A new report authored by Angela Sdrinis Legal Law Gradate, Cassandra Le Good in partnership with the Whitlam Institute and Human Rights Law Centre, traces the long and unfinished journey to implement an Australian human rights act. Since the first attempt to introduce a human rights bill in 1973 by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, successive governments have failed for more than 50 years to adequately address the issue of human rights protections in Australia.

Australia now remains the only democratic country in the world without a constitutionally enshrined or legislated national bill or charter of rights. This is despite a long-standing commitment to various international human rights instruments.

In December 1972 Australia signed two key human rights treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR). However, in the absence of any domestic legislation, Australians are not afforded the practical protection of these rights under Australian law.

The report finds that attempts by Labor governments to introduce federal human rights legislation in 1973, 1983 and 1985 all failed because opponents (primarily the federal Opposition) relied on the same few arguments to block the legislation’s passage. These arguments were also used to discredit the recommendation for a human rights act that arose from both the 2008 National Human Rights Consultation and the 2024 Parliamentary Joint Committee Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework.

These arguments have typically included:

· Australia does not need a human rights act;

· The Common Law and Australia’s democratic institutions provide sufficient protections;

· Too much power would be handed to judges;

· A human rights act would interfere with parliamentary sovereignty; and

· A human rights act would diminish rather than enhance human rights

But in the decades since Whitlam’s first attempt in 1973, these arguments have been shown to be both baseless and outdated.

Since 2004, the ACT, Victoria and Queensland have all introduced human rights acts. The experience from those jurisdictions tells us that human rights legislation works, it does not affect parliamentary supremacy, and it does not cause a flood of litigation. On the contrary, people in those States have been afforded the opportunity to be educated about their fundamental rights and access remedies when their rights, or the rights of others have been abused.

However, the issue remains that there is no adequate overarching statutory framework for human rights protections at the Commonwealth level. In addition, the State and Territory legislation only applies to state-based agencies, services and personnel. This discrepancy is concerning, and means that:

· Access to human rights protections in Australia now depends on where a person lives.

and

· Commonwealth agencies and services (which affect all Australians) cannot be held to account for human rights breaches and there is no legal requirement for them to consider people’s fundamental rights in the development or delivery of services.

The real-life implications of continuing to operate without a human rights act are also clear.

Experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and findings of several recent Royal Commissions including the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2017), Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (2021), Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (2023) and Royal Commission into the Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (2023) have all exposed and confirmed the existence of systemic human rights failures occurring across a broad spectrum of issues, policy areas and time periods in Australia.

They have specifically illustrated how policy and decision making can lose focus of human rights impacts, particularly when they are being made without clearly identifiable human rights guidance. They have also shown that Australia’s ‘patchwork’ approach to human rights protections is failing.

People in institutional settings have historically been particularly vulnerable to human rights breaches. Many of the clients represented by Angela Sdrinis Legal have been placed in, or interacted with, Commonwealth and State run institutions that have failed to recognise people’s rights according to international standards. These breaches are often closely related to the experience of institutional abuse.

The report concludes that there is now an abundance of evidence in the public domain supporting an Australian human rights act, as well as overwhelming public approval. Parliament’s own Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended the implementation of a federal Human Rights Act and found that more than 80% of submissions to their 2023-2024 inquiry expressed support for a human rights act.

The report does not find that failure is inevitable. On the contrary, it shows that an Australian human rights act is necessary, overdue and strongly supported by the public.

As a pathway forward, it proposes moving away from a reliance on old, outdated and politically motivated arguments and instead focussing on the benefits an Act has for all Australian’s and ensuring human rights remain at the forefront of government decision making for decades to come .

In December 1973, Gough Whitlam marked the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by expressing that he believed Australia’s record on the issue of human rights had been one of ‘negligence and inaction’ and that ‘such inaction should not continue to be tolerated’.

Some 53 years on, this report re-emphasises that the need for action still exists, but the way forward has never been clearer.

The report can be accessed online here - https://www.hrlc.org.au/reports/legislating-human-rights-from-whitlam-to-now/

17 October 2025

By Cassandra Le Good