Truth??

The former president of the Human Rights Commission has accused Australian governments of succumbing to “post-truth” politics in which evidence based policy is rejected in favour of populist decision making that “responds to fear.”

Professor Gillian Triggs today said Australian governments had resorted to populism when it came to the issues of asylum-seekers, refugees and terrorism.

She suggested the same-sex marriage debate was also taking place in the new “post-truth” climate and disputed claims there were insufficient protections for religious freedoms.

Speaking at the Australian National University in Canberra, Professor Triggs said that religious freedoms were upheld in the constitution and took a swipe at The Australian newspaper for its coverage of the debate.

“If you read the constitution you would know that there’s a provision in the constitution — a rare provision in the constitution for human rights,” she said. “And that protects the right to freedom of religious expression.”

“It’s one of the best protected rights under Australian law. Yet we now have a full on daily campaign to argue that we do not have the right of adequate protection of religious freedom in this country.”

Professor Triggs was delivering a speech earlier today on the future of social policy making at the Power to Persuade Symposium directed by UNSW Canberra.

She used the platform to lash out at the ethics of public servants, warned against the rise of executive government and defended her controversial report into children in immigration detention.

“A culture of post-truth has enabled government and parliament to reject evidence based reports by credible agencies in favour of populist decision making that denies the truth and responds to fear,” she said. “And this is particularly the case in relation to refugees and asylum-seekers; to terrorism; to conflict and to criminal matters in general.”

She accused the Coalition government of politicising her Forgotten Children inquiry, arguing that the political messaging around deaths at sea and boat turn-backs made it hard for the report to cut through.

“No other country in the world mandates the detention, in practical terms, indefinitely for many, of asylum-seekers and refugees including children,” she said. “The government rejected the report and said it was biased on the false ground that the inquiry should have been brought earlier when the Labor Party was in power.”

“It was never about the fact of detention. It was about the long-term medical physical and mental health impacts (for children),” she said. “Holding children in detention was not a deterrent to people-smugglers.”

“Talking of truth and persuasion, one of the greatest myths that we had so much trouble dealing with, is the myth that you need to treat people in these inhuman and illegal ways in order to stop the boats and to save drownings at sea.”

Professor Triggs also accused some bureaucrats of providing unethical advice to government ministers — advice she said was inconsistent with Australia’s international treaty obligations.

“I think there has been a definite trend in Australia for public servants to be more concerned about doing what the minister has asked them to do ... I think that they have not always met the ethical underpinnings of good government,” she said.

To make her case, she cited a move by the government to make a retrospective change to the Migration Act allowing it to transfer to Nauru a female Bangladeshi woman who was found to be a genuine refugee.

She said the change to the Migration Act was made as the government was staring down a High Court challenge. “Within two or three weeks of the litigation getting to the High Court they passed a piece of legislation retrospectively to provide a basis on which she (the refugee) could be returned to Nauru,” Professor Triggs said.

“My question is — who are the lawyers, who are the public servants who are drafting these laws and advising a minister that it’s possible to retrospectively to pass laws of this kind?”

“If you are a practising barrister and solicitor in NSW and Victoria you have an obligation under the codes of conduct for the profession to act not only ethically but, believe it or not, consistently with human rights.”

“How can the public service produce this kind of advice to a minister? Who drafted this legislation? And is that advice being given to the minister that it is unethical … under Australian law due to our duty of care and contrary to our international treaty obligations.”

Professor Triggs also identified what she said was an “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” growth in executive decision making, saying this was contrary to the principle of the separation of powers.

‘We’ve seen a corresponding diminution in the role of the courts,” she said. “As a lawyer, that is something that I am especially concerned about.”