“This is a blatantly partisan politicised exercise and the Human Rights Commission ought to be ashamed of itself.”
They were among the words Prime Minister Tony Abbott used yesterday in response to the release of a report outlining the treatment of children in mandatory detention.
The report had been in the government’s possession since November but tabled it on the last day possible; it seems apparent the intervening few months were not used to formulate a substantive or thoughtful response.
As was widely reported yesterday the findings were shameful. These children are “suffering from extreme levels of physical, emotional, psychological and developmental distress”.
On the issue of whether this inquiry was partisan or politicised, the HRC president, Professor Gillian Triggs, is unequivocal.
“This is not a politicised exercise. It is a fair-minded report,” Triggs said. “The evidence on which we rely is evidence which covers the period of the former government as well as the nearly 18 months of the current Government. The facts frankly speak for themselves.”
So let’s consider the facts, shall we?
“As the medical evidence has mounted over the last eight months of the Inquiry, it has become increasingly difficult to understand the policy of both Labor and Coalition Governments. Both the Hon Chris Bowen MP, as a former Minister for Immigration, and the Hon Scott Morrison MP, the current Minister for Immigration, agreed on oath before the Inquiry that holding children in detention does not deter either asylum seekers or people smugglers. No satisfactory rationale for the prolonged detention of children seeking asylum in Australia has been offered.”
“By July 2013, under the Labor government, a record number of 1,992 children were in detention. The numbers of children in detention remained relatively constant at approximately 1,100 children from September 2013 to February 2014 under the new Coalition Government led by Prime Minister Tony Abbott.”
“Further announcements tightening asylum seeker policy by Prime Minister Rudd on 19 July 2013 left the vast majority of asylum seekers in detention in limbo. The policy implemented by the Labor Government and continued by the Coalition Government, specifies that anyone who arrives by boat without a visa since this date in July is liable to transfer to Nauru or Manus Island and will never be settled in Australia. The claims of these asylum seekers have not been processed and they face uncertainty as to their future.”
“Both current and former Ministers of Coalition and Labor governments stipulate that the detention of children is (and was) not intended as part of deterrence policy. They confirm that the detention of children would not, in fact, be a deterrent.”
These are actual extracts from the report and accurately reflect the thrust of its findings. The report makes it very clear that the responsibility for children being held indefinitely in detention is bi-partisan; the former Labor government and the Coalition share culpability for the policies that have made it so.
Upon reading the report in its entirety it is difficult to argue otherwise which begs the question, has Tony Abbott actually read it? Have any government ministers read it? I ask quite sincerely. Because the disconnect between what is contained in the report and the scathing attacks mounted by the government against the HRC suggest they haven’t.
In January of this year a group of 23 leading academics in the fields of international law, human rights law and public law from universities across Australia took the unusual step of publicly condemning the personal attacks on Professor Gillian Triggs.
“If the government disagrees with the commission, providing a reasoned explanation of why it considers the commission’s reasoning or conclusions to be wrong as a matter of law would be the most constructive way of contributing to the discussion,” their joint letter reads. “In our view, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission has carried out her duties under the Act with independence, impartiality and professionalism.”
What prompted such a move? A wave of “relentless attacks” on Triggs by the prime minister, the immigration minister Peter Dutton and the former immigration minister Scott Morrison. The letter pointed out the how the independence and impartiality of a public office is undermined when political leaders publicly attack holders of public office.
Yet the personal attacks continue. Today George Christiansen, Andrew Nikolic and Michael Sukkar joining the line of Liberal MPs calling for Triggs’ resignation.
Is this simply a case of shooting the messenger? Sadly it’s more like besmirch, smear and undermine the professional reputation of a respected holder of public office, whilst also shooting the messenger.
Today The Age was forthright in its editorial regarding Tony Abbott’s suggestion response to this report.
“No, Mr Abbott – it is you and your government that should be ashamed. By seeking to politicise the report and its findings, by seeking to demonise commission president Gillian Triggs, the government compounds its own failures and those of preceding governments. It has tried to shift attention to anyone and everyone, while accepting no responsibility, which only magnifies its own shameful behaviour.”
The Sydney Morning Herald was adamant that it was not the HRC that sought to politicise this report.
“To deflect criticism of his government, Mr Abbott claims the timing of the HRC report was politically motivated. But Professor Triggs noted that children began to be held longer in detention when the Coalition came to power. What’s more, the HRC has a legal duty to monitor how Australia meets its international human rights commitments.
The Abbott government politicised the report by waiting three months to table it in any case. The Immigration Department has had the report even longer.”
As if the attempts to undermine Professor Triggs’ professional standing weren’t toxic enough, today, her personal integrity is being questioned too. Piers Ackerman has written a column attacking Triggs on the basis of her severely disabled daughter. That it was published is simply beyond me.
What sort of a nation are we? Actually don’t answer that. The answer is sadly all too apparent.