Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026, Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (10:42): I'll say two things from the outset. I note that the Labor Party and the coalition have said they're going to vote against the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026, so the result that is going to occur is obvious.
Having said that, I have considerable sympathy in relation to this legislation and the issues it's seeking to address. I had a discussion with Senator Thorpe yesterday—I must confess I wasn't across these bills perhaps as much as I should have been in the lead-up to this debate—and what I heard deeply concerns me. The first point I'd make is that I hope that this vote isn't an end to this matter.
We've got to do better than this, and we've got to look at ways in which this issue can be addressed, whether it's through raising it at the highest level, in National Cabinet, or whether it's through meetings with the federal and the state attorneys-general. I'm not sure that some of the state attorneys-general would even be aware of this issue. I'll certainly be raising it with the Queensland Attorney-General because some of what I've now read in the report, including a passage from ATSILS on my home state of Queensland which I'll read into the record, deeply concerns me.
The first thing I want to read though is what's referred to as the Bangkok Rules. The Bangkok Rules were adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Council some 10 years ago now. Australia voted for what's referred to as the Bangkok Rules, and the Bangkok Rules contain this rule, which is pretty clear: Instruments of restraint shall never be used on women during labour, during birth and immediately after birth.
It's very, very clear. In fact, Australia voted—as did all the members of the UN General Assembly—in favour of that rule. In terms of the reasoning for that rule, if one goes to the commentary on the United Nations rules, rule 24 states: Rules 33 and 34 of the SMR place strict restrictions on the use of body restraints on prisoners.
Firstly restraints may never be used as punishment, secondly they may be used in cases where there is genuine justification to believe that the prisoner may attempt escape during transfers and thirdly, following instruction from a medical officer, due to the imminent danger of harm or self-harm by the prisoner concerned. And his is what's relevant for the immediate discussion— Nevertheless, in some countries body restraints, such as shackles, are used on pregnant women during transfers to hospitals, gynaecological examinations and birth.
This practice violates international standards. Moreover, shackling during labour may cause complications during delivery such as haemorrhage or decreased foetal heart rate. If a caesarean section is needed, a delay of even five minutes may result in permanent brain damage to the baby.
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has stated that "[…] from time to time, the CPT encounters examples of pregnant women being shackled or otherwise restrained to beds or other items of furniture during gynaecological examinations and/or delivery. Such an approach is completely unacceptable, and could certainly be qualified as inhuman and degrading treatment.
Other means of meeting security needs can and should be found." So, the Bangkok Rules, which Australia signed up to, unequivocally state that shackling should not occur during childbirth—unequivocally—and the explanation to rule 24 of the Bangkok rules provides evidence with respect to why. Debate interrupted.