Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has hit back at Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Credit:Andrew Meares And what was their evidence? A story in that morning's Australian newspaper. Under the front-page headline "Deaths of Bali duo 'link to boats'", it asserted Triggs had connected Indon­esia's refusal to negotiate on the death penalty for the executed Bali drug smugglers to the Abbott government's policy of turning back the boats. In fact, she'd done no such thing. What she had done was answer a question at a forum in Adelaide about whether Australia could fashion a policy that struck a better balance between stopping the boats and treating asylum seekers humanely. Her response ran for some six minutes and 800 words and amounted to an impassioned plea for national leadership. Both major political parties were accused of adopting policies that were "an egregious breach of our international obligations". "Yes, boats have got to be stopped. Drownings at sea have got to stop. We hear this mantra all the time and nobody can disagree with it. It's a non sequitur," she said. "But have we thought about what the consequences are of pushing people back to our neighbours, Indonesia? Is it any wonder that Indonesia will not engage with us on other issues that we care about, like the death penalty."

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said he would not comment on the operation. Credit:Andrew Meares The context for this observation was an opinion article Triggs had penned on May 7 in which she presented the case for countries in the Asia Pacific to agree to a moratorium on the death penalty "as a first step towards ending it for good globally". The sad deaths of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran could, she argued, be the spark "that ignites a consensus among all states of the Asia Pacific to rethink adherence to a policy that is increasingly cruel and out of place in the 21st century". Her point in Adelaide, in context, was an utterly unremarkable statement of the obvious: that for Australia to take unilateral action Indonesia does not like, such as turning back boats, makes it harder to engage Indonesia on the issues this nation seeks to advance. "Border Force are out of control": Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen Triggs is a lawyer of international renown, but she is not a politician, a diplomat or an especially savvy media performer and, with hindsight, she could have been more alert to the danger of misinterpretation. Equally, journalists and politicians have an obligation to take account of what people mean to say, as much as the actual words they use, and to seek clarification if the context or meaning is not clear.

Even when Triggs issued a clarification, acknowledging "the extraordinary efforts made by the government and Australian community to prevent these tragic executions", The Australian and the politicians said it made no difference. Attorney-General Senator George Brandis. Credit:Andrew Meares Brandis' most recent attack, on Thursday, came after I reported what the government had written to the United Nations after a formal complaint about the government's attacks on Triggs was lodged with the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Dated April 24 this year and signed by John Quinn, Australia's ambassador to the UN, it said: "The Australian government respects the independence of the commission and recognises that it will sometimes be critical of the government. Though the government will not always agree with the commission's recommendations, it welcomes a vigorous and diverse human rights debate in Australia, and the commission plays a constructive role in that debate." Who does he think he's kidding?

When Dutton finished with Triggs last Friday, he turned his attention to Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who was reported in that day's Age to have been the target of secret surveillance operation during a visit to the Australian-run detention centre on Nauru. A former security guard had outlined the alleged operation, code-named Raven, in a submission to a Senate inquiry and Wilson Security – the company contracted to guard the detainees – had confirmed that "individuals" had been disciplined for "acting beyond their brief". When Dutton was asked to comment, he described the story as "complete nonsense", branding Hanson-Young "an embarrassment to our country". "I challenge the media, frankly, to go back and look at some of the claims that Senator Hanson-Young's made over the last couple of years and look at what's been substantiated," he added. "Most of it is attention seeking. Ultimately, in the end, she's wrong and that's, I think, more of a reflection on her than anybody else." Let's take up the challenge. In September last year, Hanson-Young went public with allegations of sexual abuse by security guards at the Nauru centre, but only after raising them with then-minister Scott Morrison and receiving no reply. A few days later, the minister responded by way of a "drop" to Sydney's Daily Telegraph. Under the splash headline "Claims of abuse on island go overboard", the paper reported that a leaked "intelligence report" had found that staff employed by the service provider, Save The Children, had fabricated the stories of sexual abuse and misbehaved in other ways.

Eventually, Hanson-Young's claims led to the Moss inquiry that reported in March. It found evidence of rape inside the centre, sexual assault of minors and guards trading marijuana for sexual favours from female detainees – and no evidence that Save the Children staff had encouraged self-harm, fabricated abuse allegations or orchestrated protests. Hanson-Young was vindicated. This week the Senate inquiry was told Wilson Security had terminated seven staff for child abuse and another five for sexual assault. It also heard Dutton's department confirm that, acting without sanction, a shift supervisor had authorised surveillance of Hanson-Young "and clearly some subordinates complied with that direction". The supervisor had since been disciplined. And the response from Dutton to this stunning repudiation? "The minister has commented and has nothing further to add," a spokesman said. Let's hope he is more rigorous, and fair, when deciding whether to strip someone of their citizenship – and less prone to assert conclusions in the absence of evidence. Michael Gordon is political editor of The Age.