What About The Children?

[the_great_she_elephant]

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?

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

Polks

I know that, but are they needed in the AHRC report.

The answer is NO, they are not.

---

The report issued was not a summary. It was the full report.

Nothing should be left out.

[i-need-a-martini]

You know what else has been bizarre in this whole TRiggs affair – Tim Wilson one of the 2 HR commissioners working with Triggs and Abbotts right winged stooge planted to keep the AHRC on track and who was extremely vocal about the Labor Party prior to being handed his plum role – has said absolutely…

NOTHING!

Yet he is as responsible for this report as any other person within the Commission.

[vicr3000]

It's the type of thing that Sarah Two dads would get hold of, hold up to make an emotive media story

and probably make wrong judgements about when telling it.

Report - written with words, number in detention, number abused.

The whole thing is a waste of time and money because nothing will change,

regardless of who is in Gov't.

And Labor will be so shyte scared if they get back in that the boats will start coming again

that they will keep the policies that are in place because they know that if they don't,

the cries will go out and they will get kicked out again.

[gleee58]

A person who thinks those with hyphenated names have two dads obviously has a severe lack of intelligence.

[Anonymous]

No, she made a mistake and instead of correcting her the childmen bayed for her blood.

a mistake?  she was very specific:

Triggs: "...I've been there three times, you cannot get into any of the sections without going through armed guards, etc etc"
Bowles: "we do not have armed guards"
Triggs: "...I don't need to (garbled)..."
Bowles: "we do not have armed guards"
Triggs: "...to describe them as not prisons..."
Bowles: "we do not have armed guards President, I'd like you to acknowledge that"
Triggs: "I'm not sure, but I'm, I'm, um, aahhhh"
Bowles: "I'd like you to acknowledge that, we do not have armed guards"
Triggs: "I will check that with my clients then because some of those guards are armed..."
Bowles: "well I, again, again President, I would like you to check that and I would like you to retract that"

if there were no armed guards -

what made her think she had to go

through them to get to every section? 

and when she was corrected - why 

did she ignore it?

[vicr3000]

Julia

Just waiting for the howls of denial or that this was fabricated.

I thought certain people here had watched all of the proceedings !!!

[vicr3000]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

A person who thinks those with hyphenated names have two dads obviously has a severe lack of intelligence.

---

if you take the reason i use two dads literally, you obviously can't see why I use it but it is not the above.

I'll call her Sarah useless from now on.

[lloydslights]

Nowhere in the report, that I could find, are the words 'armed guards'.  

There were 2 statements of 'prison-like' within the report.  

And 'the bedrooms are essentially small cells'.

When Ms Triggs was faced with one of the difficult questions, after a stutter she started the don't-you-know-who-I-am routine, citing that she'd been in law for 40 years, etc. That sort of comeback really riles me and appears to be a belittling bullying tactic.

DEB

[vicr3000]

I also looked, it wasn't in the report, it was in the hearings.

Yes, agree re the "don't you know" routine.

Pompous to say the least, over inflated idea of her own importance.

[gleee58]

---

@lloydslights wrote:

Nowhere in the report, that I could find, are the words 'armed guards'.  

There were 2 statements of 'prison-like' within the report.  

And 'the bedrooms are essentially small cells'.

When Ms Triggs was faced with one of the difficult questions, after a stutter she started the don't-you-know-who-I-am routine, citing that she'd been in law for 40 years, etc. That sort of comeback really riles me and appears to be a belittling bullying tactic.

DEB

---

When is it alleged that she said those words you've quoted her as saying?

At the time the armed guard comment was made it should have been corrected.  They knew it was a draft report which was presented to them so they could go through it and provide correct information where they found errors or didn't agree.  It is the standard procedure they go through.  They explained it very clearly, half a dozen times.

The lack of standards was demonstrated by the bullying interrogation by a couple of the senators.  

It is standard for witnesses to agree to take questions on notice when they don't have the details at hand..

When the draft is submitted they have every right to expect that it will go through the proper procedure and to expect that they'll be treated with respect in Senate hearings.