Overwhelming Public Support for Australian Charter of Rights Revealed
Julianne Schultz, a prominent commentator, has highlighted a striking consensus among Australians regarding fundamental rights. Extensive polling data spanning more than five decades indicates that somewhere between 70% and 87% of the Australian population want a codified charter of rights. This substantial majority seeks clarity and legal assurance regarding their entitlements, aiming to transform the national ideal of "a fair go" into tangible reality.
The Political Paralysis Preventing Progress
Despite this clear public mandate, successive Labor governments have awaited a "catalysing political trigger" to spur action. Tragically, even events like the Bondi incident last December, which exposed severe human rights violations and frayed social fabric, have failed to become that decisive moment. The immediate political response has often leaned towards punitive measures, such as criminalising hate speech or banning demonstrations, reflecting a deep-seated tendency in the Australian psyche to seek comfort through legislative force.
However, as noted by UNSW law professor Luke McNamara, there are limits to what criminalisation can achieve in fostering community safety and social cohesion. "We need to moderate our expectations on how much ever-expanding forms of criminalisation can deliver," he cautions, pointing to the potential harms of hastily widening criminal law nets.
A History of Opposition and Missed Opportunities
The debate over a bill of rights in Australia is not new. During the federation discussions 125 years ago, some advocates pushed for its inclusion, mirroring features in other constitutions. However, fears that it would limit the power of the emerging states presented an insurmountable obstacle. This resistance has persisted, with political parties historically opposing such legislation, even as they paradoxically argue against overreach in areas like hate speech laws.
Recent discourse has devolved into low-grade political posturing and legislative overreach, rather than constructive dialogue. The focus has shifted to leadership speculation within opposition parties, distracting from foundational issues. This pattern underscores a critical lack of political will to address systemic flaws, with one government insider lamenting, "It's just too hard."
The Case for Codification and Social Capital
More than 130 groups have now rallied behind a campaign led by the Human Rights Law Centre, advocating for Australia to catch up with comparable nations. Over 80 years after the idea was first proposed in a 1944 referendum, the time is ripe for action. A codified charter would define rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, privacy, association, and legal protections, among others.
While examples from abroad, such as events on American streets, show that a bill of rights does not prevent state overreach, public knowledge of enforceable rights can empower citizens to challenge governmental excesses. Schultz argues that shifting the political debate towards a positive assertion of rights could build social capital and enhance cohesion more effectively than punitive laws.
If constitutional change proves too daunting, national legislation could still buttress the limited rights in the current constitution, replacing scattered and piecemeal laws. As Mark Carney might suggest, the "pleasant fiction" of not needing such a framework has been shattered by events, royal commissions, and growing concerns over social unity. The path forward requires courage and commitment to transform public sentiment into lasting legal safeguards for all Australians.
