In a world where the fundamental principle of human dignity is under increasing threat, Australia stands out for a concerning constitutional omission. Despite being instrumental in drafting the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the nation persists as the only liberal democracy globally that has not adopted a constitutional or statutory bill of rights.
A Fragile Framework of Rights
Author and commentator Julianne Schultz argues that for all the political rhetoric surrounding 'Australian values', the rights of citizens remain remarkably fragile. This absence of a consolidated rights framework means protections are subject to a patchwork of local laws and international agreements, leaving them vulnerable to political shifts.
The issue has been thrown into sharp relief by recent national debates, including the aftermath of the Bondi attack and the controversy at Adelaide Writers' Week. In times of perceived existential threat, the principles of pluralism and tolerance are often the first casualties, Schultz observes.
Political Whim Over Principle
The Australian commitment to human rights has repeatedly proven to be subject to political convenience. Legislation designed to protect rights has been voided to allow racially charged laws, such as the Northern Territory intervention, to pass. Even states that have enacted rights recognition statutes have readily amended them to exclude certain groups, most frequently First Nations peoples.
A poignant example emerged in South Australia. After years of advocacy, a bill asserting that "all artists, makers and creatives in South Australia have the right to freedom of artistic and creative expression" was introduced in 2025. However, parliament ran out of time to pass it, leaving the promise unfulfilled and raising questions about whether such legislation could have altered recent cultural disputes.
The Dehumanising Drift of Technology and Bureaucracy
Schultz warns that the assault on human rights is not confined to grand political gestures but is becoming embedded in the mundane mechanics of daily life, particularly through technology and rigid bureaucracy. In a tick-box world mediated by algorithms, empathy is evaporating, replaced by a banal cruelty that excludes nuance.
She recounts a personal experience with a Centrelink call centre operator following a Robodebt-style letter. Upon informing the operator that the person in question had died, the response was a request to continue spelling the name and providing dates. The script had no option for human condolence, a stark illustration of a system where data supersedes dignity.
This sentiment was echoed by a highly educated colleague who, when discussing a questionable driving fine, stated a preference to avoid 'human intervention'. Schultz contends that if society relinquishes the human element, technocrats crafting a world for efficiency and profit will win, leaving even less room for fundamental rights.
A Call for Domestic Action
Recognising the growing international fragility of human rights, the Australian government appointed former attorney general and sitting MP Mark Dreyfus as an International Human Rights envoy last year. Schultz suggests his advocacy should begin at home.
Given the consensus that comprehensive constitutional change is prohibitively difficult, a statutory bill of rights is proposed as a viable alternative. Such a move would carry significant symbolic weight and have practical impacts, while also strengthening Australia's credibility as it advocates for human rights on a global stage where they are increasingly derided.
As the world grapples with leaders who dehumanise opponents and technologies that strip away empathy, the fight to uphold the basic premise of human dignity is one, Schultz concludes, that we cannot afford to lose.
