Misrepresentation by critics of a charter of rights for Australia

Critics of a charter of rights misrepresent the nature of our political system, writes John Warhurst in Australian Policy Online. 

REASON rarely prevails when a public debate generates more heat than light. The bill of rights debate is a case in point, with a prominent critic like Paul Kelly even claiming that the proposal threatens the very fabric of our democracy. Such exaggerated language serves no purpose other than a pre-emptive strike; that is, to prevent a reasonable discussion in which the strengths and weaknesses of a proposal can be weighed.

Some negative reactions to the public consultation, to be chaired by the Jesuit priest Father Frank Brennan, about a possible federal bill of rights misrepresent how Australia’s parliamentary democracy actually works in practice. The critics are deliberately hyping up their language in order to derail debate before it even begins.

Framing - that is, setting the terms of debate - is crucial in politics. The bill of rights debate is often framed by its critics as being about a sovereign, elected parliament protecting the common law tradition versus the non-elected lawyer-dominated courts advocating a bill of rights. If it is framed in that way it is a no contest. The debate is as good as over. The sovereign, elected parliament must win every time because the debate becomes a struggle between good and evil.

But our system is not about parliament versus the courts. It is about parliament and the courts working together in tandem.

 Read the full article in Australian Policy Online.