Triggs' excuses i.e. jurisdiction, raising expectations - are BS #Manus #Nauru



Triggs could have, and still can, visit Nauru and Manus.

Her excuses are an insult to the intelligence and resilience of the men, women and children who have been brutalised for 4 years by the Australian government.

The human rights establishment are clearly on board with Australia's refugee 'deterrence' policy.

This is illustrated by their disgraceful and relentless partisan point scoring at the expense of genuine critique of the policy's impacts.

Their silent consensus - especially at significant times eg in response to the UN findings on torture, the January/February 2015 mass hunger strike on Manus, and months long protests on Nauru in 2016 is telling.

The Human Rights Commjssion have never criticised the shady activities of the IOM, and protected the UNHCR after their April 2016 visit triggered a wave of self immolation protests.

A visit to Nauru and Manus would be an official acknowledgement of Australia's barbarity.

That the Human Rights Commissioner has not done this should be questioned, not excused.

People are dying as the 'deterrence' policy reaches its predictable conclusion, and Triggs is given free kicks.


Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012 and related bills and instruments [Hansard - 19/12/12]:

... Senator WRIGHT: I was not able to be at the hearing on Monday, and I have not had a chance to read the transcript, but I understand that Ms Crock said on Monday that you had been refused permission to visit Nauru and Manus Island centres. I am not sure whether that is accurate or not, because I am relying on something someone mentioned. I had understood that you had been to Nauru. Perhaps you could explain that.

Prof. Triggs : I am very grateful for your question, because I would very much like to set the record straight. I will begin right at the beginning and say that Minister Bowen has written to me personally to say that he would facilitate my visit to Nauru, and his officials would assist in managing that. I have equally discussed this with the Attorney, and she has very courteously recognised the independent status of the commission and my role and has been very clear with me on at least two occasions that the decision to go to Nauru will be my decision.

However—and this is why I particularly appreciate the opportunity to answer this question for the record, because so many people are asking me the question—I have not been to Nauru, and I am at the moment determining for myself in the next two or three weeks whether I will go.

The reason that I have not gone sooner is that there is a legal problem, and that legal problem is one that you have been considering in your deliberations, at least on Monday.

That is that there may not be a jurisdiction for the commission in a foreign sovereign state.

This goes to the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

My own view, as an international lawyer—and the view of the team of lawyers at the Australian Human Rights Commission—is that Australia is internationally responsible for the activities in relation to these asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island and that these are acts for, and on behalf of, the Commonwealth and we therefore have jurisdiction. There is ample international jurisprudence from the International Court of Justice, the Human Rights Committee itself, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights to say that, where there is 'effective control', then responsibility continues to flow. That is my view and the view of the commission, but it is not—or may not be—the view of the Attorney-General's Department, and the departmental officials.

What we have agreed to do is that jointly we are seeking legal opinion, which we hope to have by the end of January. I have undertaken that, on the basis that we will have a fair and non-adversarial opinion on that question of extraterritoriality, I will accept that opinion and will then, on the basis of that view, either go or not go.

I am sorry if this is a rather long answer to your question, but the final point I want to make goes to the question of ethics really, for me and the commission. As you may know, we have already had a significant number of complaints through my complaint function at the commission, from people on Nauru. If I were to go to Nauru, I would almost certainly generate hundreds more.

It would be quite unethical of me, I think, to raise their expectations that I could in any way assist them in their concerns and achieve their legal rights if I were to come back to Australia and say: 'We've now looked at this more closely. A court has made a final determination. I do not have the power to consider these complaints, and they will all have to be terminated.' I think it is far better for me to sort this out now in January, with an objective and scholarly opinion, hopefully, on this very difficult question, both of statutory interpretation and of international law, to see how in fact we progress this. ...


http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commjnt/1dc30949-d142-4d1e-8f06-38def22df9f1/toc_pdf/Parliamentary%20Joint%20Committee%20on%20Human%20Rights_2012_12_19_1603_Official.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22committees/commjnt/1dc30949-d142-4d1e-8f06-38def22df9f1/0005%22

Reply · Report Post