The Federal government has rejected a Human Rights Charter.
This is good news for those who were concerned about it's potential for the introduction of a radical left-wing agenda by stealth.
It is bad news for those who think that the current system does not do enough to protect human rights.
Will the Labor government's compromise solution satisfy both sides or no-one?

"This is good news for those who were concerned about it's potential for the introduction of a radical left-wing agenda by stealth".

Well you must be disappointed that Rudd knocked it back Proxy - now you will have to revise your paranoia about left wing agendas and by stealth no less.

Good grief, get a grip.

No surprise- it was supposed to fail from the start.

You see, Rudd's government knew they were expected to actually look into a rights motion which they made such song and dance about when they were in opposition:
But knew they would be treading thin ice with the conservative vote to just throw one up.

So they did quite a clever maneuver- arranged an *investigation* committee run by the LEAST credible rights advocate on the planet- a loony neocon jesuit Reverend refugee advocate and anti-abortion/anti-euthanasia advocate! Such a combination would surely spell the antithesis of most Australians one way or another.

The Left would have to concede this extremely conservative individual a fair choice for 'balance' on principle that the rights ARE supposed to represent everyone, and its eventual failure would have been tolerated as a sincere attempt to make it happen.

In other words, the government simply put on a show!

Dear Proxy,

The Australian newspaper had this to say:

"There is no crisis of rights in Australia.
We know our country is robustly free and most
people have a high civic IQ...

What has triumphed, and we owe this to the
Prime Minister - is a more politically
literate view, a wisdom that understands that
when you codify rights you freeze possibilities..."

The article summed it up beautifully:

"The Prime Minister understands that the ebb and
flow of common law, free elections and freedom of
speech will help keep us freer than lawyer's
arguments over every word and clause in a charter..."

"It's the ethos of a country that counts, the
spirit of the people."

I doubt if anyone is going to complain, except
for Geoffrey R. of course. Although that
depends how well his book sells.

Straight out of "Yes Minister" !
Ephisode 12.

Any human rights, should come with a use by date, or you end up like America. Slavery was never a part of our society, so why a human rights. You are free to do any thing at all, that is legal.