Engaging but also measured, and he held the line for a national rights instrument. Interestingly, he seemed tacitly to accept that any such instrument would be along the lines of the Victorian Charter model rather than anything more ambitious; at least three possible explanations for that spring to mind, being variously beliefs on his part (from most to least plausible) that (1) advocating anything more radical (whether in the form of more direct human rights protection via ordinary Commonwealth legislation, or, even more so, constitutional amendment) would be doomed to failure, (2) a Charter-style Act is actually the best model for national rights protection, all things considered (perhaps having regard in particular to the UK Human Rights Act), and (3) simple oversight.
Anyway, I reckon all signs are pointing towards us getting a national human rights Act at some point in the next few years, always assuming that Rudd gets another term in office (as he surely must unless something goes badly wrong)...
