Every now and then, we can still learn something from the Poms – even if the lesson is all about avoiding their country’s descent into self-harm.

Britain is living through a great tragedy – a decline of public trust in the rule of law in the face of a culture of lawlessness.

And that decline in trust has been fed by the perception, if not the reality, that the authorities in that country are resorting to “two-tier justice” and “two-tier policing”.

These concerns have long been reflected in community unrest over separate and apparently unrelated events such as parties at 10 Downing Street during Covid lockdowns, and the failure of successive governments to police Britain’s borders.

These are symptoms of a deeper malaise that has been recognised in a remarkable report on the rule of law by the House of Lords that was published on November 20.

It deserves to be studied closely for the simple reason that it might help us avoid similar mistakes.

This report was published by the House of Lords select committee on the Constitution after a nine-month inquiry that drew on some of Britain’s best brains including Lord Jonathan Sumption, formerly of the UK Supreme Court; and Lord Richard Hermer, the current Attorney-General of England and Wales.

It makes some startling findings, including this: “Increasingly, many people do not trust that the rule of law is operating as it should.”

That finding is all the more startling when it is considered that the rule of law is a pillar of Britain’s unwritten Constitution, just as it is for this country’s written Constitution.

The report says people in Britain feel surrounded by casual mobile phone and shop theft, where the perpetrators face no consequences, and the media often shows them that this is a growing problem.

“If they meet a legal problem themselves and attempt to enforce their legal rights through the justice system, they are faced with huge costs and delays to gain access to judges that some politicians wrongly tell them are biased and not to be trusted,” the report says.

“Together with increasing distrust and lack of confidence in institutions, this creates a pervasive sense that the rule of law is under threat,” it continues.

These findings amount to a blunt warning about what could await this country if the principles of the rule of law cease to be the hallmark of public policy.

For Australians, the most important message from this inquiry is that perceptions matter. Tampering with the principle of equality might seem politically convenient once in a while.

But there is a price to pay.

If, for example, the principle of equal treatment can be discarded in order to protect some law-breaking government agency, or to hurt some unpopular businessman, it has the effect of confirming that when it really matters there is one law for the political in-crowd and one law for everyone else.

That’s the thing about equal treatment: if it is discarded on a political whim, it ceases to be a principle of governance and is exposed as a mere platitude, unworthy of public support.

The real danger in what is happening in Britain is all about its timing.

It is taking place against a background of growing support internationally for authoritarian forms of government and waning support for democracy.

The report made the point that a weak rule of law culture provides space for democracy to be challenged – something that is just as relevant in the Asia-Pacific region.

Lord Hermer, who is the chief legal adviser to the British government, told the inquiry that Britain was “living in an age of great distrust of institutions”.

“I am really concerned when I look at attitudes, particularly of young people toward democracy, for example, both in this country and overseas.

“There is a real shift – a real change – which I think is a real warning sign,” he told the inquiry.

That link between the rule of law and the health of democracy should cause governments in this country to reconsider policies that chip away at the principle of equal treatment.

This is particularly relevant for Victoria, which leads the nation on at least two measures of governance failure: crime and unequal treatment.

The difference between what’s happening in Britain and Victoria is this: in Britain, the mere perception of unequal treatment is considered a threat to the rule of law that needs to be addressed.

But in Victoria unequal treatment is so deeply entrenched it has distorted that state’s approach to Aboriginal affairs and the right to protest.

This is the state that used rubber bullets against lockdown protesters during the Covid years, but now takes a light-touch approach to anti-Israel protesters.

And while other Victorians remain subject to the normal law administered in the normal courts, Indigenous people in that state are to be subject to a race-based rule-making body.

That means the end of equality before the law: different laws will soon apply to different Victorians based on their race.

The House of Lords report concludes that the core values that are central to Britain’s rule of law culture are those of equality, fairness and justice. They are, in other words, principles of governance that align with Australia’s culture of a “fair go”.

“If these values are not present – or are perceived not to be present – in our society, then the rule of law culture is liable to be degraded and to break down,” it says.