The Human Rights Commission tramples over the rights of Myer. Sack it The IPA's Simon Breheny on the Human Rights Commission's disgraceful campaign to single out Myer for public scapegoating - a virtual blackmailing to advance a cause dreamed up by on-line activists: The Australian Human Rights Commission is in all out war with one of Australia's largest retailers demonstrating that it is now completely out of control: MYER is refusing to retreat from a stoush with the Human Rights Commission, with chairman Paul McClintock criticising the nation's top anti-discrimination officer for launching an online campaign to persuade the department store to introduce a 10 per cent quota of disabled workers. Mr McClintock said yesterday he was "astonished" by the role of Disability Commissioner Graeme Innes, whose online petition on Change.org was spurred by Myer chief executive Bernie Brookes's now infamous May 1 comment about the funding of the national DisabilityCare scheme. At the time, Mr Brookes told an investment forum that the Medicare surcharge to fund the scheme would affect the retailer's sales. You can see the petition for yourself here. McClintock has written about the extraordinary actions of the Commission in a stinging piece for the AFR: I will admit that I was astonished. I have spent much of my career combining business and public sector governance, and I believed that public officials do not jump on bandwagons which have no substantive base, that they do not do so without first attempting to contact the individual and company involved, and certainly that they do not initiate or support petitions to punish a company or force it to accept programs with no basis in law or government policy. Setting up a change.org petition against one company is a totally inappropriate role for the disability discrimination commissioner... This kind of ridiculous behaviour is exactly why the IPA has called for the abolition of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Myer accused the Human Rights Commission of double-dealing and vindictiveness - too often the failings of those so convinced of their moral superiority that they excuse themselves the very things they condemn in the evil "other": Myer chairman Paul McClintock has demanded the Attorney-General review the Australian Human Rights Commission's conduct... Mr McClintock says that AHRC president Gillian Triggs reneged on a promise to make a public statement distancing itself from its disability commissioner's criticism of Mr Brookes... Mr McClintock said the Myer board asked for the statement because Mr Brookes was being "attacked for his personal morality and commitment to community." "It wasn't a criticism that Bernie was not a good retailer but that Bernie was not a good man, which is not true," Mr McClintock told The Australian Financial Review. Myer said Professor Triggs had given an undertaking that the commission would release a statement saying it did not support a social media campaign being run by disability commissioner Graeme Innes but was forced to back down because any statement from the commission requires unanimous support. Myer said that it had agreed to a draft press release suggested by Professor Triggs, only for the AHRC president to retreat. However, Professor Triggs has fought back, denying Mr McClintock's version of events. She said neither she nor the commission had ever agreed to a draft proposed by Myer. One side isn't telling the truth, and this suggests which: Professor Triggs ... said she had been clear from the outset that any negotiated position would need to be agreed by the commission's lawyers and the five other commissioners, who include Mr Innes and sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick. We could have agreed on a very fruitful statement that we were working collaboratively, but they refused to accept either [draft] variation, including the one I gave to them around last weekend. Myer said it did agree to that draft but Professor Triggs sought to alter it after securing the retailer's agreement. Triggs, the head of the Human Rights Commission, last night tried to defend her commission's vendetta against Myer. She even admits it tried to stifle debate on a matter of great public interest: EMMA ALBERICI: Do you have any regrets at all about your reaction to Bernie Brookes" comments, the chief executive of Myer, about the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme? GILLIAN TRIGGS: Well we don't regret it and the reason is that the remarks were inappropriate in the context. The disability community was very anxious... that a major business group like Myer could destabilise the debate in relation to funding. Of course the debate is important, it must be had, but in that context the disability community was very concerned that the remarks would jeopardise the future of that legislation. The commission admits it singled out a retailer for expressing an opinion about the funding of a massive (and largely unfunded) new social welfare scheme the commission supported? This is disgraceful. And where is the justice in the Human Rights Commission then seeking to force this employer - above any other - to adopt a wild and expensive hiring plan that has no basis in law? I think the community started to use the social media. This was picked up by Commissioner Innes and we attempted to work with Myer to see how we could turn what was rather an unfortunate remark into something that would be more positive so that we might be able to work in engaging Myer and other members of the business community in a challenge to see if we could encourage employment of disabled people to 10 per cent, which is something that the Australian disability network has taken on... EMMA ALBERICI: Well the Myer chairman clearly saw this as an attack on his company. The Institute of Public Affairs has said that Graeme Innes as a taxpayer-funded official was exercising a political - discretionary political campaign he was operating. GILLIAN TRIGGS: Well, the Australian Human Rights Commission may not play a political role. Our job is to ensure that the law and the human rights laws are maintained. We do not get into these kinds of disputes. It's not how we operate. But there will be differences of views as to how the advocacy role that Commissioner Innes plays is carried out. And we expect and welcome a robust debate about this and about what the role of the commission is. We welcome it. The Human Rights Commission now welcomes debate? Yet the last time it heard one it singled out Myer for vilification and special punishment. It is out of control.