he had used the word resignation, but he agreed he had offered her another, specific “senior legal role” and that accepting that role would have meant she would have had to leave the human rights commission, that “one would follow from the other”."

Again....

"....but he agreed he had offered her another, specific “senior legal role”..."

I believe Moraitis

This government "never stops" lying.