Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop has undermined the government's stance that there had been no inducement to Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs to leave her job, confirming an international posting for Ms Triggs had been the subject of discussions.
The revelation has raised fresh questions about the government's handling of the Human Rights Commission's presidency, and brought forward claims that the government had misled parliament over the affair.
Ms Bishop's statement in a fiery question time fuels opposition claims Ms Triggs was enticed to resign ahead of the release of a report critical of government policy of keeping children in immigration detention.
The continuing furore over Professor Triggs came amid reports of further backbench rumblings about Prime Minister Tony Abbott's leadership, including a Channel 7 report that backbenchers had approached Mr Turnbull and were calling on senior ministers to bring on a leadership spill.
On Thursday afternoon Sky News tweeted that government sources were suggesting Professor Triggs had wanted to be "looked after" if she quit the commission. However, in a statement to Fairfax Media, Professor Triggs said she "categorically denies any suggestion that the issue of a job offer and resignation came at [my] instigation". Professor Triggs told the Senate hearing this week she considered the offer made to her a "disgraceful proposition".
After three days of scrutiny, Ms Bishop conceded on Thursday that an "international" role was in fact discussed with Professor Triggs in early February, during a meeting in her office with the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Chris Moraitis. However, it is unclear how specific the discussion was, and which side raised the international option.
The February 3 meeting was the same one in which Professor Triggs was told - according to her version of events - that the Attorney-General George Brandis had lost confidence in her and wanted her to consider her position.
Under questioning earlier in the week, the legally trained Professor Triggs had stopped short of categorising the alternative posting as an "inducement". Offering an inducement carries a five-year jail term.
Ms Bishop's concession came after Labor highlighted the inconsistency of Mr Moraitis telling a Senate committee that a specific role was discussed, while the Ms Bishop and Mr Abbott maintained to parliament that no resignation was sought, and no inducement had been offered.
The Bishop admission appeared to contradict repeated denials by both Mr Abbott and Ms Bishop that any offer of any other role was made to the Human Rights Commission president.
The government has strenuously denied "inducing" Ms Triggs to fall on her sword despite its criticisms of her impartiality.
"I repeat, the president of the Human Rights Commission has not been asked to resign," Mr Abbott again told question time on Thursday.
"No inducement has been offered as the president herself has declared to Senate estimates, but Madam Speaker, the government has lost confidence in her - we have lost confidence in the president."
Under sustained opposition attack on Thursday, Ms Bishop said, "There was no job offer made to the president of the Human Rights Commission".
"There was no request for her to resign and there was no inducement offered," she told Parliament.
"A role was raised that related to international affairs, the details of which ... 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."
Asked the difference between a specific role and a job offer, Ms Bishop suggested it may not have been the government's idea anyway.
"There is a world of difference, Madam Speaker, it depends on who raised the issue of a role and no specific job offer was made" she said.
The Australian Human Rights Commission report, The Forgotten Children, was tabled on the February 11, sparking a furious response by the Abbott government which believes it has unfairly targetted the Coalition rather than Labor.
Mr Abbott told Parliament the government had lost confidence in Professor Triggs' conduct because she had informally discussed undertaking her review with "Labor ministers" in early 2013, shortly after commencing her five-year statutory term, but had held off for fear of the review being caught up in politics of an election year.
Liberals believe that was a thin justification for a biased decision to shield Labor from criticism and direct the blame for detaining the children of asylum seekers on the incoming Coalition government.
The government argues it has dramatically reduced the number of minors detained by stopping the boats, after Labor locked up nearly 2000 over its time in office.
The parliamentary scrutiny has exposed Ms Bishop - as the minister representing the Attorney-General in the House of Representatives - to fierce criticism for the combative actions of Mr Abbott and Mr Brandis after both men launched politically motivated attacks on Professor Triggs' performance.
