Matter of Public Importance

Human Rights

Senate · Monday 17 August 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

Senator Lidia Thorpe moved a matter of public importance urging the government to introduce a federal Human Rights Act, citing failures in protecting vulnerable groups and rejecting international recommendations. Government and opposition senators opposed the motion, arguing that existing legal frameworks, common law, and parliamentary scrutiny adequately protect rights, while noting the government is still considering a joint committee report. Greens and Independent senators supported the motion, highlighting the fragmented nature of current protections and the need for a comprehensive legislative framework. The Senate agreed to the motion, allowing the debate to proceed without a vote on the policy itself.

Outcome

The motion was agreed to, allowing the debate to proceed.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Lidia Thorpe (VIC) (Independent) Ind

Thorpe argued that Australia fails to uphold its international human rights obligations, noting the government accepted only 128 of 332 recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review. Thorpe criticised the rejection of recommendations regarding the age of criminal responsibility, Indigenous incarceration, LGBTIQA+ rights, and asylum seekers. Thorpe highlighted systemic issues such as deaths in custody, police brutality, and scrapping the Aboriginal child placement principle in the Northern Territory. Thorpe referenced the National Human Rights Consultation in 2009 and the 2024 inquiry into Australia's human rights framework as evidence of the need for domestic legislation. Thorpe called on senators to support the motion to enshrine human rights in domestic law.

Government response

Tammy Tyrrell (TAS) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Tyrrell stated that the government does not support the motion but is actively considering the report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Tyrrell argued that human rights are already protected through a range of federal, state, and territory laws, the Constitution, and common law. Tyrrell listed recent reforms, including actioning Respect@Work recommendations, funding a review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and legislating merit-based appointments for the Australian Human Rights Commission. Tyrrell emphasised the role of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 in assessing legislation compatibility with international treaties. Tyrrell concluded that improvements should unite rather than divide the community and that the government remains committed to protecting rights through existing frameworks.

Opposition response

Dean Smith (WA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Smith argued that Australia's legal system, based on separation of powers and common law, provides robust protection for human rights without a single legislative act. Smith cited historical rejections of bills of rights in referendums in 1944 and 1988, and the abandonment of the Human Rights Bill 1973. Smith contended that rights granted by law can be easily taken away by law, whereas the current ecosystem of protections is tried and trusted. Smith noted that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended a human rights act, but asserted that coalition members who endorsed the report were mistaken. Smith maintained that the Constitution and existing statutes provide sufficient protection for liberties.

David Shoebridge (NSW) (Australian Greens) Greens support

Shoebridge criticised the government for 'actively considering' the recommendation for over three years without action, arguing this delays meaningful reform. Shoebridge suggested that major parties oppose a human rights act because they fear citizens using it to challenge surveillance and data collection. Shoebridge highlighted that 170 human rights organisations have demanded the parliament pass the act, as recommended unanimously by the joint committee. Shoebridge asserted that the Greens prioritise citizen rights over state surveillance powers.
Penny Allman-Payne (QLD) (Australian Greens) Greens support

Allman-Payne argued that the current patchwork of protections is inconsistent and insufficient, particularly for vulnerable groups like refugees and people with disabilities. Allman-Payne cited Robodebt as an example of harm caused by systems designed for efficiency rather than human dignity. Allman-Payne stated that a human rights act would require government departments to consider rights impacts before designing policies and legislation. Allman-Payne emphasised that rights should not depend on wealth or political influence, but provide a minimum guarantee of dignity for all.
David Pocock (ACT) (Independent) Ind support

Pocock highlighted the gap between Australia's international human rights commitments and its domestic legal protections, noting the lack of a comprehensive federal act. Pocock argued that a human rights act would anchor international obligations in domestic law and require public authorities to consider rights earlier in decision-making. Pocock pointed out that the parliamentary scrutiny committee is often bypassed or given insufficient time to review urgent bills. Pocock stated that a human rights act would align Australia with countries like Canada, the UK, and New Zealand.