In a world where the very notion of inalienable human rights is under assault, Australia’s approach to safeguarding the rights of its citizens and residents remains worryingly inconsistent. Despite its history as one of the architects of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Australia stands alone among liberal democracies in not having adopted its own constitutional or statutory bill of rights.
This absence, a “telling reminder of the fragility of our rights as citizens and human beings,” has come into sharp focus in recent debates following incidents such as the Bondi attack and the implosion of the Adelaide Writers’ Festival. In the rush to assign blame, the principles underlying human rights protections are often lost, with pluralism attacked and tolerance derided as a virtue.
The Australian government’s commitment to human rights appears all too susceptible to the whims of political expediency. Legislation aimed at safeguarding the rights of artists and other creative professionals has been allowed to languish, while racially charged laws have been passed, including the Northern Territory intervention. States that have enacted laws to recognise rights have readily revoked them, particularly when it comes to the rights of First Nations people.
In recognition of the increasing global fragility of human rights commitments, the Australian government has appointed a former Attorney General as an international human rights envoy. However, as commentator Julianne Schultz argues, it would be more impactful if this advocacy began at home.
With the consensus being that constitutional change in Australia is too difficult, the introduction of a statutory bill of rights could have both symbolic and practical significance. It would strengthen Australia’s human rights advocacy on the global stage, at a time when these fundamental principles are increasingly under attack.
This is not merely a legal debate; human rights and empathy touch every aspect of society, from the “tick-box world mediated by AI” to the “banal cruelty of a data-driven world in which empathy has evaporated.” As the examples cited in the article illustrate, the erosion of human empathy and the reliance on rigid, script-driven processes can have devastating consequences for the most vulnerable.
Ultimately, the fight to preserve human rights is one that Australia cannot afford to lose. If we succumb to the technocrats’ vision of efficiency and profit at the expense of fundamental human dignity, we risk forfeiting the very essence of what it means to be a just and compassionate society.