Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026, Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026
Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (09:52): I will first address Senator Thorpe's bill relating to the shackling of women during pregnancy, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026. The coalition understands the intent of this bill and respects Senator Thorpe for her passionate and sincere advocacy on the issue but will not be supporting the bill in its current form.
The Senate referred the bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and held public hearings into this proposed legislation. While I was not personally on that committee, I speak on behalf of the coalition senators who were. This matter received many submissions from numerous stakeholders.
Ultimately, the committee found that it is not the right legislation, as the committee found that it contains deficiencies that risk creating further uncertainty, without ensuring the ban would in fact be effectively implemented. Corrective services are a state and territory responsibility, as the committee found. These issues are best addressed at that level.
The committee did not recommend that the bill be passed. The better path to effectively address the problem identified by Senator Thorpe is for the Commonwealth to work with the states and territories, as the committee recommended. At present, corrective services are run by the states and territories, which are responsible for laws and policies on the use of restraints.
The policies of each state and territory are different from each other. This bill would insert a new section 87A into the Crimes Act 1914, banning the restraint of a person who is detained in prison, detained in a hospital or otherwise in custody at any time during the childbirth process. That covers labour, giving birth and the periods immediately before entering labour and immediately after giving birth.
The prohibition covers physical, chemical, environmental and mechanical restraint. It contains no general exception for risks to safety or of escape, although the definitions exclude limited therapeutic measures and hands-on actions to redirect someone away from harm. It would override any state or territory law that is inconsistent with the ban and commence the day after royal assent.
In practical terms, officers could not use restraint covered by the bill during childbirth merely because a risk assessment identified danger to the woman or to others. The committee heard that stakeholders who oppose the shackling of women during birth still raised concerns about the provisions of this bill. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists asked that the bill be clarified to protect clinicians who provide pain relief, epidurals and other medication during emergencies.
The college also asked that the safety of staff and other patients be given consideration. The Institute of Gender Law & International Justice said that the definition of chemical restraint does not cover treatment of a mental illness or acute psychiatric condition, which could conflict with clinically indicated mental health care. The Justice and Equity Centre said that terms 'immediately before entering labour' and 'immediately after giving birth' are ambiguous.
Sisters Inside noted that the bill does not establish a reporting scheme, remedies or an investigation pathway. So the committee did not recommend that the bill be passed. It found that the evidence about shackling in childbirth was concerning.
It noted that reliable national data doesn't exist on how widespread the practice is, and it was concerned that the bill created no offence for contravention and has no reporting or remedies provisions. It also found that the bill as drafted contains deficiencies, including uncertainty around key definitions, which results in further confusion and inconsistencies.
It considered that these issues are most appropriately addressed by the states and territories through their corrective services legislation and their policies and accountability frameworks. It recommended that the Commonwealth consider pathways to engage with the states and territories and work with them and with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to collect data on pregnancy and childbirth in custody.
I acknowledge the deeply emotional stories that have been told today by Senator Thorpe, but, for these reasons, the coalition will not be supporting the bill. I now turn to the bill proposing a banning of the stripsearching of children, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026. This bill has also been reviewed by the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee.
Again, the coalition understands the intent of this bill and acknowledges those who have shared their experiences with the committee. At present, under the Crimes Act of 1914, a child under 10 cannot be stripsearched at all. Under that act, a young person aged 10 to 17 can only be stripsearched if they have been arrested and charged or a magistrate has ordered it.
A parent, guardian or other acceptable support person must be present. This bill would ban strip searches, including partial strip searches of anyone under 18 who is suspected of an offence, under arrest, detained or otherwise in custody or who is visiting or otherwise associated with such a person, with no exceptions. It would override any state or territory law that is inconsistent with the ban, and it would commence on the day after royal assent.
In practical terms, an officer who believed a 17-year-old in custody was concealing a weapon or an item to self-harm would have no lawful power to conduct a strip search. The AFP told the committee that a prohibition would have negative impact on its ability to promptly locate and recover weapons, evidential material and other seizable items. That includes items that may present a danger to the person detained, other people that are in custody or officers and items that could be used to escape from lawful custody.
The AFP also pointed to the safeguards already in section 3ZI of the Crimes Act, including the additional safeguards for young people aged 10 to 17. ACT Policing recorded only one strip search of a young person aged 10 to 17 in the past five years. That search was conducted in 2026 to ensure the safety of a young person who was attempting self-harm in custody.
Under this bill, that search would not have been lawful. The committee found that the existing protections in the Commonwealth legislation are sufficient to preserve the rights of the child. It heard that there is already a sufficiently high threshold for stripsearching a child under the Crimes Act and would agree that there should be a high threshold.
The committee also heard that there are circumstances where a strip search is necessary, particularly where there are concerns for the safety of the child or for others. The committee found that commencing the day after royal assent would not allow enough time for the policies, the training and alternative search methods needed for effective policing and safe detention centres.
It noted that the incidences of strip searches of children in detention are declining as alternatives such as body scanners are introduced, and that is a good thing. It is recommended that the government consider pathways to engage with states and territories on these issues and work with them on data and on training. Again, the coalition appreciates the intent of this bill and the passionate advocacy of Senator Thorpe in this issue, but it won't be supporting the bill in its current form.
This is not the right legislation, because a blanket ban with no exemptions removes the power to stripsearch even when a young person's safety is at risk. The Australian Federal Police have warned that the bill would have a negative impact on its ability to recover weapons and dangerous items in custody. The Crimes Act already sets a high threshold with strong safeguards, and the committee found that those protections are sufficient.