The Abbott government has come under pressure over its account of a meeting with the Human Rights Commission president, Gillian Triggs, after apparent inconsistencies between Julie Bishop’s comments to parliament and earlier official testimony to a committee hearing.



A day after the foreign affairs minister made a definitive statement to parliament that “no such [job] offer was made” to Triggs, Bishop conceded on Thursday that “a role was raised that related to international affairs”.

But Bishop insisted there was “a world of difference” between discussions about a role and a job offer, and she reaffirmed her denial that the government offered any “inducement” to obtain Triggs’s resignation from the Human Rights Commission over alleged bias against the Coalition.

The government faces ongoing scrutiny about a meeting on 3 February between Triggs and the secretary of the attorney-general’s department, Chris Moraitis, who delivered a message that his boss, George Brandis, had lost confidence in her presidency.

Moraitis told a Senate estimates committee on Tuesday that Brandis “was asking me to formally put on the table or mention that there would be a senior legal role, a specific senior role, that her skills could be used for”.

Triggs told the same committee hearing that she had immediately rejected the “disgraceful proposal” because she believed it would undermine the commission’s independence.

“To suggest that I should, in the light of the political environment and the concerns about the inquiry, quietly step down and take another position that might reflect my skills I thought was an entirely inappropriate offer to make to someone who has a position that is designed to prevent that kind of proposal,” Triggs said.

The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, asked Bishop on Wednesday: “What was the alternative role the government wanted Professor Triggs to take?”

Bishop gave a one-sentence response: “I can advise that no such offer was made.”

Following up this claim in question time on Thursday, Labor asked Bishop to clarify the “specific role” that Moraitis had mentioned in Senate estimates.

“There was no job offer made to the president of the Human Rights Commission,” said Bishop, who represents Brandis in the lower house.

“There was no request for her to resign and there was no inducement offered. A role was raised that related to international affairs.”

Bishop declined to reveal what the role would have entailed. “As the secretary of the Attorney General’s Department said in Senate estimates, it was a sensitive matter that he did not wish to give details of in Senate estimates, so I don’t give details of it,” she said.

The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, then asked Bishop to explain “the difference between a specific role and a job offer”.

“There is a world of difference,” Bishop replied. “It depends who raised the issue of the role and no specific job offer was made.”

When Shorten said Bishop had “finally admitted” that a role was discussed, the prime minister, Tony Abbott, accused the opposition of “verballing” the foreign affairs minister in an “attempt to smear and character assassinate”.

“The minister for foreign affairs critically, critically … said it would depend on by whom it was raised,” Abbott said.

“While the leader of the opposition is engaged in character assassination and semiotic analysis of Senate estimates, this government is getting on with doing the right thing by the people of Australia.”

Abbott repeated his criticism of Triggs over her handling of the inquiry into the health impacts of holding children in immigration detention, saying the president “was incapable of appreciating the difference between starting the boats and stopping the boats, the difference between putting people into detention and taking people out of detention”.

“I stand by the attorney general, I stand by the minister for foreign affairs and I absolutely stand by the secretary of the attorney general’s department,” Abbott said.

Triggs issued a statement late on Thursday standing by the evidence she gave at Senate estimates, after some media outlets reported unnamed government sources as disputing her account.

A commission spokeswoman said Triggs “categorically denies any suggestion that the issue of a job offer and resignation came at her instigation”.

Brandis wrote an opinion piece for the Australian on Friday arguing the independence of the Human Rights Commission was “not absolute” and its members should not be “immune from criticism”, but the article did not include any commentary about discussions over another job for Triggs.

Moraitis, Brandis and Triggs spoke at length about the 3 February meeting when they were questioned by the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee on Tuesday.

Moraitis said he had authority from Brandis to mention his instructions for the secretary’s meeting with Triggs in Sydney.

“They were as follows,” Moraitis said. “Unfortunately, the attorney does not have confidence in Professor Triggs in her present role as commission president.

“Nevertheless, he retained significant goodwill towards Triggs and has high regard for her legal skills. In that respect, the government would be prepared to consider positively a senior legal role for her, which I specifically mentioned – a specific role, which I am well aware of.”

Brandis told the same committee: “It was my wish that Professor Triggs, having reflected on her position, would recognise that it was untenable and was doing the commission harm. However, it was not my wish that Professor Triggs be reputationally damaged. And so, as a matter of goodwill towards her and in earnest of my good intentions towards her, I did say to Mr Moraitis that I hoped Professor Triggs could be encouraged or would be willing to serve the government in other capacities, and that, if she stood aside from the commission, that did not reflect a lack of confidence on my part in her ability as a lawyer and, in particular, as an international lawyer.”

Triggs told the committee there was “no doubt” in her mind that the pressure to resign and the job offer “were connected”, but she stopped short of describing it as an “inducement”.

“I prefer not to use that term, especially as it is a legal term of art,” Triggs said. “But I certainly, in a layman’s sense, saw it as a basis for motivation. It would be a reason that somebody might agree to resign their position – knowing that they would perhaps be secure in some other position.

“That was obviously running through my mind. But, again, for the reasons I have explained, the very idea of resigning would threaten the entire reputation and independence of the commission in a way which would have a dramatic effect not only on me but on all of the commission, particularly the place of the commission in the processes of human rights protection in Australia.”

Labor has referred the alleged inducement to the Australian federal police, which confirmed it would evaluate the issue.