The tragic events at Bondi last December have exposed the fragility of our so-called 'pleasant fiction' of a rules-based order. It's time for Australia to take a stand and codify a bill of rights, ensuring the protection and safety of all its citizens.
For years, Labor governments have been searching for that pivotal moment, a catalyst to convince the opposition of the urgent need for a comprehensive rights charter. The Bondi tragedy, with its palpable shock and high public sentiment, seemed like the perfect opportunity. Lives were lost, communities were shaken, and human rights were undeniably violated. Yet, despite the national day of mourning, the discourse that followed was anything but 'robust and respectful.'
Instead of meaningful action, we witnessed political posturing and legislative overreach. The immediate response to criminalize and punish hate speech and groups was understandable, but it lies deep within the Australian psyche. It provides a momentary comfort, a sense of control, but as Professor Luke McNamara wisely pointed out, we must moderate our expectations and recognize the potential harms of hastily expanding criminal law.
The paradoxical opposition to a bill of rights by parties that once championed freedom of speech highlights the need for a clear definition of rights and responsibilities. Building positive social capital and strengthening social cohesion should be our priority. A codified bill of rights can embolden citizens to stand up against an out-of-control state, but it's not a panacea.
Despite long-standing opposition from Liberal and National parties, as documented by the Whitlam Institute and the Human Rights Law Centre, the Australian public overwhelmingly supports a charter of rights. Polls and surveys consistently show that between 70% and 87% of the population want their rights codified, to know and understand them, and to ensure they are reflected in policy and legislation.
Yet, if you were to read the debates and op-eds over the years, you'd think most Australians view a bill of rights as an 'evil' plot. More than 130 groups have now joined the HRLC-led campaign, recognizing that the time has come to catch up with the rest of the world.
In the debates leading up to federation, some advocated for a bill of rights, but the fear of limiting colonial power prevailed. This fear has persisted, presenting an insurmountable obstacle to progress.
If constitutional change is too daunting, national legislation can at least provide a framework to support the limited rights defined in our constitution. As Mark Carney said, the 'pleasant fiction' that we don't need it has been shattered by events and growing concerns about social cohesion.
The political will to act has been lacking, but a positive assertion of rights could be the key to building social capital and enhancing cohesion.
And this is where it gets controversial... Will our leaders recognize the importance of this issue, or will it remain a repeated pattern of inaction? The ball is in their court.
