The oddest part about many of the decisions Gillian Triggs has made is that she has done more to discredit the notion of human rights abuse than any actual instance uncovered since she came to head the AHRC. Is there more to this latest instance or is it as bizarre as it sounds:
A TOP tech firm has been told to cough up $76,639 in compo to a drug dealer, after besieged human rights boss Gillian Triggs ruled he had been unfairly fired over his criminal record.
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) wants Data#3 to pay the sacked IT consultant $71,639 in lost earnings plus $5000 in compo for “hurt, humiliation and distress as a result of being discriminated against’’.
Ms Triggs — whose politically-correct decisions have triggered calls for her resignation as AHRC president — gave the eyebrow-raising edict that obtaining a security clearance or passing a police check were not “inherent requirements’’ of the IT job.
But Data#3, which does sensitive work for government agencies, told the AHRC that the contractor’s employment was “untenable’’ because all employees “must have and exhibit the highest ethical standards’’. . .
The sacked worker, known as Mr AW, was hired on a $185,000 salary package as a Microsoft “solution specialist’’ late in 2013.
He was fired a few weeks later after Data#3 discovered his criminal conviction on six counts of selling ecstasy in New Zealand in 2011.
In what sense is it dealing with “human rights” abuse to punish firms to the tune of thousands of dollars for making a judgement call about whether they can trust an individual who has withheld information about their prior criminal conviction? Is there some kind of law she is following, or does she just make it up as she goes along?