Staff at the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) scrambled behind the scenes to undermine an attack by their colleague, human rights commissioner Lorraine Finlay, on the Voice to Parliament referendum proposal, internal documents reveal.
Emails and text messages obtained via a freedom of information request lay bare an internal divide between Finlay and the rest of the commission over one of the most prominent human rights debates in Australia.
On March 30, Finlay wrote an article in The Australian titled “Voting No to Indigenous Voice to Parliament doesn’t mean you reject human rights”. In it, the controversial Morrison government appointee and former Liberal Party member wrote that a statement published by the AHRC in support of the Voice did not reflect “there wasn’t a unanimous view within the commission itself”.
She went on to raise “significant doubts” about the constitutional amendment. Finlay’s comments, along with others, were used to report that the Albanese government was “at odds” with expert advice.
Communications show that Finlay decided to write the article to make her dissenting view on the Voice clear after the AHRC published its statement in support of the Voice and after a conversation with Australian Human Rights Commission president Rosalind Croucher.
“Thank you for the discussion earlier. I have greatly valued your counsel and reflections on this,” Finlay wrote in a March 26 email where she attached a draft version of the article.
On the night of March 29, Finlay texted Croucher to tell her that The Australian was set to run her article and that she had accepted the majority of Croucher’s suggested edits. Finlay then circulated the article to the AHRC communication staff and other commissioners where she hinted at raising concerns “in meetings about that statement”.
“I am aware that this is a sensitive piece, and am available if anybody would like to discuss it directly with me,” she wrote.
Croucher responded an hour later with a short email to other commissioners that stated that while commissioners were free to vote as they wished, supporting the Voice to Parliament was the AHRC’s “institutional responsibility.”
“You may each make your own choices in the referendum. Our responsibility as the [a national human rights institution] is clear,” she wrote.
Simultaneously, other emails show Croucher worked late into the night with the AHRC’s communication staff to draft a statement contradicting Finlay’s yet-to-be-published article and scheming how the body would respond to it.
“Hi all… so just confirming the media strategy for tomorrow,” one adviser wrote. Croucher’s email to commissioners was circulated to other staff to signal the AHRC’s stance.
The next morning, shortly after Finlay’s piece was published, the AHRC put out a statement from Croucher: “Commission welcomes constitutional alteration bill”.
Without explicitly referring to Finlay’s article, Croucher said the Voice to Parliament recognises the “unique and inherent rights that arise from their distinct status as Australia’s First Peoples”, a rebuke to Finlay’s claims that the Voice would undermine “foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination”.
“There is clear international guidance that establishing representative structures to support self-determination and representation for Indigenous peoples is necessary to prevent and overcome discrimination,” it read.
The communications also show how staff handled the fallout of the conflict. Throughout the day, AHRC communications staff flagged media requests and coverage of Finlay and Croucher’s statements.
That afternoon, senior media and communications manager Mark Franklin wrote to Croucher, AHRC chief executive Leanne Smith and other communications staff about the media investigating whether a commissioner could be fired and the reception of the Voice to Parliament referendum bill.
“A further heads-up that the Guardian has approached the A-Gs office with questions about the A-G’s powers to terminate commissioner appointments. Also, the A-G’s media team seemed unfazed about The Australian‘s coverage today — in fact, they sounded very pleased with reception the bill has received in Parliament,” he wrote.
“That’s good news,” Smith responded.
Typical cons political interference in statutary bodies. Captain’s pick to parachute a party oik into the position of most influence, then they publish under the aegis of the body, totally at odds with the facts and the non-partisan findings of that body in an attempt to muddy the waters.
This has been the least suitable appointment to the HRC since that mendacious, oleagenous little chancer grub, Tim Wilson – the one who argued for his uncle’s interests while on the taxpayer’s dollar, supposedly conducting ‘information’ town hall meetings.
I hope the new government goes through all the similar parasites like a dose of salts.
Loved your description of Wilson. I used a similar one for Frydenburg
“Simultaneously, other emails show Croucher worked late into the night with the AHRC’s communication staff to draft a statement contradicting Finlay’s yet-to-be-published article and scheming how the body would respond to it.”
That’s an…interesting…word choice.
That leapt our at me too dr. Anyone would think………. No surely not.
Agreed. I would never have described my past work as to how to respond via a public statement as “scheming”. Ridiculous
In the Crikey email that linked to this story, there’s a really egregious malapropism and it’s annoying. I’ve seen the same mistake on the ABC News website. Use of the word “rebuke” when it should be “rebuff” or in this case, “rebut”.
To rebuke is to tell someone off.
Croucher apparently rebutted some of Finlay’s claims.
Here’s the quote from the Crikey email:
“Shortly afterwards, Australian HRC president Rosalind Croucher put out a statement that, without citing her, rebuked some of Finlay’s claims.”
Refuted
Wait until people hear what words like “moot” and “ultimate” actually mean, despite the definitions they’ve adopted.
Another legacy of our worst government ever.
“Finlay was also one of the Institute of Public Affairs picks to replace Gillian Triggs in 2017.”. (The Guardian)
Crikey published an article about it by Kishor Napier-Raman on 6th September 2021 that’s a worth a look if you want more info, “Meet our new human rights commissioner with the perfect credentials (Lib, IPA, 18c) – Lorraine Finlay has in the past asserted a number of positions that may place her at odds with the Australian Human Rights Commission.”