The Urgent Call for an Australian Charter of Rights
In a nation where the concept of a "fair go" is deeply embedded in the cultural psyche, the absence of a comprehensive, codified charter of rights stands as a glaring anomaly. Julianne Schultz, a prominent commentator, highlights that extensive polling and research spanning more than five decades reveal a striking consensus: somewhere between 70% and 87% of the Australian population desires such a charter. This overwhelming public sentiment underscores a profound yearning for clarity and protection in the realm of human rights, yet political will remains frustratingly elusive.
The Political Paralysis and Legislative Overreach
The tragic events at Bondi last December, which saw human rights blatantly violated and lives irrevocably altered, failed to catalyse the necessary political trigger for reform. Instead, the response has been characterised by punitive measures—outlawing hate speech, banning groups, and prohibiting demonstrations through ministerial decree. This approach, while understandable in moments of crisis, reflects a deep-seated tendency in Australian politics to prioritise criminalisation over constructive dialogue.
As noted by UNSW law professor Luke McNamara, there is a critical need to moderate expectations regarding what expanding criminalisation can achieve. Hasty legislative actions often widen the net of the criminal law without addressing foundational flaws, potentially causing more harm than good. The discourse in recent weeks has devolved into low-grade political posturing and leadership speculation, rather than fostering the "robust and respectful" public debate essential for social cohesion.
The Paradox of Opposition and Public Support
It is somewhat paradoxical that political parties historically opposed to a bill of rights—which would enshrine principles like freedom of speech—have also been vocal critics of proposals to criminalise hate speech. This contradiction highlights how human rights are frequently reduced to mere debating points in political games, rather than being treated as fundamental pillars of democracy.
The comprehensive report published late last year by the Whitlam Institute and the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) documents longstanding opposition from Liberal and National parties. Yet, the Australian public has consistently demonstrated support for a codified charter, seeking reassurance that their rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, privacy, and association are not just ideals but enforceable realities.
Learning from Global Examples and Historical Context
Observing events on American streets serves as a stark reminder that a codified bill of rights does not inherently prevent state overreach. However, public awareness of these rights empowers citizens to challenge an out-of-control state, fostering a culture of accountability. In Australia, the idea of including a bill of rights dates back to debates leading up to federation 125 years ago, but fears over limiting state power presented an insurmountable obstacle—a hurdle that persists today.
If constitutional change proves too daunting, there is a pressing need for national legislation to buttress the limited rights defined in the constitution. This would replace the current scattered and piecemeal framework, which fails to provide comprehensive protection. More than 130 groups have now joined the HRLC-led campaign, advocating for Australia to finally catch up with comparable nations, over 80 years after the idea was first proposed in a 1944 referendum.
Building Social Capital Through Positive Assertion
The repeated pattern of political inaction, summarised by a government insider's remark that "it's just too hard," points to a deeper issue of prioritisation. Changing the terms of the political debate to focus on a positive assertion of rights could significantly enhance social cohesion and build social capital, offering a more effective solution than punitive laws. As Schultz emphasises, the "pleasant fiction" of a rules-based order has been shattered by events, royal commissions, and growing concerns over social fragmentation.
In conclusion, the path forward requires courageous leadership and a shift in political mindset. By heeding the clear public mandate and learning from global precedents, Australia can move beyond Band-Aid solutions to address foundational flaws, ensuring that human rights are more than just a debating point—they become the bedrock of a fair and cohesive society.
