He was only calling it as he sees it, ie where was she two years ago and why was the Coalition the centre of the report when they had reduced incidents by 90%.
I wouldn’t have confidence in her either and I’m not sure why the ‘caring’ left are so ready to defend her. Unless they approve of her ignoring their pet cause two years ago. Now that would never happen now, would it !!!
No Trips. His and Abbott’s attacks on her have no credibility and now he has been officially embarrassed by censure in the Senate.
She has not been treated with any respect.
Her report has been lost in the ether of the debate and no-one actually cares about the timing or who she talked to (relevance).
Brandis is a dead man walking and has no credibility in Australian politics.
Think of it from the view point of a swinging voter.
On one side you have the Libs, you got lord business yelling release the kraggle and make the indigenous slaves to help the woman in the kitchen while the other sits back and makes bad jokes and does ( to borrow a phrase from nick) 10 fifths of ■■■■ all. With the weak promise of it will be better under us. We won’t open our ideas to scrutiny until you don’t have the time to find the holes until it’s to late.
Do you know what that says to the public
We are gonna spend like numties again, and change leaders 6 times.
Now I know that’s probably not true, but the current opposition does little to show otherwise
I said a few weeks back that the Libs have been in opposition so long they don’t know how to lead. Well Labor have pretty much no idea how to do either in the public view of they continue to sit there and heckle from the cheap seats showing very little substance
We are ■■■■■■, truely ■■■■■■.
The last leader who came up with any ideas of their own got shafted by shirt sighted factional types who seem to have nothing at all to do with the core idea of their own party.
The only prospective leader who looks like they has any ideas (Malcolm) would run into the same issue, except he’s the outlier (little “l” liberal).
Factions seemingly have as much power as the voter, in both majors.
He was only calling it as he sees it, ie where was she two years ago and why was the Coalition the centre of the report when they had reduced incidents by 90%.
I wouldn’t have confidence in her either and I’m not sure why the ‘caring’ left are so ready to defend her. Unless they approve of her ignoring their pet cause two years ago. Now that would never happen now, would it !!!
The only person who has the power to remove the President of the Human Rights Commission is the Governor General. If Brandis had concerns about her, particularly if he believed that she was corrupt (which is exactly what he’s implying through the accusations of partisanship), then he should have raised them with the GG. For a member of parliament, particularly the Attorney General, to be publicly attacking the HRC president is unprecedented and highly inappropriate. If, as has been reported, he has offered her inducements or otherwise tried to pressure her to resign, then that is a criminal act.
He was only calling it as he sees it, ie where was she two years ago and why was the Coalition the centre of the report when they had reduced incidents by 90%.
I wouldn’t have confidence in her either and I’m not sure why the ‘caring’ left are so ready to defend her. Unless they approve of her ignoring their pet cause two years ago. Now that would never happen now, would it !!!
The only person who has the power to remove the President of the Human Rights Commission is the Governor General. If Brandis had concerns about her, particularly if he believed that she was corrupt (which is exactly what he’s implying through the accusations of partisanship), then he should have raised them with the GG. For a member of parliament, particularly the Attorney General, to be publicly attacking the HRC president is unprecedented and highly inappropriate. If, as has been reported, he has offered her inducements or otherwise tried to pressure her to resign, then that is a criminal act.
It might be unprecedented but it is most definitely appropriate. Contrary to her opinion of herself, she is not God. She can be criticized.
And if she had any morals she would resign as her position has now become untenable and anything she puts her name on going forward cannot be taken seriously.
Until she resigns the whole Commission may as well shut up shop as it is now irrelevant.
He was only calling it as he sees it, ie where was she two years ago and why was the Coalition the centre of the report when they had reduced incidents by 90%.
I wouldn’t have confidence in her either and I’m not sure why the ‘caring’ left are so ready to defend her. Unless they approve of her ignoring their pet cause two years ago. Now that would never happen now, would it !!!
The only person who has the power to remove the President of the Human Rights Commission is the Governor General. If Brandis had concerns about her, particularly if he believed that she was corrupt (which is exactly what he’s implying through the accusations of partisanship), then he should have raised them with the GG. For a member of parliament, particularly the Attorney General, to be publicly attacking the HRC president is unprecedented and highly inappropriate. If, as has been reported, he has offered her inducements or otherwise tried to pressure her to resign, then that is a criminal act.
It might be unprecedented but it is most definitely appropriate. Contrary to her opinion of herself, she is not God. She can be criticized.
And if she had any morals she would resign as her position has now become untenable and anything she puts her name on going forward cannot be taken seriously.
Until she resigns the whole Commission may as well shut up shop as it is now irrelevant.
Ah, no, it’s not appropriate. There’s criticism, and there’s directly attacking the credibility of a statutory office that is designed to be independent of parliamentary interference.
I would suggest that it is Brandis whose position has become untenable, particularly if he is shown to have offered Triggs inducements for her resignation.
He was only calling it as he sees it, ie where was she two years ago and why was the Coalition the centre of the report when they had reduced incidents by 90%.
I wouldn’t have confidence in her either and I’m not sure why the ‘caring’ left are so ready to defend her. Unless they approve of her ignoring their pet cause two years ago. Now that would never happen now, would it !!!
The only person who has the power to remove the President of the Human Rights Commission is the Governor General. If Brandis had concerns about her, particularly if he believed that she was corrupt (which is exactly what he’s implying through the accusations of partisanship), then he should have raised them with the GG. For a member of parliament, particularly the Attorney General, to be publicly attacking the HRC president is unprecedented and highly inappropriate. If, as has been reported, he has offered her inducements or otherwise tried to pressure her to resign, then that is a criminal act.
It might be unprecedented but it is most definitely appropriate. Contrary to her opinion of herself, she is not God. She can be criticized.
And if she had any morals she would resign as her position has now become untenable and anything she puts her name on going forward cannot be taken seriously.
Until she resigns the whole Commission may as well shut up shop as it is now irrelevant.
Only according to dead man walking Brandis, the British PM in Abbott and those who think the sun shines out of the Coalition’s ■■■■. The majority of Australians couldn’t either give a rats ■■■■ or indeed there are growing number (last count more than 10000) who think Triggs has credibility and above and beyond reproach.
He was only calling it as he sees it, ie where was she two years ago and why was the Coalition the centre of the report when they had reduced incidents by 90%.
I wouldn’t have confidence in her either and I’m not sure why the ‘caring’ left are so ready to defend her. Unless they approve of her ignoring their pet cause two years ago. Now that would never happen now, would it !!!
The only person who has the power to remove the President of the Human Rights Commission is the Governor General. If Brandis had concerns about her, particularly if he believed that she was corrupt (which is exactly what he’s implying through the accusations of partisanship), then he should have raised them with the GG. For a member of parliament, particularly the Attorney General, to be publicly attacking the HRC president is unprecedented and highly inappropriate. If, as has been reported, he has offered her inducements or otherwise tried to pressure her to resign, then that is a criminal act.
It might be unprecedented but it is most definitely appropriate. Contrary to her opinion of herself, she is not God. She can be criticized.
And if she had any morals she would resign as her position has now become untenable and anything she puts her name on going forward cannot be taken seriously.
Until she resigns the whole Commission may as well shut up shop as it is now irrelevant.
Ah, no, it’s not appropriate. There’s criticism, and there’s directly attacking the credibility of a statutory office that is designed to be independent of parliamentary interference.
I would suggest that it is Brandis whose position has become untenable, particularly if he is shown to have offered Triggs inducements for her resignation.
I think you'll find that those accusations have been binned.
The office is not credible as it is not politically independent. Hence she got critized. I mean she gets paid 1/2 million a year. If she can’t handle a bit of criticism (valid too) then she can step down and let someone else take over. And then perhaps the office will get its credibility back.
But until she is gone the whole dept may as well go on long service leave. Anything they produce just will not be believed.
He was only calling it as he sees it, ie where was she two years ago and why was the Coalition the centre of the report when they had reduced incidents by 90%.
I wouldn’t have confidence in her either and I’m not sure why the ‘caring’ left are so ready to defend her. Unless they approve of her ignoring their pet cause two years ago. Now that would never happen now, would it !!!
The only person who has the power to remove the President of the Human Rights Commission is the Governor General. If Brandis had concerns about her, particularly if he believed that she was corrupt (which is exactly what he’s implying through the accusations of partisanship), then he should have raised them with the GG. For a member of parliament, particularly the Attorney General, to be publicly attacking the HRC president is unprecedented and highly inappropriate. If, as has been reported, he has offered her inducements or otherwise tried to pressure her to resign, then that is a criminal act.
It might be unprecedented but it is most definitely appropriate. Contrary to her opinion of herself, she is not God. She can be criticized.
And if she had any morals she would resign as her position has now become untenable and anything she puts her name on going forward cannot be taken seriously.
Until she resigns the whole Commission may as well shut up shop as it is now irrelevant.
Ah, no, it’s not appropriate. There’s criticism, and there’s directly attacking the credibility of a statutory office that is designed to be independent of parliamentary interference.
I would suggest that it is Brandis whose position has become untenable, particularly if he is shown to have offered Triggs inducements for her resignation.
I think you'll find that those accusations have been binned.
The office is not credible as it is not politically independent. Hence she got critized. I mean she gets paid 1/2 million a year. If she can’t handle a bit of criticism (valid too) then she can step down and let someone else take over. And then perhaps the office will get its credibility back.
But until she is gone the whole dept may as well go on long service leave. Anything they produce just will not be believed.
Isn’t it great to see Daytripper back with his balanced view of the World.
I really don’t think that Gillian Triggs has to prove herself to anyone. I am not sure if you read her report, but I have and it seems detailed and balanced.
The issue surely is there are 200 children in detention that should not be there, and that is the point and recommendation of the report.
Now I am pretty political, and biased unashamedly, but the Labor Party should be ashamed of its record in this matter, as should the Abbott Government. No matter how I read it, it is not a political report, it does not blame one Government over another, it does make the valid point that these children human rights have been trampled, smashed and forgotten.
All of us, including you, Daytripper should be ashamed of our Governments for allowing it to happen. Note the plural, Governments.
And if you’re looking for a reason for the timing of it, try u/standing that the longer kids are in, the more mental health issues arise. They were out much quicker under Labor, weren’t in long enough to actually report on & few issues to review, as little mental health damage due to that reduced time span.
It was the Lib policy. - like under Howard, & we saw the mental anguish then as well - of cruely keeping these kids & all these people locked up for seemingly never ending periods as a deterent message to others, that brought about the suffering, & hence the necessity of the review.
I did see the sense in stopping scumbags profiting from putting people to sea in death traps, & causing untolled drownings, but they should have found a more humane strategy for that deterrent signal, than such barbaric treatment of innocent, scared, long suffering children. Even if it wasn’t as politically expedient, & took a bit longer to end the practice.
Thats it in a nutshell Tripper, let’s move the fk on!
He was only calling it as he sees it, ie where was she two years ago and why was the Coalition the centre of the report when they had reduced incidents by 90%.
I wouldn’t have confidence in her either and I’m not sure why the ‘caring’ left are so ready to defend her. Unless they approve of her ignoring their pet cause two years ago. Now that would never happen now, would it !!!
The only person who has the power to remove the President of the Human Rights Commission is the Governor General. If Brandis had concerns about her, particularly if he believed that she was corrupt (which is exactly what he’s implying through the accusations of partisanship), then he should have raised them with the GG. For a member of parliament, particularly the Attorney General, to be publicly attacking the HRC president is unprecedented and highly inappropriate. If, as has been reported, he has offered her inducements or otherwise tried to pressure her to resign, then that is a criminal act.
It might be unprecedented but it is most definitely appropriate. Contrary to her opinion of herself, she is not God. She can be criticized.
And if she had any morals she would resign as her position has now become untenable and anything she puts her name on going forward cannot be taken seriously.
Until she resigns the whole Commission may as well shut up shop as it is now irrelevant.
Ah, no, it’s not appropriate. There’s criticism, and there’s directly attacking the credibility of a statutory office that is designed to be independent of parliamentary interference.
I would suggest that it is Brandis whose position has become untenable, particularly if he is shown to have offered Triggs inducements for her resignation.
I think you'll find that those accusations have been binned.
The office is not credible as it is not politically independent. Hence she got critized. I mean she gets paid 1/2 million a year. If she can’t handle a bit of criticism (valid too) then she can step down and let someone else take over. And then perhaps the office will get its credibility back.
But until she is gone the whole dept may as well go on long service leave. Anything they produce just will not be believed.
The hypocrisy of this Government and it’s supporters is staggering. The irony of them attacking a public figure for doing their job while they defend someone like Peta Credlin against the same sort of attacks is mind blowing. Then to top it off they call out Labor for going gutter as well as personal in attacking the credibility of the person (Brandis) when they are doing the same thing to Trigg.
The more this Government carries on the more likely I am to never vote for them until they have all quit the party, they are a bunch of hypocritical, unimaginative troglodytes.
He was only calling it as he sees it, ie where was she two years ago and why was the Coalition the centre of the report when they had reduced incidents by 90%.
I wouldn’t have confidence in her either and I’m not sure why the ‘caring’ left are so ready to defend her. Unless they approve of her ignoring their pet cause two years ago. Now that would never happen now, would it !!!
The only person who has the power to remove the President of the Human Rights Commission is the Governor General. If Brandis had concerns about her, particularly if he believed that she was corrupt (which is exactly what he’s implying through the accusations of partisanship), then he should have raised them with the GG. For a member of parliament, particularly the Attorney General, to be publicly attacking the HRC president is unprecedented and highly inappropriate. If, as has been reported, he has offered her inducements or otherwise tried to pressure her to resign, then that is a criminal act.
It might be unprecedented but it is most definitely appropriate. Contrary to her opinion of herself, she is not God. She can be criticized.
And if she had any morals she would resign as her position has now become untenable and anything she puts her name on going forward cannot be taken seriously.
Until she resigns the whole Commission may as well shut up shop as it is now irrelevant.
Ah, no, it’s not appropriate. There’s criticism, and there’s directly attacking the credibility of a statutory office that is designed to be independent of parliamentary interference.
I would suggest that it is Brandis whose position has become untenable, particularly if he is shown to have offered Triggs inducements for her resignation.
I think you'll find that those accusations have been binned.
The office is not credible as it is not politically independent. Hence she got critized. I mean she gets paid 1/2 million a year. If she can’t handle a bit of criticism (valid too) then she can step down and let someone else take over. And then perhaps the office will get its credibility back.
But until she is gone the whole dept may as well go on long service leave. Anything they produce just will not be believed.
I can assure you it will, and is.
Probably all the more so for how the government reacted.
For a conservative, “credibility” and “political independence” are 100% agreeing with everything the far right says.
This stance is so pitiful, blinkered and ignorant, it is sad. But then again I suspect that DT types enjoy seeing leftist plots in absolutely facet of life that doesn’t neatly fit into their myopic view of reality.
Paranoia, fear and claiming to know everything are the hallmarks for the far right. Proof that some have descended from tree dwelling apes less quickly than the rest of the population.
For a conservative, "credibility" and "political independence" are 100% agreeing with everything the far right says.
This stance is so pitiful, blinkered and ignorant, it is sad. But then again I suspect that DT types enjoy seeing leftist plots in absolutely facet of life that doesn’t neatly fit into their myopic view of reality.
Paranoia, fear and claiming to know everything are the hallmarks for the far right. Proof that some have evolved from tree dwelling apes less quickly than the rest of the population.
For a conservative, "credibility" and "political independence" are 100% agreeing with everything the far right says.
This stance is so pitiful, blinkered and ignorant, it is sad. But then again I suspect that DT types enjoy seeing leftist plots in absolutely facet of life that doesn’t neatly fit into their myopic view of reality.
Paranoia, fear and claiming to know everything are the hallmarks for the far right. Proof that some have descended from tree dwelling apes less quickly than the rest of the population.
Haha - the irony of this post is very funny.
Its hardly a far right stance.
I think most of middle Australia thinks Triggs is a hypocrite who should resign. Her only defenders are those on the left (and generally only the loud-mouthed left too).
Now lets see how independent you are.
*What was Triggs doing on her half a million dollar a year salary in her first year of office whilst 2000 children were in detention?
*Why did Triggs agree to defer any report until after the 2013 election after discussion with two Labor ministers?
*Why did she falsely claim that guards at Xmas Island carried machine guns?
*Why did she overstate the instances of self harm from 1 to 10?
*Why did she recommend a 350K payout plus release from detention for a refugee convicted of the manslaughter of his wife as well as numerous other assaults?
For a conservative, "credibility" and "political independence" are 100% agreeing with everything the far right says.
This stance is so pitiful, blinkered and ignorant, it is sad. But then again I suspect that DT types enjoy seeing leftist plots in absolutely facet of life that doesn’t neatly fit into their myopic view of reality.
Paranoia, fear and claiming to know everything are the hallmarks for the far right. Proof that some have descended from tree dwelling apes less quickly than the rest of the population.
Haha - the irony of this post is very funny.
Its hardly a far right stance.
I think most of middle Australia thinks Triggs is a hypocrite who should resign. Her only defenders are those on the left (and generally only the loud-mouthed left too).
Now lets see how independent you are.
*What was Triggs doing on her half a million dollar a year salary in her first year of office whilst 2000 children were in detention?
*Why did Triggs agree to defer any report until after the 2013 election after discussion with two Labor ministers?
*Why did she falsely claim that guards at Xmas Island carried machine guns?
*Why did she overstate the instances of self harm from 1 to 10?
*Why did she recommend a 350K payout plus release from detention for a refugee convicted of the manslaughter of his wife as well as numerous other assaults?
Considering that, once again, I am on the right and am middle Australia, should tell you something. Oh and where I work, at least half are Liberal and they all think the Governments attacks were wrong, that should also tell you something.
But then you like making blank statements about what everything thinks without a shred of evidence to back it up. Your opinion poll statements are as about as reliable as the Government internal polls are.
I loved the news websites yesterday. news.com.au talking about how Abbott has saved his job whilst the guardian talking about why he is about to lose it.