That is the argument of an apologist Chris. The issue isn't boredom, it is right or wrong. This woman has disgraced herself in office. If she were on my side of the debate I would think people would have abandoned her as irredeemable. It seems to me that the other side sticks to "my side right or wrong". Think about how Bronwyn Bishop was treated, compared to this. They are on a par.

Foxy,

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/03/the-late-bill-leaks-submission-to-the-freedom-of-speech-enquiry-repeal-18c.html

The letter is clear as to his motivation and how it applied to section 18D

"Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has conceded she did receive a response from the legal team representing Bill Leak, a cartoonist from The Australian, after a complaint was made against him under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The concession, made in an opinion piece written yesterday for The Guardian, comes after Professor Triggs initially told a Senate hearing the commission had never received a defence from Leak’s lawyers under section 18D of the act.

She has since offered a confused narrative of events by appearing to acknowledge receipt of a letter from Leak’s lawyers, but arguing it was insufficient to constitute a formal submission or “good faith” defence under section 18D.

Addressing the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee on February 28, Professor Triggs said the case against Leak could have been dismissed had “at least a simple statement been made that he acted in good faith”.

She also said a “justification was never provided” for the cartoon that triggered the complaint and which depicted an Aboriginal police officer handing over a wayward boy to his beer-drinking father.

In her piece yesterday, Professor Triggs acknowledged she had received a letter from Leak’s legal team, but argued this did not amount to a formal legal submission. She instead claimed it rejected the concept of a formal submission in favour of a public platform for Leak.

“His lawyers wrote to us saying that Leak ‘does not intend to make any submission’ to the commission. We were told that Leak instead wanted a public hearing where he could appear and give evidence about his motivations,” she said."

SR,

Any government work comes with a confidentiality clauses that one is free to sign or walk away. These are used by left whinge governments just as much as any other.

Anybody who can defend Triggs in any way at all is a right off.

What Triggs' defenders choose to ignore but is a crucial consideration, is the alleged continual flouting of the Australian Public Service (APS) Values and Code of Conduct by Gillian Triggs and other senior staff of the AHRC. It is set out in the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act) and doubtless the AHRC's own conditions for staff remind its employees of the fact and likely disciplinary action for possible non-compliance. I posted it earlier and of course Foxy and ors were obliged to ignore it,

Posted by leoj, Thursday, 11 May 2017 12:34:57 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7758&page=13

Triggs's and the AHRC's alleged transgressions against the APS Values and Code of Conduct have been of considerable embarrassment to the Public Service Commission, to other agency heads and to the Senior Executive Service. But what about the AHRC's own staff and APS employees generally, where even mild suspected transgressions against the APS Values and Code would be investigated exhaustively and they would likely be stood down as well?

Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, where Gillian Triggs and the AHRC can do what they like, but other obviously lesser mortals must not, lest they feel the full weight of the Public Service Act descending upon them.

contd..

continued..

on John Menadue's site there is an article by Ramesh Thakur, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General, who is professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. An excerpt,

"Too many Triggs defenders allow their distaste of the government to cloud their judgment of her performance. Their efforts to ring-fence Triggs in a halo ignore her many self-inflicted wounds. Her performance and judgment have been questionable and worse, damaging to the cause of human rights protection and to the institutional integrity of the AHRC itself. The QUT students’ lawyer Tony Morris QC told Senators on 13 December that her refusal to answer their questions about the case because it was before the Federal Court was a ‘gross insult’ to Australian judges. Former Human Rights Commissioner Sev Ozdowski believes Triggs has demonstrated a lack of professionalism as AHRC president. Complaints that are clearly trivial, vexatious and frivolous should be promptly dismissed. Instead in the QUT case, the AHRC was guilty of significant and unreasonable delays, lack of transparency and the denial of natural justice to the students."

http://johnmenadue.com/?p=8904

John Menadue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Menadue

That was back in January and there were more revelations to come!

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank You for confirming what I posted in my earlier
post regarding the Bill Leak case and Prof. Triggs
explanations.

I've had my say on
this discussion. It's quite obvious that we perceive
things differently. But that's fine. If the world consisted
simply of some self-evident reality that everyone perceived
in exactly the same way, there might be no disagreement
among observers.

Before leaving this discussion I'd like to quote from
a link I gave earlier which pointed out that -
"Triggs term in office
as the Human Rights Commissioner coincided with an
unprecedented politicisation of human rights. This was due
in part to Australia's highly contentious treatment of
asylum seekers and also the possibility of amending the Racial
Discrimination Act which was very much a concern."

We were
told that "Triggs' role has been well and truly in the firing
line. She has faced a sustained campaign of public criticism.
Her integrity and professionalism has been called into
question. She has been accused of lying, playing politics,
and even her personal life torn apart."

The author tells us "at every turn Prof. Triggs has
continued to step up and fulfill her role. She has not backed
down or packed it in. Miraculously she has not succumb to any
temptation to run away or fall apart."

"She has stepped up day after day. One foot in front of the
other. And there's a powerful lesson for all of us in that."

Thank You for a robust discussion. I look forward to our
next one.

Cheers.