By Katrina Williams, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Committee member
On 25 May 2026, independent federal MP Andrew Wilkie introduced the Human Rights Bill 2026, seconded by fellow independent Helen Haines, member for Indi. It was his third attempt, following private member’s bills in 2017 and 2019 that did not receive the support of the major parties.
The 2026 bill does not simply revive his earlier drafts, it builds on years of institutional groundwork, including the Australian Human Rights Commission’s 2023 discussion paper Free & Equal and a 2024 report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights that recommended establishing a national Human Rights Act. It is also different in its context of recent global events that highlight the need for an act.
What the bill would do if passed
The mechanics of the proposed act are those of an ordinary statute, not a constitutional charter. The main clauses provide:
- Under clause 11, any Commonwealth, state or territory law inconsistent with the rights set out in the bill would lose effect to the extent of that inconsistency, though governments could shield a law from this via an override declaration that expires after two years.
- Clause 12 requires all legislation to be interpreted consistently with the listed rights wherever that’s possible.
- Part 3 expands the Australian Human Rights Commission’s powers to investigate and conciliate alleged breaches of human rights breaches.
- The act could be amended or repealed by any future government exactly like any other law. That “ordinary statute” design is deliberate, and it mirrors what advocates call the “dialogue model” already in force in the ACT (2004), Victoria (2006) and Queensland (2019).
Why now
While Australia has long been the only Western liberal democracy without some national-level human rights act or charter (comparable countries include Canada, which has had its Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1982, New Zealand, a Bill of Rights Act since 1990, and the United Kingdom, a Human Rights Act since 1998), the attitude in the community to the importance of passing the act is arguably different from 2019.
A 2021 Human Rights Law Centre poll found 83 per cent of respondents wanted a document setting out Australians’ rights and responsibilities, and more than 175 organisations, legal bodies, unions, disability and refugee advocates, religious and ethnic community groups, have now backed the push for a federal act.
Wilkie’s second-reading speech referenced evidence that the current system routinely allows for human rights breaches, with no direct path to remedy them; the treatment of asylum seekers, the age of criminal responsibility, and the impacts of the Robodebt scheme. The 2024 parliamentary committee inquiry, which was instigated by then Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, received over 300 submissions and heard from more than 130 witnesses before recommending the government “re-establish and significantly improve Australia’s Human Rights Framework,” including a Human Rights Act, and supplied a model bill that informed the current bill’s drafting.
Recent events in the USA provide a caution against relying on customary practices and norms to provide fundamental protections. The United States has a written Bill of Rights, yet monitoring groups such as the Human Rights Watch in its 2026 World Report have described a marked erosion of civil liberties and human rights there in the current term of government, much of it achieved not by repealing constitutional text or laws, but by weakening the informal norms and institutional checks that had long given that text practical effect.
In Australia, there is a lesson to be drawn that unwritten conventions can prove fragile under political pressure, and that a clear, positively legislated statement of rights gives courts, the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the public, something concrete to point to when those protections come under strain, even if a future parliament retains the power to amend it.
The government’s response to date
For all the momentum built by the 2024 Committee report, and the civil society coalition behind it, the Albanese Government has not yet moved to adopt a comprehensive federal human rights framework, and in June 2026 it declined to commit to one in its formal response to the UN Human Rights Council fourth Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Indeed it accepted only 128 of the 332 recommendations made — about 39 per cent, the lowest acceptance rate of any Australian government since the UPR process began two decades ago, against an international average of roughly 73–76 per cent.
Recommendations to legislate a national Human Rights Act were among those “noted” rather than accepted, meaning Canberra gave no commitment to the international community that it would act.
Human Rights Law Centre CEO Caitlin Reiger called the government’s response disappointing, given the specific calls from allies including the UK, Norway and Germany, and repeated the call for Canberra to legislate an Australian Human Rights Act, as what she described as the “missing piece” in the country’s laws.
The likely outcome for the bill (and let’s stay optimistic)
The current bill, and the broader civil society campaign, are running ahead of any commitment from the government or opposition, despite the fact that public support has rarely wavered across five decades.
As a private member’s bill, the Human Rights Bill 2026 needs the Labor government or the Coalition to actively back it, to have any realistic path to pass. For now, the bill sits on the record as a marker of where the public debate has moved to – closer than it has ever been.
So perhaps the major parties will now take note of that, and move to cooperate on legislation that meets the community expectation in that area, and insert more robust protections than currently exist.
