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.
