Thanks for this thoughtful piece, Stephen.

An essential difference between Brennan and Albrechtsen is their attitudes at the outset of the human rights inquiry.

Brennan entered the process a declared fence-sitter on the issue of statutory human rights protections, and he used the process to gain a deep understanding of the issues involved. To my knowledge, Albrechtsen has always been against statutory human rights protections. Her participation has been limited to cherry-picking the points that could conceivably prop up her view.

I think this article although well written and thought through from a conservative's perspective does little to advance either side of the cause.

I find it hard to reconcile that Frank Brennan is anything but a Clayton's conservative. Given his life long commitment to the Catholic Church and its dogma it is hard to see that this wouldn't influence his reasoning in favour of status quo (religious influence). It could be argued that a bill of human rights might alter undermine this influence. especially if it involved contentious issues like abortion etc.

Janet well, is at best an entertainer like Bolt and about un-objective pushing their own versions of manipulative philosophic arrogance. Janet like all so called 'influencers'(sic)seemingly do not understand the needs and influences at the other end of the continuoum of society, towards which the marority are skewed.

While most of them are eloquent/clever they all have similar faults, in their arguments specifically, they cherry pick supporting evidence ignoring the rest.
And are IMO all part of the problem (more biased noise)pushing their own selfish perspectives.

I therefore don't believe that they have anything meaningful to objectively add to this or any debate about what is good for the public.

In one aspect she does have a point in that 50k submissions doesn't necessarily reflect the will of 20 million people. It merely demonstrates the more active.

Sadly This article should re titled FB&JA : a contrast in conservative thinking.

I would suggest an objectively worded (not 'balanced') booklet of all the arguments from both sides be produced and distributed, followed by a referendum some time later.

PS I would suggest the issue should be the human rights bill concept not these two unrepresentave individual's differences

Rather than grasping the "Imagination", I would suggest that it got the "Attention" of the public. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" might well apply here. The cries of a minority who can't get their agenda passed any other way should be ignored.

I have read Father Brennan's exemplary report and heard a number of radio interviews. But do I believe that even the ALP is committed to human rights? No more, not after how I and other local government councillors were forced to voluntarily resign our jobs recently, and by our own political party. Forced to resign honest work, with NO interest in our human rights whatsoever So I can work for a political lobbyist, a hard core union, a greedy financier, a person of questionable character.... but not for a MP. Like so many others I am losing considerable income and it is hurting but our human rights, our civil and political rights, were trodden on. And to add to that, most of my peers are terrified of saying publicly what I am here.

>> "If it ain't broke don't fix it" might well apply here.

it is most definitely broke.

"Ed Coper, in the same edition of The Australian, argues convincingly that those who seek to invalidate the response of the public to the Consultation (and the overwhelming support for the concept of a Human Rights Act) have failed to realise how important new communications technology is in encouraging members of the public to become involved in public debate"
"Of the five specific ways that human rights could be improved that were included in the survey, support for all of them was over 50%, and in some cases as high as 90%. However, support (and preference) was highest for those options which did not involve any additional definition of rights or protection." Appendix B Colmar Brunton community research report: Summary
"The telephone survey had a total sample size of N=1200, and was stratified as n=150 in each state / territory in order to allow jurisdictional analysis. To maximise the representativeness of the survey sample, true random digit dialling was used; and age, gender and metropolitan / regional quotas were used to structure the raw sample, with statistical weighting used to correct any final discrepancies to the actual population."
So they conducted a random survey of the Australian population to elucidate their views on how human rights could be improved and as you see above, a Human Rights Act was the least preferred. So much for the "overwhelming support for the concept of a Human Rights Act".

Well, in my opinion the rights of Australians ARE broken, but quite frankly, Frank is NO fixer.
In fact, he's probably the least credible person to be heading this project (a Jesuit Priest who hates abortion and euthanasia, prefers doctors to be able to deny services because of superstition- which will alienate any secular, liberal person- yet he's also a refugee advocate, which will alienate everyone else except for other hardcore religious fundies).
The ONLY credible position he has, in my opinion, is his advocacy for Indigenous rights.

Give me rights to initiate referendums, and real input into government policy,
state covered dental,
rights to full information,
some stronger Aboriginal equality rights and sovereignty rights,
rights against developers,
rights to abortions, to euthanasia,
protection of people leaking scandalous conspiracies,
and most importantly, the right to say NO if my city is to be used as a giant VIP party (as we saw in APEC and WYD).

Until most of these are secured, and there is NO trace of religious vilification laws, vital service providers like doctors being allowed to pick and choose their duties, or the rights of the Harry Seidlers to arbitrarily decide to impose giant shoeboxes on people that don't want it, you will know how I will vote when (if) I get a say in it being implemented.

The number of submissions for one side or the other doesn't indicate what the public thinks. It only indicates what the organised lobby groups think. The only surefire way of gauging public opinion is to ask the public - at a referendum. If those supporting the proposed human rights agenda are, indeed, the majority, then the proponents will have no qualms about a referendum, will they? They'll only resist a referendum if they think the public can't be trusted to come up with what they consider to be the right result.

The Yanks have a Bill of Rights, about a third of their population is in Goal ; three strikes and in you go .

You might be starving because you have no job , maybe a bit retarded that doesn't matter ; shucks! in you go !

All this can happen over a Mars Bar the Bureaucrat Goals you .

Without a Bill of Rights the Court Magistrate weighs up the situation
and fits up the sinner with a sting appropriate to the demeanor .

Which ways best ?

A Bill of Rights is effective only if it is real, has teeth, not too many exclusions, and MPs are committed to it. The Charter of Human Rights in Victoria has proven to be a joke and so I am lacking in any faith that this would succeed

Not really a balanced piece - first we get the PR fluff for Brennan and then the dismissal of the Australian columnist. And as for the tit-for-tat about what proportion of Australians are represented by the submissions? Hell - that's the whole problem with the HRA argument. We already have representation in Canberra based on our votes and we entrust these representatives to enact laws and run the country. That's the only number you have to worry about, Stephen: who has the numbers in the Australian parliament. I don't think it's left or right or internet versus genuine submissions. And I sure as heck don't think it has anything to do with what a committee thinks of whether an act of parliament complies with a Human Rights Act. Like most Australians, I prefer imperfect elected politicians to perfectly correct politburos.

Something that most people forget is that there really IS no difference between executive politicians and judicial members- and no difference in capabilities to anyone else.
They have the same personal hangups, prejudices, attitude problems, and can be corrupted and lobbied no differently from each other.

The difference is that one group gets the "30% of your local constituents think you're the better of two evils" award, the others don't.

But in the end, it's nothing but an exclusive group of people with their own agenda (and axe to grind), deciding what OUR rights should be based on what suits THEM- elected or not.

A colleague in the UK sent me this following my questions of him relating to their bill of rights. Many in the UK are now questioning why a bill to protect minority interests is now penalising all? He said we should start civil war rather than follow the UK. Their first mistake was to have such a bill at all, the second was to allow Church influence in its composition.

1. Teaching Maths In 1990
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80.
How much was his profit?

2. Teaching Maths In 2000
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20.
Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

3. Teaching Maths In 2005
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habit of animals or the preservation of our woodlands.
Your assignment: Discuss how the birds and squirrels might feel as the logger cut down their homes just for a measly profit of £20.

4. Teaching Maths In 2009
A logger is arrested for trying to cut down a tree in case it may be offensive to Muslims or other religious groups not consulted in the felling licence. He is also fined a £100 as his chainsaw is in breach of Health and Safety legislation as it deemed too dangerous and could cut something. His DNA is sampled and his details circulated throughout all government agencies. He protests and is taken to court and fined another £100 because he is such an easy target.

Your assignment: How many times is the logger going to have to be arrested and fined before he realises that he is never going to make £20 profit by hard work, give up, sign onto the dole and live off the state for the rest of his life