The Claim
“Breached the criminal code of conduct by offering the independently appointed Human Rights Commissioner a new job if she resigned.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core factual allegation is accurate: Attorney-General George Brandis's department secretary, Chris Moraitis, did approach Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs in February 2015 to request her resignation while simultaneously offering that "some other opportunity" or "senior legal role" would be available if she resigned [1][2].
The approach came on February 3, 2015, approximately two weeks before the government tabled the Human Rights Commission's damning report "The Forgotten Children" on children in immigration detention [1]. During the meeting, Moraitis conveyed that the Attorney-General had lost confidence in Triggs, but also that there would be a senior role available if she resigned [2].
However, the characterization that this constituted a "breach of the criminal code of conduct" was an allegation made by political opponents at the time, not a proven legal finding. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) was subsequently asked to investigate whether this could constitute corrupt conduct under the Criminal Code [3][4].
The AFP's investigation concluded in May 2015 with the following findings:
- The AFP found "no evidence to support allegations" of an inducement [4]
- Professor Triggs herself declined to make a formal complaint [4][5]
- Evidence given under parliamentary privilege could not be used as evidence in a criminal investigation [5]
- The AFP ultimately decided not to investigate further due to insufficient evidence [4][5]
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical pieces of context:
1. The AFP Investigation Outcome: The claim presents the allegation as fact while omitting that the AFP investigated and found no evidence of wrongdoing. Labor's shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus accepted the AFP's determination, stating: "I can understand that the president would want to put this matter behind her. In choosing not to pursue this matter, she has demonstrated a professionalism and integrity sadly lacking in those who attacked her" [4].
2. The Broader Political Context: The government's actions came after the Human Rights Commission released a highly critical report on children in detention. The government had reduced the number of children in detention from approximately 2,000 under Labor to around 330 under the Coalition [1]. The government's criticism focused on the timing of the inquiry (which began under the Coalition rather than during Labor's tenure when numbers were higher) [6].
3. Independent Institutional Oversight: The matter was subject to appropriate institutional scrutiny through the AFP investigation. The system of checks and balances functioned as intended.
4. Professor Triggs' Own Position: When asked directly during Senate estimates if she understood the offer as an "inducement," Triggs stated: "I'd prefer not to use that term" [2]. This ambiguity in her own testimony complicated any potential legal case.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is Brisbane Times (a Fairfax Media publication, now Nine Newspapers). Brisbane Times is a mainstream, reputable Australian news outlet without documented partisan alignment. The article in question is factual reporting by journalists Michael Gordon and Sarah Whyte [2].
However, the claim in this dataset presents only the initial allegation without the subsequent AFP investigation outcome. This creates a misleading impression that the allegation was proven or remained unanswered, when in fact it was investigated and no evidence of criminal conduct was found.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Labor governments have also made appointments to the Human Rights Commission. Catherine Branson (a former Federal Court judge) was appointed President of the Australian Human Rights Commission by the Rudd Labor government in 2008 for a five-year term [7]. Gillian Triggs herself was appointed by the Gillard Labor government in July 2012 for a five-year term [1].
There is no direct equivalent of a Labor government offering alternative employment to an independent commissioner to induce resignation. However, governments of both parties have historically:
- Appointed commissioners aligned with their political values
- Criticized independent officers whose findings were politically inconvenient
- Sought to influence the timing and focus of inquiries
The key difference in this case was the explicit linkage of a job offer to resignation, which created the appearance of impropriety.
Comparative context: During the Gillard Labor government, there were controversies regarding appointments to the Fair Work Australia tribunal and other independent bodies. Both governments have faced criticism for politicizing appointments. The Triggs affair was distinctive in the directness of the approach but not in the underlying tension between governments and independent watchdogs.
Balanced Perspective
The Triggs affair represented a serious lapse in judgment by the Abbott government, but it did not constitute proven criminal conduct.
The government's position: The government maintained that Professor Triggs had compromised the Human Rights Commission's political impartiality by conducting an inquiry into children in detention that began during the Coalition government rather than during Labor's tenure when numbers were higher. Attorney-General Brandis stated he reached the conclusion "sadly, that Professor Triggs should consider her position" after what he termed a "catastrophic error of judgment" [2]. The government's criticism focused on the perceived bias in the timing of the inquiry.
The defense of the Commission: Professor Triggs and supporters noted that the Commission had tabled numerous reports critical of Labor's immigration detention policies during 2012-2013, and that the inquiry was planned to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the Commission's first investigation into children in detention [1]. The report's findings were substantiated by evidence of mental and physical harm to children in detention.
The legal assessment: While the conduct was widely condemned as inappropriate (Senator Brandis was censured by the Senate in March 2015 [5]), the AFP found no basis for criminal prosecution. The evidence was given under parliamentary privilege, Professor Triggs declined to pursue the matter, and the AFP concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant investigation.
This is not unique: Governments of both parties have sought to influence independent office-holders whose findings are politically inconvenient. The Triggs affair was unusual in its explicit nature but reflects a broader tension in the Australian political system between executive power and independent oversight bodies.
MISLEADING
4.0
out of 10
The claim presents an allegation that was investigated and unsubstantiated as if it were an established fact. While the factual basis (that a job offer was made contingent on resignation) is accurate, the characterization as a "breach of the criminal code of conduct" was an unproven allegation that the AFP investigated and found no evidence to support. The claim omits the AFP investigation outcome, Professor Triggs' own reluctance to characterize the offer as an "inducement," and the acceptance of the AFP determination by the opposition who originally raised the allegation. The presentation implies proven criminal wrongdoing where none was established.
Final Score
4.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim presents an allegation that was investigated and unsubstantiated as if it were an established fact. While the factual basis (that a job offer was made contingent on resignation) is accurate, the characterization as a "breach of the criminal code of conduct" was an unproven allegation that the AFP investigated and found no evidence to support. The claim omits the AFP investigation outcome, Professor Triggs' own reluctance to characterize the offer as an "inducement," and the acceptance of the AFP determination by the opposition who originally raised the allegation. The presentation implies proven criminal wrongdoing where none was established.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (7)
-
1
Revealed: Abbott government tried to remove Gillian Triggs as head of the Australian Human Rights Commission
The Abbott government sought the resignation of the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission Gillian Triggs two weeks before it launched an extraordinary attack on the commission over its report on children in immigration detention.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
Defiant Gillian Triggs resists pressure from Abbott government to resign
Allegations that the Abbott government breached the criminal code by offering Gillian Triggs an incentive to resign as president the Australian Human Rights Commission are likely to be referred to the Australian Federal Police.
Brisbane Times -
3
Labor asks AFP to investigate Brandis office alleged corruption over Triggs job offer
The shadow attorney-general has requested a police investigation into whether the attorney-general’s office made a corrupt attempt to induce Gillian Higgs to quit the Human Rights Commission.
Australian Times News -
4
Gillian Triggs: AFP finds no evidence that head of Human Rights Commission offered inducement to resign
The Australian Federal Police finds no evidence to support allegations that the Attorney-General offered an inducement to Gillian Triggs to resign as head of the Human Rights Commission.
Abc Net -
5
AFP decides not to investigate George Brandis' role in Gillian Triggs saga
The Australian Federal Police will not investigate whether Attorney-General George Brandis offered an inducement to Gillian Triggs in exchange for her resignation as president of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
6
Gillian Triggs: Tony Abbott says Government has lost confidence in Human Rights Commission president
Prime Minister Tony Abbott says his Government has lost confidence in Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs, calling the commission's damning report into children in detention a "stitch-up".
Abc Net -
7
Former President (2008 - 2012) and Human Rights Commissioner (2009 - 2012) - Catherine Branson
Humanrights Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.