{"id":"BILL-s1406","name":"Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023","slug":"human-rights-parliamentary-scrutiny-amendment-consideration-of-undrip-bill-2023","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":445968,"registerId":"commonwealth-BILL-s1406-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-05-05","status":"introduced","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Yes. The amendment broadens the statutory scope of parliamentary human-rights scrutiny to expressly include the rights in UNDRIP. The original Act required consideration of certain international human-rights instruments; this change extends that catalogue to include Indigenous‑specific rights and principles. Mechanically the change is small (a definition amendment) but functionally it expands what must be addressed in every statement of compatibility and in committee reviews, moving the Act beyond its earlier instrument list to explicitly cover UNDRIP."},"complexity_factors":["Single, narrow amendment: replaces or expands the statutory definition of 'human rights' in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (small textual change).","Introduces an external instrument (UNDRIP) with 46 articles and broad concepts into the Act's scope, increasing interpretive work for officials.","Affects all future statements of compatibility and committee scrutiny processes across bills and legislative instruments (wide procedural reach despite short text).","No new enforcement mechanisms or sanctions added (reduces legal complexity), but increases administrative complexity (guidance, consultation, drafting time).","Creates discretionary interpretation points for ministers, departments and parliamentary committees (variable application depending on context)."],"plain_english_summary":"**What this bill does, mechanically**\n\n- Changes the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 by expanding the Act's definition of “human rights” to expressly include the rights and freedoms set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).\n- As a result, whenever the Act requires a government minister to prepare a \"statement of compatibility\" for a proposed law or when the Parliamentary scrutiny processes examine bills and legislative instruments, they must take UNDRIP into account as part of the body of human rights to be considered.\n\n**Who this affects**\n\n- Federal ministers and their departments who draft statements of compatibility for proposed laws and legislative instruments (they must address UNDRIP in those statements).\n- The Parliamentary committee(s) and Parliamentarians who review those statements and scrutinise proposed laws (they will assess proposals against UNDRIP as well as other listed instruments).\n- Policy teams across agencies: increased scope of issues to research and document when preparing or reviewing legislation.\n- Stakeholders and advocacy groups (particularly Indigenous organisations): they gain an explicit, parliamentary-scrutiny avenue to raise UNDRIP-related issues when new laws are considered.\n\n**What it does not do**\n\n- It does not, by itself, make UNDRIP legally binding in Australian law or create new private causes of action (i.e. it does not by itself give courts new rights to enforce).\n- It does not amend primary policy programs, funding, or statutory entitlements other than changing the scope of parliamentary scrutiny.\n\n**Why proponents put it forward (official rationale)**\n\n- The stated purpose is to ensure that Indigenous rights listed in UNDRIP are considered formally when new federal laws and legislative instruments are assessed for human-rights compatibility.\n\n**How that purpose translates into concrete mechanisms, and the trade-offs**\n\n- Behavioural change: Ministers and drafters must review proposed measures against UNDRIP standards and record that assessment in the formal statement of compatibility. Parliamentary reviewers will cite UNDRIP when reporting on bills.\n- Administrative cost: Departments will need to allocate staff time to research, consult and prepare compatibility statements addressing UNDRIP; this is an incremental compliance burden on legislative drafters and ministerial offices.\n- Interpretive discretion and uncertainty: UNDRIP is a non‑binding declaration with broad, sometimes open-ended provisions (e.g. collective rights, land and resource rights, free, prior and informed consent). That breadth gives the executive, drafters and parliamentary committees discretion in how to interpret compatibility, which can increase uncertainty for policy-makers and require development of guidance materials.\n- Downstream influence (indirect effects): Although the change does not itself create enforceable rights, parliamentary scrutiny reports and ministerial statements can shape legislative drafting and political debate. Over time this may influence policy design, administration and the content of statutes if governments respond to committee findings or political pressure.\n- Concentrated benefits vs diffuse costs: The primary, concentrated benefit is greater formal consideration of Indigenous rights in the parliamentary process (a benefit to Indigenous groups and their advocates). The costs — increased drafting time, possible delays and need for specialist legal/ policy input — are dispersed across government agencies.\n- Risk of strategic use: Advocacy groups and opponents of measures may use UNDRIP-based scrutiny to contest or highlight policy choices in parliamentary debate and public reporting. The committee’s interpretive choices could become leverage in political or regulatory debates.\n\n**Practical implementation issues**\n\n- Departments will likely need guidance on how to assess bills against UNDRIP and may need to consult Indigenous stakeholders to prepare robust statements — this requires time and resources.\n- The Parliamentary committee gains discretion in how strictly it applies UNDRIP when examining laws; that discretion may produce variable outcomes across bills depending on political context.\n\n**Net practical effect**\n\n- The bill expands the set of international standards that must be considered in the statutory parliamentary-scrutiny process. It primarily changes administrative and parliamentary practice rather than directly altering legal rights or obligations in other statutes. Who pays: government agencies (time and staff) and, indirectly, taxpayers through administrative cost. Who decides: ministers and their departments prepare the compatibility statements; parliamentary committees and Parliament decide how to respond. Behaviour changes: more frequent explicit reference to Indigenous rights in legislative drafting and parliamentary reports; possible longer or more detailed compatibility statements and committee inquiries."},"summary":{"status_summary":"The bill was introduced in the Senate on 29 November 2023, had its second reading negatived on 13 February 2025, and was restored to the Notice Paper on 1 September 2025.","complexity_score":2,"likely_questions":["How will the inclusion of UNDRIP affect the assessment of new legislation?","What is the current status of the bill in the Senate?"],"complexity_factors":["Simple amendment to the definition of human rights in an existing Act","Relates to parliamentary scrutiny procedures"],"plain_english_summary":"The bill would amend the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to broaden the definition of “human rights” to include rights in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). That would make Indigenous-rights considerations a formal part of statements of compatibility and parliamentary scrutiny of most bills.\n\nIntroduced 29 Nov 2023, its second reading was negatived on 13 Feb 2025; it was restored to the Senate Notice Paper on 1 Sep 2025 for possible further consideration."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/human-rights-parliamentary-scrutiny-amendment-consideration-of-undrip-bill-2023","history":"/api/acts/human-rights-parliamentary-scrutiny-amendment-consideration-of-undrip-bill-2023/history","analysis":"/api/acts/human-rights-parliamentary-scrutiny-amendment-consideration-of-undrip-bill-2023/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/human-rights-parliamentary-scrutiny-amendment-consideration-of-undrip-bill-2023/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/human-rights-parliamentary-scrutiny-amendment-consideration-of-undrip-bill-2023/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/human-rights-parliamentary-scrutiny-amendment-consideration-of-undrip-bill-2023/documents"}}