The government appointed a committee to consult on methods of protecting human rights, headed by Jesuit priest and lawyer Frank Brennan, early in its term. McClelland has now released the government’s response, which is a masterpiece of ambiguity and weasel words.

The Rudd government certainly hasn’t distinguished itself in the realm of civil liberties.

I find myself in agreement with the conclusion of Guy Beres’ post:

All things considered, it’s hard not to view the government’s performance on this issue as rather weak, and the outcome here as an indictment of the Rudd Government’s use of the public consultation as a mechanism for guiding policy. If you’re going to make public consultations part of your modus operandi as a government, you better well make sure that you provide a robust explanation for why you have flatly rejected the recommendations of the people you are consulting.

And also with this:

However, I am somewhat confused by the assertion that the introduction of a national act would be somehow “divisive” or would create an atmosphere of “uncertainty or suspicion”. Surely one could argue quite effectively that the absence of any legal bedrock on human rights in Australia is a fairly considerable source of division and uncertainty? A federal Human Rights Act would lay Australia’s human rights cards on the table for all to see.

Indeed. A Charter of Rights seems divisive only to hardline religious figures, conservative commentators, Tony Abbott and John Howard and NSW Labor hacks.

Elsewhere: Woolly Days, Andrew Norton.