Myer attack leader refused truce

A  Human Rights Commission member rejected  a strategy to placate the angry retailer.

INTERNAL emails show that a senior member of the Human Rights Commission -- who launched an unauthorised, wrong and damaging public attack against Myer -- later rejected as "unacceptable" a confidential strategy to placate the retailer and avoid a major stoush with broader political ramifications.

Graeme Innes, the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, refused to agree on careful wording in a joint draft statement proposed by Myer.

The statement, which did not state that Mr Innes was at fault for his attack, would have led to a truce with the retailer and prevented the subsequent political row over the agency's conduct.

Documents released to The Weekend Australian under Freedom of Information laws also disclose that while Mr Innes, a lawyer, cited great public support for leading his online social media attack on Myer, the commission received some furious responses, including from carers of disabled people who regarded his stance as "outrageous" and "bullying".

The attack started after Myer chief executive Bernie Brookes told a Macquarie securities conference in early May that a $300 levy on people for the national disability insurance scheme meant they would have $300 less to spend at Myer.

The controversial internal workings of the taxpayer-funded body in the Myer case are likely to be closely examined by George Brandis if he becomes attorney-general, with a mandate to reform a commission he regards as politically compromised and out of touch with fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech.

The documents show that the commission's president, Gillian Triggs, replied to a complainant who warned her: "What the Disability Commission has done smacks more of a totalitarian state or a third-world country. If your interest is fairness for disabled people, then you shouldn't be unfair in other dealings.

"For you to defend (Mr Innes) shows either a lack of experience or a lack of judgment as regards the responsibilities of the president of an organisation such as the (commission)."

Another complainant told her: "Graeme Innes's lobbying and campaigning against Myer risks irrevocably damaging (the commission's) reputation for impartiality. I recommend he resigns before your organisation loses further trust."

Professor Triggs told The Weekend Australian that Mr Innes, who is remunerated with a package of more than $320,000 a year, had displayed "a failure to abide by the well-established protocols of the commission", however, she had not asked for his resignation and he did not offer it.

"All the commissioners agree that he had acted outside the protocols," she said. She said Mr Innes was "very firm in his view that he did the right thing in the context".

Mr Innes was in Geneva yesterday for human rights talks and was unavailable to comment.

The FOI documents show that Professor Triggs had decided Mr Innes was in the wrong for breaching protocols by not consulting the other six commissioners before his attack, which flouted policy by singling out an individual business. She made this clear in confidential talks with Myer chairman Paul McClintock, leading to the draft statement.

Mr Innes failed to consult his colleagues when he drove a social media backlash against Myer that its executives feared would escalate into serious reputational damage, fewer sales and financial losses. Myer said it supported the NDIS and regretted the remarks.

But the online petition garnered tens of thousands of signatures and stayed active for two months as Myer, furious over the campaign, and the commission, which publicly refused to admit it had done anything wrong, looked for a way to lessen the vitriolic criticisms of Mr Brookes, the retailer and its staff.

On May 31, Professor Triggs said in an internal email in relation to an early draft statement: "This looks good. Perhaps we can send this to Myer and get their reaction."

After further revisions, however, Mr Innes rejected it and told his colleagues: "I find the (Myer draft release) statement unacceptable, both as a member of the commission and as the Disability Discrimination Commissioner."

Earlier, defending his role, he had said: "I can't think of any other time when a call to action by the commission on an issue has received such a positive response."

Professor Triggs told him "it is a pity that this matter seems to have raised once again the suggestion that we do not support the right to freedom of speech".

After five weeks of negotiation with Myer, Professor Triggs wrote to her fellow commissioners on June 18 to thank them for their "wise advice" and said: "I have decided not to go ahead with this draft press release in the circumstances. I will keep you posted."

Mr Innes said: "As you know, not going ahead is my preferred course of action. I appreciate advice from others on this issue."

The refusal of the commission to reach agreement with Myer led to the retailer blowing the whistle in early July and calling publicly for a major review of its operation.