on 25-02-2015 08:46 PM
I am amazed and disgusted that in all the indignation over what Gillian Triggs should or shouldn't have done or who said or didn't say what to her, not ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN except, finally, Malcolm Turnbull, has commented in any way on the contents of her report..
She found that over a 15-month period from January 2013 to March 2014, spanning both the Labor and Coalition governments there were 233 recorded assaults involving children and 33 incidents of reported sexual assault.
If these findings are true - and as far as I know nobody has so far disputed them - then what is going to be done about it? Who had the duty of care? who is going to be held responsible. What measures are going to be put in place to stop this abuse happening in future?
Both Gillian Triggs and George Brandis are astute and comparitively wealthy adults able to instruct top legal practitioners to protect their reputaions - but who is going to protect the safety of these children? How many more children have been abused since March 2014? Is a child perhaps being abused in a detention centre even while you are reading this post?
Surely to goodness after all that was learned from the Children In Care Royal Commission this report cannot simply be put in a "don't want to know" basket while both sides of Pariament try to gain political mileage out the motives of the Human Rghts Commissioner or the behaviour of the Attourney General.
At some point -though probably not in the lifetime of this government or even the one that follows it - there will inevitably be a Royal Commission into the treatment of children in detention centre. what do you imagine its findings are likely to be?
on 02-03-2015 03:02 PM
That's not the right way.
Paying someone to take you to Australian waters and then making a phone call is not the right way.
Setting fire to your boat, sinking it, destroying your paperwork, yep, all indications of not the right way
and wanting to make sure you are picked up by an Australian boat.
Hence why the rules and laws were changed so it didn't work any more.
End result. They stopped coming, which proves they were not Asylum Seekers.
If they were Asylum Seekers, they would keep coming.
02-03-2015 03:52 PM - edited 02-03-2015 03:54 PM
Since this thread appears to have run completely off the track, I guess it's Ok for me to make an off topic comment.
One of the things that has struck me over this entire fiasco is how exraordinarily inept, politically, Abbott's response has been.
The report presented him with a golden opportunity. Even though it was only a 15 month "snapshot" the inescapable inference to be drawn from it was that the abuse had been going on for a long time - mostly on Labor's watch. Abbott could have seized on that - castigated the opposotion for allowing it to happen and promised that he would be the knight in shining armour who would stand up to defend these innocents, hunt down the perpetrtors of the abuse and ensure that it never happened again. Everyone would have cheered and Labor would have been left with egg on it's face.
Instead he has tried to shoot the messenger, seemingly instructed anothe rperson to offer inducements on his behalf to a public officer and quite possibly lied to pariament about it.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
02-03-2015 03:58 PM - edited 02-03-2015 03:59 PM
GSE
I have to agree with you to an extent.
And if you look on the Age or SMH web site, you will see an article today on the exact subject,
something about Abbott could have taken the high moral road ...........
He could have done as you said and still shot the messenger !
LOL
on 02-03-2015 03:59 PM
GSE
Can I send you a link via PM ?
on 02-03-2015 04:01 PM
on 02-03-2015 04:10 PM
@the_great_she_elephant wrote:Since this thread appears to have run completely off the track, I guess it's Ok for me to make an off topic comment.
One of the things that has struck me over this entire fiasco is how exraordinarily inept, politically, Abbott's response has been.
The report presented him with a golden opportunity. Even though it was only a 15 month "snapshot" the inescapable inference to be drawn from it was that the abuse had been going on for a long time - mostly on Labor's watch. Abbott could have seized on that - castigated the opposotion for allowing it to happen and promised that he would be the knight in shining armour who would stand up to defend these innocents, hunt down the perpetrtors of the abuse and ensure that it never happened again. Everyone would have cheered and Labor would have been left with egg on it's face.
Instead he has tried to shoot the messenger, seemingly instructed anothe rperson to offer inducements on his behalf to a public officer and quite possibly lied to pariament about it.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
That is so true.
He had the perfect opportunity to take the report and use it to demonstrate that his govt had made real prgress in egtting the children out of detention and instead he reverted to form and went on to attack the messenger.
The only answer is that he is following the IPA agenda to shut down the AHRC.
on 02-03-2015 04:41 PM
They didnt want to miss out on the welfare
on 02-03-2015 11:59 PM
I did have a chuckle at this.
Denied, admitted, retracted !
"In that evidence, Professor Triggs initially denied discussing an inquiry with Labor but then admitted to discussions
with two Labor ministers, including during the election caretaker period. She later retracted that evidence."
Does she know what she did and when ???????
Very unprofessional !
on 03-03-2015 12:05 AM
"Having sat mute during the Labor years, Triggs’ HRC launched its inquiry into children in detention when the Abbott government
took office — although she revealed when she was called before a senate inquiry last year that she had been in discussion
with two of Labor’s failed immigration ministers, Chris Bowen and Tony Burke."
03-03-2015 12:06 AM - edited 03-03-2015 12:06 AM
@vicr3000 wrote:
I did have a chuckle at this.
Denied, admitted, retracted !
"In that evidence, Professor Triggs initially denied discussing an inquiry with Labor but then admitted to discussions
with two Labor ministers, including during the election caretaker period. She later retracted that evidence."
Does she know what she did and when ???????
Very unprofessional !
Yes, very unprofessional of the chairperson.
She agreed to take questions on notice and they should have accepted that instead of hounding for a guessed answer.
She sent the evidence to confirm her answers on December 10 and the chairperson did not bother to read it.