A collection of Australia’s top legal academics have released a statement condemning the recent personal attacks on Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs.
Triggs, the former dean of Sydney University’s Law School, took the presidency of the Commission in 2012 and has been the target of harsh criticisms in recent months. The direct criticisms, some of which have been made by the prime minister Tony Abbott and other government officials, have centred around her decision to recommend the release of a Papuan refugee from an Australian detention centre.
The Basikbasik case involves a refugee convicted of killing his defacto wife in 2000. Basikbasik served a seven year sentence for manslaughter in an Australian prison. Upon his release in 2007, he was sent to Villawood detention centre and remains there today.
He requested an inquiry be launched by the Human Right Commission based on the fact that this further 7 years of detention was unnecessary, given he had served his time and been cleared of any further criminal punishment. Triggs conducted the inquiry and found that this further detention was arbitrary and therefore a breach of human rights. She recommended he immediately be released from arbitrary detention and be given $350,000 in compensation for the time he spent there.
This decision immediately attracted derision from public officials. The prime minister labelled the decision as “pretty bizarre” and refused to comment on whether he has confidence in her ability to do her job. He said her decision was “extremely questionable” and used his personal criticism of her to question the office itself:
“Decisions like this do, I think, tend to shake people’s confidence in institutions like the Human Rights Commission,” he said.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton described her behaviour as “offensive.”
Former immigration minister Scott Morrison’s criticisms were particularly personal: “There seems to be no consequences for one’s actions in the system she seems to believe in,” he said.
He also said she is “always arguing for a fair go for those who have forfeited that right by their own behaviour.”
Yesterday, after months of comments of this nature, a group of Australia’s top legal scholars published a collective defense of Triggs’ decision.
“We, the undersigned, are concerned about recent public criticism of one of Australia’s most respected independent public office-holders, Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) President Gillian Triggs,” they write.
“Below we comment on the relentless attacks, including from Prime Minister Tony Abbott, of her recommendation in the Basikbasik matter. In our view, they are based on a misunderstanding of the role of the commission.”
“Independent public office-holders are an important part of modern democratic societies. Independence and impartiality are undermined when a political leader publicly attacks holders of public office and when the media presents inaccurate accounts of the work of public institutions.”
They write that the personal attacks on Triggs are unnecessary, and that the government should utilise constructive criticism and debate when establishing their disagreement with her judgment.
“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,” the 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,” it concludes.
The letter is signed by 23 legal experts in the fields of international law, human rights law and public law from universities across Australia.