In the last week the Prime Minister has launched a scathing attack on Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs, declaring the government has lost confidence in her. He cites two reasons for this:
1) the call for the release of a convicted manslaughterer;
2) the timing of the report into children in detention.
The Prime Minister’s first accusation, that Gillian Triggs displayed incredibly poor judgement in the recommendation that a convicted criminal be released from detention refers to the case of an Indonesian refugee by the name of Basikbasik. In 2000 Basikbasik was convicted of the manslaughter of his wife and sentenced to 7 years in prison. At the conclusion of his term Basikbasik’s visa was cancelled, but he could not be returned to Indonesia because of the likelihood that he would be subject to human rights violations. Nor could he be freely released into the Australian community given the assessment that he posed a risk to members of the community. So 7 1/2 years after his sentence concluded, he remains in immigration detention.
If this is the only information one has, the call of the human rights commission to release and compensate Basikbasik does seem ill founded. But what the Prime Minister neglects to disclose is that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal suggested that the reason Basikbasik would pose a threat of harm was that there was no management plan in place for his rehabilitation and he had no support group within the community. When his case came before the Human Rights Commission it became clear that the government had not considered whether a management plan could be put in place that would mitigate the risk to the community, something they were obligated to do. This meant that according to the law, Basikbasik was being held arbitrarily, which it is not within the power of the government. Moreover, the High Court had established that those who were arbitrarily detained should be compensated when released.
The advice of Commissioner Triggs was simply to apply the law, and for her to have done anything else would have been a dereliction of her responsibility. It may be news to the Prime Minister, but politicians don’t get to decide which laws they will follow and which they will ignore, nor do people surrender their human rights when they commit a crime.
The second accusation against Gillian Triggs is that the children in detention report was politically motivated. The evidence for this is in the timing of the report. Again the Prime Minister is being less than honest. The Human Rights Commission had signalled well in advance that it planned to do a report on children in detention as a 10 year follow-on from the report it produced in 2004. When the time came to commence the inquiry a federal election had been called and the government was in caretaker mode. Gillian Triggs made the decision that it would be inappropriate to commence her inquiry in the middle of an election campaign, and so waited for the campaign to conclude. I don’t see how she can be faulted for this, particularly given the report is highly critical of the previous Labor government.
Not only has the Prime Minister no grounds for losing confidence in Gillian Triggs, but he has been far from honest in the way he has presented his case. I guess it’s easier to do that than to face up to the damning reality that is described in the Forgotten Children report.
I haven’t lost my confidence in Gilllian Triggs. I have lost my confidence in the PM.
Scott,
Thank you for your tireless advocacy for the poor and marginalised. However I feel I must challenge this article. My apologies for the length of my response but wanted to back up my response with quotes:
Your comments, which simply re-iterate the commentary coming from the left of politics is notable for two reasons ; the very selective issues on which you have chosen to comment on, and, secondly, what you have therefore chosen to omit.
You seem to minimize the nature of the offence committed by Mr John Basikbasik, or have chosen to omit details of that offence. “A string of immigration ministers have acted to keep Indonesian killer John Basikbasik in immigration detention since he completed a seven-year manslaughter sentence in Queensland for brutally bashing his partner over the head with a bicycle. She was almost four months pregnant. “ (Pia Ackerman http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/gillian-triggss-advice-a-betrayal-of-women/story-fn9hm1gu-1227182733094).
Ms Akerman writes further
“Her 4000-word report failed to mention that Basikbasik’s 28-year-old Australian partner had been pregnant when he killed her, or that he had a history of breaching court bail conditions.
Ms Mangan said women fleeing domestic violence would feel “absolutely betrayed” if the Papuan refugee received a single cent.”
Ms Akerman in this article writes further
“A psychiatrist who assessed him in 2008 found he was at high risk of further violent offences and would not benefit from treatment, having shown little insight into his aggressive behaviour.
University of Queensland social work lecturer Deborah Walsh said she would be very concerned if Basikbasik were freed and able to form a new romantic relationship.
“He will have had no serious perpetrator intervention,” said Dr Walsh. who has worked with domestic violence offenders for nearly two decades.
“Having no intervention would put other women associated with him at risk.”
DVConnect chief executive Diane Mangan, is quoted here
http://www.news.com.au/national/bashed-to-death-with-a-bike-should-convicted-killer-john-basikbasik-be-paid-350000/story-fncynjr2-1227184471294
DVConnect chief executive Diane Mangan, who runs Queensland’s domestic violence hotline, said she fully supported the government’s attempts to keep Basikbasik behind bars.
“You wouldn’t come across one person who works in domestic violence that agrees with the Human Rights Commissioner,” Ms Mangan said. “There were no human rights for that woman and that unborn baby. If you can beat a pregnant wife to death, you are more than capable of being a threat to another woman.”
Some will arbitrarily fob off these references as emanating from Murdoch News. I have been careful to not quote opinions, but quotes and undisputed facts. I agree that such opinion would offer nothing.
Scott, you write these words “The advice of Commissioner Triggs was simply to apply the law, and for her to have done anything else would have been a dereliction of her responsibility. It may be news to the Prime Minister, but politicians don’t get to decide which laws they will follow and which they will ignore, nor do people surrender their human rights when they commit a crime.”
This is factually incorrect. In her report, Ms Triggs did her job and interpreted the appropriate laws then passed her report to the government. The governments’s job was to do the same, not simply implement Ms Triggs interpretation with out legal consideration. In the government’s reply to Ms Triggs findings, found in the Report 8:64 we read that it wasn’t as simple as Ms Triggs apply(ing) the law, and cynically offering “news to the Prime Minister” that the government was not following the law. The Commonwealth simply responded to the report by disagreeing with the application of the law :
1. I can advise that on 7 November 2013, I declined to consider intervening, under section 195A of the Act, to grant Mr Basikbasik a temporary visa or, under section 197AB of the Act, to place Mr Basikbasik into community detention with specific management conditions.
Ultimately, decisions relating to residence determination under section 195A or section 197AB of the Act are made at the discretion of the Minister, and are a reflection of what is deemed to be in the public interest at that time.
Mr Basikbasik’s detention is appropriate, reasonable and justified in the individual circumstances of his case and therefore not arbitrary.
The same applied to the response to Ms Triggs’ recommendation of $350,000 be given in compensation:
1. The department maintains that Mr Basikbasik’s detention is not arbitrary within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
And in Report 8:65
The department is of the view that Mr Basikbasik’s immigration detention is lawful, that
there is no meaningful prospect of liability under Australian domestic law and as such, no proper basis to consider a payment of compensation in this regard. Further, the department considers that neither the material in the complaint, nor the President’s findings and recommendations, reveal a meaningful prospect of liability under Australian domestic law for an action in tort as a result of this detention. For this reason the department is of the view that there is no proper basis on which to consider payment of compensation in this regard. The department therefore is unable to pay compensation to Mr Basikbasik on this basis and the department advises that no further action will be taken in relation to this recommendation.
Finally, this current political bun-fight pits Tony Abbott and George Brandis on one side and Gillian Triggs on the other. The stoush will “sell papers”. Some want to pit it as an uneven fight between two middle aged white men wearing blue ties against a woman. Doing so undermines the incredible experience and impressive record of Ms Triggs who appears more than capable of holding her own in this.
Through it all, some have said “what about the children?” I say “Bravo” to them. And on that score under the Coalition’s tenure, children in detention have reduced from over 2,000 to around 100. Yet no mention of this most important of matters in your article Scott. Why is that? I think for some, not necessarily you, it is an inconvenient truth and doesn’t fit the Abbott-bashing narrative. There is so much to be critical of PM Abbott and this current government and its incompetence, secrecy, broken promises and political stupidity. I maintain that this issue is one for which the Government should be commended.
Cheers Scott.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for taking time to reply.
The additional information you provide about John Basickbasick is helpful, and makes my comment about politicians presuming to be above the law unfair but it doesn’t substantially alter my critique of the PM, which was that Triggs was being attacked for doing her job. One may disagree with her interpretation of the law, but to demonise a highly respected lawyer on the basis of a contrary opinion on a single judgement is reprehensible.
Re the number of children in detention i am pleased with the reduction in numbers and have expressed that elsewhere. indeed, the advocacy campaign i am currently running thanks the govt for this. i didn’t mention it in this post because the post was not about children in detention but the unprecedented attack on Triggs. There were well over 1000 children in detention when the inquiry commenced and at that time no signal the govt intended to release them. Indeed, the release of children over 10 from mainland detention and all ages from christmas island was a hard fought concession to the crossbench senators to secure their vote for amendments to legislation on irregular migration, and the senators were on this issue due to what was being revealed by the HRC inquiry. So it’s a bit rich for the govt to suggest they were champions of getting children out of detention. Meanwhile around 120 children remain detained on Nauru and the govt has no intention of securing their release.
Thanks Scott.
Respectfully, the government did not “demonise a highly respected lawyer”. That just isn’t the case. They expressed that they did not have confidence in her as the President of the HRC. They are perfectly entitled to express that. You and many others have expressed similar opinions regarding Tony Abbott. You haven’t demonised him, you have criticised his performance.Perfectly justifiable and usually accurate in my opinion! They consider that they have justifiable reasons to do so. Is she untouchable in that regard? There is, at least, a legitimate case for the report’s timing being politically motivated, although the “he said, she said” commentary will probably never resolve that one. It has been the commentary and left-wing narrative that has taken a legitimate government process to the “demonisation” stage. It is splitting hairs in my view to look for other political scenarios that have resulted in nearly 2000 people leaving detention. It is true that ALP policy resulted in a range of outcomes including filling detention centres with children.It is also fact that under the Coalition’s tenure, that number has reduced with more to be done .. quickly. Cheers.
Hi Andrew,
I guess we’ll have to agree to differ on whether the PMs declaration of no confidence in Gillian Triggs was justified/legitimate. I must confess I have been baffled by the political strategy, for the govt does have a good story to tell. I don’t understand why they didn’t simply receive the report, agree child detention is not good, highlight the reduction in numbers and commit to getting the remaining children out as fast as possible. By going after Triggs they ensured this message would be lost.
We certainly agree on that issue Scott. Baffling. But Mr Abbott does tend to baffle! Cheers mate.