In 2026, people can be shackled while giving birth and children can have their clothes removed by adults to examine their bodies—legally. Today, by passing my two private senator's bills, this could change. The people sitting in this room have the power to end these barbaric, inhumane, traumatic and totally unnecessary practices.

I want to share the stories of two people who gave evidence to the inquiries into my bills. Proud Yamatji, Noongar, Wongi and Pitjantjatjara woman Heather Calgaret was a mother to four beautiful children whom she loved dearly. She was the rock of her family. In 2019, while on remand, Heather gave birth to her baby whilst shackled to the hospital bed. In November 2021, Heather died in custody after being given a high dose of buprenorphine, a drug used to treat opioid addiction, even though she had no history of opiate use. She was found in critical condition by her sister, Suzzane. She was 30 years old. Speaking at the hearing into my bill, Suzzane said, and I quote:

Heather was my sister. She was a mother and a deeply loved member of our family. When in custody and giving birth, she was treated with cruelty that no human being should ever have to endure. She was shackled and restrained while bringing life into the world.

My sister was not just restrained while giving birth; she was also shackled when holding my niece for the first time. She only got to hold her with one arm. It definitely made a big psychological, emotional wreck of her when she came back into custody because she was only allowed two more hours with baby after giving birth and then sent back to prison.

That just ruined her. I sat with her while she cried for the next two months, and she continued to cry, but it didn't help at all. No woman should ever have their most vulnerable and sacred moments turned into a scene of torture. Life is precious. Given the circumstances of everything she went through and now her passing away, her story needs to be told. It needs to be heard. And there definitely need to be changes in how they deal with their workplace.

She's not here anymore, and it's really hard to cope and to deal with not having her presence here anymore and with everything that she went through. I feel I've taken on a lot of the load now; I'm her voice and I need to speak for her, because if I don't, then who will? No-one.

They need to understand the severity of shackling during childbirth. As I said, it's inhumane. I don't even know how it came about as something that should be done. The most precious moments in life are when a mother gives birth to their child, and they should not ever have to be like that. And now that my sister's not around, it just makes it even harder. There was all the stress and torment that she went through—psychological, emotional and mental—with everything that happened. Then losing her—no-one will ever know. But it is a very dangerous thing that they still have occurring, and it needs to be gone.

And this is not just for Indigenous but non-Indigenous too—for all women. We bring life into this world, and it should not ever be brought in in the way it had been for my sister. I couldn't imagine giving birth while being shackled by one leg and one hand to the railing while giving birth. It's insane. There are no words for it.

And what about strip searching? Let me tell you just a little bit more about what it's really like in practice. This is what Sharon, an Aboriginal woman, experienced as a girl, and I quote:

A male cop entered with the Sergeant, the door was closed behind them and I was told to remove my belt, jewellery and shoes and place them on the desk. I was asked if I was wearing a bra and I answered that I was. Sergeant told me to remove it and also place it on the desk.

I started to panic inside, my heart was beating and I started to shake in fear because I seriously believed these two men were intending to rape me as I had no knowledge of the way the system worked and I didn't know about strip searches or any of that stuff. But I did know about rape due to having been a victim of it only months beforehand.

I reluctantly took my bra off by undoing it at the back and pulling the straps down through the armholes of my shirt and then pulling my arms back up through those armholes leaving my shirt still on but only hanging by the neck hole. I stepped forward to put my bra on the desk and was told to move back against the wall and to lift my shirt to expose my breasts one side at a time. I was also instructed that once my breast was uncovered, I had to lift them up with my hand so they could see I was not hiding anything under them.

That done, I was allowed to put my shirt back down and was told to take my skirt off and the Sergeant motioned to place that on the desk along with the other items. I couldn't contain my feelings any longer and burst into tears saying that I didn't want to take it off.

He said that if I didn't, he would have to remove it himself. And he took a step forward so I unzipped it from the back and slid it downwards, knelt down with my back still against the wall, picked it up and placed it on the desk.

I was then standing in only a t-shirt and a tiny pair of knickers feeling very exposed, vulnerable, afraid and confused. The Sergeant told me to pull my knickers down to mid-thigh and to part my legs slightly.

I was still afraid and now even more embarrassed because I was also bleeding and had a tampon in which had leaked onto my underwear as I had no means of changing it.

He made a derogatory comment in regards to my knickers being dirty and asked when I had last bothered to change them. They both stared at my pubic area for a few seconds before he told me to stand on one leg and lift the other one and then the same on the other side.

Finally, I was told to turn around to face the wall, take a step backwards from it and bend forward and lift each leg again. I was then allowed to turn back around, pull my knickers back up and put my skirt back on. I was not allowed to put my bra back on though.

The Sergeant took me out of the room and down to the cells where the adult female prisoners were kept. By now I believe I was in a bit of shock. I had stopped crying, relieved that I hadn't been raped, but feeling like I had been.

If that's not sexual assault, what is it?

The inquiries into these two bills received overwhelming support from medical organisations, legal organisations, oversight and ombudsman bodies, human rights organisations and so many people who wrote in about their own experience of these practices and what these experiences did to them. Medical organisations have been writing to the Labor Party and the coalition to ask for change as late as yesterday. So each of you in this chamber has a choice. I know that many of you are horrified by these practices from the many conversations I've had with senators across all parties. You can vote to have these barbaric abuses continue, or you can vote today to end them.

The committee reports into both these bills said that these are state and territory matters—that it's not up to this Labor government to legislate on these matters. But this government has the external affairs power to legislate on this. This is backed by the evidence received by this inquiry from a range of legal bodies and others. We shouldn't expect state and territory governments to ban the abuse they are themselves causing, when this government won't do anything themselves. That will just ensure the abuse continues.

The committee reports also raise a number of specific issues—asking for an offence to be added to the bill, prohibiting shackling, asking for monitoring and recordkeeping, asking for definitions to be clarified. I've introduced amendments addressing all of those issues, and I'm more than happy to strengthen these bills. Tabitha Lean, organising member of the National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, said it best at the hearings into these bills:

… governments across this country are getting elected off the backs of their strong law and order stance.

… … …

We are always left out of the conversation, but we're always the ones at the sharper end of the policies that the government comes out with.

… … …

… criminalised, incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people are disposable in this community. We're very rarely around the table to discuss these issues, and, when we are, we get a short amount of time to do it. I would love to see politicians, more broadly, reframe this debate. But it's not about that. It's about abolishing it ... I don't know how you can actually shave off any of the grotesque flourishes of sexually assaulting children and make that more palatable … to people. You just have to be brave and actually make the decision. If you suffer consequences … then that's what you do to protect the children in our community.

So I ask all senators who have any decency in their hearts, who have the decency to protect women and children in this country and who have any legal knowledge—because there are a lot of lawyers in here, and you know that legally we have the power in this place to change and to stop this demonic abuse of women and children—to think about the real consequences of your vote: more babies dying, more women dying, more abuse, more paedophilia and more rapes. That's what you're voting for. So think about that consequence before you jump up and shut it down and join forces with each other. Think about people like Tabitha, people like Sharon and people like Heather Calgaret, who should still be with us today. Just do the right thing by them. It's all we're asking. Do the right thing with the power that this place has. We signed up to end torture through OPCAT. This is torture. We signed up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This breaches that. So give your party a conscience vote, because I've seen the shock horror of the women in your parties. Even One Nation are shocked. Just do the right thing. Stop the torture.

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.

I rise to speak on the two bills before the chamber at the moment, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026, and I'll deal with them in that order.

The government acknowledges the concerns raised about stripsearching persons under the age of 18, and the government also acknowledges the important issues that are raised by the bill, including recognising the rights of children and young people. Responsibility for the criminal justice system predominantly rests with states and territories. Searching powers for state and territory police are regulated by states and territories. These powers are used sparingly. For example, ACT police have only performed a search on a child once in the last five years.

No, that's incorrect. You've got the old report. That report was corrected.

Order! The minister has a right to be heard in silence, as you were.

That's wrong information. She's telling lies.

I am asking you to come to order so that we can proceed.

They did not record strip searches for the past 25 years. It's incorrect information.

Order! Senator Thorpe, these are your bills. Everyone has a right to be heard in silence. You had your opportunity—

I get your point. Move on.

to speak. Allow other senators to make their contribution.

I'm not going to be told by you.

If you can't sit and listen, then I invite you to leave the chamber.

The government notes the inquiry into the bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The government acknowledges the evidence provided to the committee through submissions and public hearing, including the impact that stripsearching has on children and young people. The committee found that existing protections in Commonwealth legislation are sufficient to preserve the rights of the child and recommended the government engage with states and territories to address the concerns identified in the report, including training, accountability and transparency.

The government acknowledges the important issues raised in the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill. This includes the harm suffered by the mother and child when subjected to such restraints. We are concerned by the appalling stories raised about the practice of shackling pregnant women who give birth under custodial sentences. The government recognises the importance of strong safeguards and oversight in relation to the exercise of restrictive practices, including those used on vulnerable individuals, such as those in labour.

This bill seeks to ban the shackling of pregnant women who give birth while under custodial sentences. The bill does this by inserting a section 87A into the Crimes Act to prohibit restraint of people while they are giving birth. The bill includes a broad definition as to what is considered a restraint, which includes physical, mechanical, environmental and chemical restraints. As the bill states, the proposed section applies to a person who is detained in prison or a hospital or is otherwise in custody. Laws and policies related to this fall within the remit of the criminal justice system of the state or territory in which this person is held. The responsibility of the criminal justice system is one that predominantly sits with state and territory governments. It's on this basis that the government does not support the bill.

The government notes the inquiry into the bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The committee considered two main questions in relation to the bill: firstly, whether the use of restraints during childbirth is a serious concern; and, secondly, when the bill provides an appropriate, effective and legally sound means of addressing that concern across states and territories. The government acknowledges the evidence provided to the committee through submissions and through public hearings. This evidence raised serious concerns about the practice of restraining women while giving birth in custody. Anecdotal evidence demonstrated the use of this practice in different jurisdictions and the personal impact it has on the health of a mother and a child. Several submitters highlighted the specific impact the practice of shackling during childbirth has on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women.

The committee also heard about the lack of reliable statistical data on the use of shackles during childbirth in Australian correctional facilities. It was highlighted that the lack of uniform data collection has resulted in a gap in understanding about how often this practice is used and how it applies across different jurisdictions. When assessing whether the bill is the appropriate vehicle to address what is a very serious issue, the committee concluded that these issues are most appropriately addressed by states and territories through their corrective services legislation, policies and accountability frameworks. The committee ultimately made two recommendations: first, that the Commonwealth consider appropriate pathways to engage with states and territories to address issues raised by the bill, and, second, that the Australian government work with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the states and territories to collect data around how many women are pregnant and give birth while in custody in Australia each year. The government will consider these recommendations in detail.

In November 2023, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing commissioned the Nous Group to undertake the National review of First Nations healthcare in prisons on behalf of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Collaboration, which comprised Commonwealth, state and territory government health officials and First Nations health sector representatives. The review noted the shackling of women during childbirth for the safety of health staff as an example of where interactions with custodial staff and security requirements can inhibit access, quality or delivery of health care. In December 2024, Commonwealth state and territory health ministers jointly endorsed this review. They committed to developing a national approach to implementation of its six recommendations for reform. This included a recommendation for health and justice ministers to investigate evidence and take steps to cease any practices that violate prisoners' rights. The development of—

The deaths in custody royal commission, 1991, has the answers. It was 35 years ago!

Order! I will remind you, Senator, that you have the right to reply when the debate is coming to an end. So I invite you to make some notes and you can respond in your comments rather than interjecting now.

I was indicating that the Commonwealth, state and territory health ministers have jointly endorsed that review. They have committed to developing a national approach to implement the six recommendations for reform. This included a recommendation for health and justice ministers to investigate evidence and to take steps to cease any practices that violate prisoners' rights. The development of this national approach has been led by the health collaboration in partnership with governments and First Nations stakeholders from the health and justice sectors.

On 3 September, the health collaboration provided their advice to health ministers at the 2026 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health roundtable. This advice is now being considered by governments. At the health roundtable, ministers reaffirmed their commitment to continue to work together to achieve improvements to the health and wellbeing of First Nations people in places of detention and upon their release. The government believes that all Australians are entitled to safety and dignity, including those in custody.

I rise to echo the words of Senator Thorpe and stand in solidarity with her for bringing these two very important bills, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026, before the Senate. I want to begin by asking all my fellow colleagues to picture something—a woman in labour in excruciating pain. She's frightened. Her heart's palpitating. She's about to bring a baby into the world. But she has a cuff around her wrist and a chain on her leg attached to a hospital bed. Tell me what safety that serves and who that is protecting. That mother is fighting for her life and trying to bring another life into the world. I surely can't answer that, and, from listening to the evidence, I see that neither could the people who gave it. They're absolutely shocked at this government's denial of how barbaric this practice is. It has no place in Australia, and it should have ended a very long time ago.

The fact that we're still debating this is outrageous. The bill is so simple that you would sit and wonder why on earth something isn't being done about it. It prohibits restraints during labour, during childbirth, immediately before labour and immediately after birth. Tell me, after going through all that pain, what strength you have to then deal with having shackles around you. This would simply be achieved by inserting a new section, 87A, into the Crimes Act 1914. It's not asking for some revolutionary change but rather a floor beneath which no woman in this country should be treated. It's basic human rights and dignity, and it's also forward looking. It commences the day after royal assent and applies to conduct from that day.

It wasn't long ago that I went through my own experience of childbirth, four and a half months ago. The lead-up to the actual date was just fear inducing because I had to go through this whole induction process. I was exhausted. I was tired. There were all these complications, and the doctors were so focused on trying to provide that care in that moment. Then came the actual birth process, where I was induced. Through that induction, there was pain, excruciating pain. I'm telling you, if you haven't been through it or if you haven't seen someone go through it, you won't understand. I thought I understood—until I went through it myself. It's hours and hours of waiting and of going through pain. It is akin to having all your ribs mushed together. The amount of anxiety and stress that you're going through in that moment is just unfathomable.

I was lucky that in those moments I had the support of my family and I was surrounded by people whose only job was to help me—midwives, nurses, consultants, specialists. Imagine the same room with a guard, a lock and a chain. How is that conducive to any productive experience? A birth with every support around me left me with so much trauma. I think about a hospital and I get PTSD. The whole process, yes, the midwives were there, and they were wonderful. They tried to help. But I go through induction and then realise that I had to have an emergency caesarean. Seven layers get cut open. The baby is taken out. I am literally numb waist down, and they wheel me into the ward. They dismiss and excuse my husband to go back home, and they say, 'Alright, off you go dad.' I'm left with this newborn baby. I can hardly lift, let alone feed. And you're just expected to continue doing that. So, no, I didn't have the golden hour of skin to skin straight after having the baby, because they were too busy trying to stitch me up. All the blood loss—you're absolutely exhausted after the experience, and then in the days to come afterwards. And, yes, I had to go back into hospital after being discharged, because I had an infection. And sometimes those infections can be deadly.

We completely forget—if I had a birth where, yes, I had all the supports around me and people who were there to make sure that it was as smooth of a process as it was, and I'm still feeling that trauma, what does it do to a woman who's restrained in chains, shackled, who barely has any moment of joy with their baby? This practice has no benefit for the mother, and no baby benefits from this. The medical risks are real. Restraints limit movement. We've heard from medical experts who say that it interferes with the health care and delays emergency response. If I was in shackles, for example, and they had to take me in for an emergency caesarean, I can't imagine how long that process would have taken. And labour is unpredictable. You can have the best labour and birth plan, and then in that moment things can just turn upside down. And when something goes wrong, clinicians do need to move really fast. Before the birth, restraints can shift a pregnant woman's centre of gravity, and if her wrists are restrained, it just—I can't believe we're having this debate. I just can't, because the flashbacks that I'm having and now adding the extra layer of imagining a woman all chained up—and there's the psychological harm that lasts from an experience like this. Women who have been restrained during childbirth report severe mental distress, depression, anguish and trauma.

So what do we get in exchange for all this harm? Senator Thorpe pointed out there is no evidence that shackling prevents escape or reduces risk, and there are no reports of any unrestrained person trying to escape during childbirth. Like, are we serious? And we've got the government, who's deflecting responsibility and shirking it off and saying: 'Well, it's states' and territories'. It's up to the states and territories to do something about this.' We know that the states and territories had an opportunity. Many have policies, but those policies contain exemptions and loopholes, and those exemptions often mean that shackling happens anyway. The committee itself recommended collecting data on how many women give birth in custody each year. That means the Commonwealth doesn't even know the scale of what it says is someone else's responsibility. Do your homework, people. Come on—you're in government. This is your second term. We heard about Heather Calgaret as Senator Thorpe was recounting and sharing her story. The severity of this barbaric practice is beyond measure. And how, when this 30-year-old proud Yamatji, Noongar, Wongi and Pitjantjatjara woman died in custody, the coroner's report came out, and he said that her death was preventable. It came not long after she gave birth to her fourth child. She only had one arm, two hours—and that's all they gave her.

We know that the trauma of being restrained while giving birth compounds for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who are overrepresented in our criminal legal system and carry the weight of intergenerational trauma. This is not just an abstract rights question. It lands hardest on First Nations women and their babies. When we stand here, and we ask that this government do better and stop pointing fingers, we know that it is within your remit. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee who conducted the inquiry—yes, they recommended against this bill saying that it's a responsibility of states and territories—acknowledged that there's need for reform. Who's going to do the reform? Who's going to make it happen? Are we just going to sit here twiddling our thumbs while women in shackles are forced to be giving birth in such barbaric ways?

Senator Thorpe rightfully argued that the Commonwealth can legislate national minimum standards and give effect in law to the human rights agreements Australia has ratified, and that can be possible by a power that the Constitution gives this parliament—the external affairs power in paragraph 51. We've signed these treaties. We have stood before the world and said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment must be prohibited, that detainees must be treated humanely and that the interests of the child comes first. In the explanatory memorandum, it actually lists all these conventions and treaties such as the convention against torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If we ratify these obligations and then say it's someone else's job to keep them, then we haven't really made them. We really shouldn't be passing the buck. We're not being asked to lead the world, like the government boasts about leading the world with the social media ban. We're not being asked to lead the world here. We're being asked to catch up. The United Nations Bangkok rules state:

Instruments of restraint shall never be used on women during labour, during birth and immediately after birth.

The UN Committee against Torture has criticised the United States for breaching the convention against torture over this practice. And you know what? As of July 2022, 39 states in the United States, including the District of Columbia, have passed legislation banning restraints in labour and delivery, with some also banning it at other points in the pregnancy and postpartum period. If that reform can be signed by a Republican president, then we know this is not a partisan issue. I implore the Liberals and the Nationals in this place to please support this bill.

This is a real opportunity for us all. Giving birth is the most vulnerable moment in a woman's life. A just society does not chain her to a bed. A just society does not deprive her from that beautiful, joyous moment with her child while she's tied up, chained up. I urge every senator in this place to support this bill. If there are concerns about its drafting, then amend it. Senator Thorpe has said she has amendments ready. But please do not use the structure of our federation as an excuse to look away. Every child deserves to be born in a room of care, not a room of chains. (Time expired)

I rise on behalf of my party, the Greens, to give our clear and unambiguous support to these two pieces of legislation brought by Senator Thorpe: the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026. The first piece of legislation is to prohibit the stripsearching of children. Basically, it's a piece of legislation that says children should not be tortured, humiliated or subjected to, effectively, state sanctioned sexual assault. That's what this bill says. The fact that we're even having this debate about whether it would get to a committee process to make sure that this becomes law, I think, is an indictment on politics. I want to be clear on behalf of my party, the Greens. Children should not be stripsearched by the state. That's it. Children should not be stripsearched by force by the state.

The second piece of legislation is the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026, which says that, when women are giving birth, they must not be shackled. Let's just sit with that for a minute. We have to pass legislation in this country to say women should not be shackled to their beds when they're giving birth, and the reason we have to pass that legislation in this country is that right now that is the experience of women across this country—overwhelmingly First Nations women, but not just First Nations women. We know the women who are being shackled to their beds while they're giving birth to their kids. They're First Nations women and they're poor women. That's who it's happening to, and maybe that's why the Labor Party, the coalition and One Nation don't see it and don't care, because it's First Nations women and poor women that have been shackled to their beds while they're giving birth to their children.

For anyone who's a father or a mother and has been there at that moment when new life is given and your daughter or your son comes into this world, this is an extraordinary moment—a mixture of fear, hope, love and passion. It is an extraordinary moment in anyone's life—mum, dad or grandparents. Ask yourself—anyone in this chamber who's been in that space as new life is being given—what you would have thought or said if either you, your partner or your daughter was shackled to the bed. Ask yourself what you would think about a country that permitted that to happen. I'll tell you what I think: I think it's a disgrace.

We have the Labor Party and the coalition come in here and say, 'No, we're not going to stop this practice.' It happens in the NT, in Queensland and in New South Wales. It happens across the country. The Labor Party and the coalition come in and say: 'No, that's a matter for states and territories. If they want to shackle women to the bed while they're giving birth, we'll just let them do that. All of you have been given unambiguous legal advice from two of the most senior lawyers you could get in this space—a senior counsel and a highly experienced solicitor—who have clearly said the external affairs power under the Constitution says that the Commonwealth can come in and prohibit this torture of women giving birth, and you all say, 'No, it's a matter for the states and territories if they want to continue shackling women while they're giving birth.' You're going to let them do it, or you're going to ask for some more consistent collection and reporting of data on it. That's what you're doing. It is unbelievable that that's your defence and that that's your opposition to Senator Thorpe's legislation.

When it comes to stripsearching kids, when I was a state MP my office resourced Sniff Off, and my current office continues to do so. The reason we've resourced Sniff Off, which identifies where police are engaging in drug dog operations, is that we have seen time and time again how traumatising the search—including, so often, a strip search—is for young women at music festivals and people just walking their way down the streets—that humiliation when you're being taken and stripsearched. When it happens in detention centres or on the streets, overwhelmingly nothing is found, and overwhelmingly it's First Nations kids that are being stripsearched. But let me be clear. Every single time the state stripsearches a child, it's a violent, violent assault on that child and a humiliation. And we say it should be unlawful and illegal.

Pass this bill. If you want to amend it, let it get into committee and amend it. Don't torture women giving birth and don't stripsearch children.

I rise to speak in support of both of these bills, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026. I thank Senator Thorpe for putting these important issues before parliament, for her work in bringing these bills to the Senate.

These bills are about our values as a country. Simply put, they say that we shouldn't stripsearch children in Australia and we shouldn't shackle women giving birth in this country. Clearly, those two things are not radical propositions. In fact, I think if you spoke to most Australians about that, they would be shocked that those two things are happening in our country and they would be urging the parliament to ensure that they don't. And here we have an opportunity to do exactly that. Yes, there is a lack of comprehensive public data about how many Australian children are stripsearched each year, but we know that it happens. And it shouldn't happen. We know it's happened to children as young as 10 years old. Think about that: a ten-year-old being stripsearched in this country. We know that at one point it was happening as regularly as one child every four days—one Australian child every four days being stripsearched.

We also know that, unfortunately and unsurprisingly, First Nations children are disproportionately affected. New South Wales police data for 2023-24 shows that 29 per cent of stripsearches were done on Aboriginal children—almost one in three. That is beyond tragic when you look at the percentage of Aboriginal children in the population.

Here in the ACT we have stronger protections than many other jurisdictions, but we need children to be better protected right across this country. And sadly, on a number of other indicators, the ACT falls well behind. Our youth detention rate in the ACT is, shockingly, approximately double the national rate and the highest of any jurisdiction. Our youngest First Nations children are too far behind, across all five indicators, when starting school, and the number of First Nations children in out-of-home care remains far too high. These are all things that we must work harder to change. It seems that even here in the ACT, where there supposedly is political will—there's certainly will from the public to address these things—we haven't been able to do that. I think that points to something far deeper and to some big challenges that we need to face up to as a country, to actually do what is necessary.

In talking about the safety of our children in this country, the other thing I'd like to touch on is the hugely distressing research released yesterday from the University of Sydney about the rates of child sexual assault. Research has found that over the last decade there has been a 51 per cent increase in sexual assault on girls aged 10 to 17 and a 60 per cent increase in sexual assault on boys. This should concern all of us and be a call to action for all of us. This is nothing short of devastating and something that we don't talk about enough in parliament. Protecting our children and future generations surely must be one of our top priorities in this place.

This data is hard to digest. It's confronting, but that's not a reason for staying silent. Researchers and advocates are calling for the government to urgently implement in full the recommendations handed down in the August 2024 rapid review of prevention approaches. There is much work to do in this space. Unfortunately, it seems, when a bill is brought forward in good faith by crossbenchers, the government has a policy of not supporting any bill other than their own bills. I don't think it speaks to a healthy democracy. It doesn't speak to a democracy where there is a true contest of ideas, where ideas can be put forward in good faith that address challenges that clearly need to be dealt with in this country. We have a government that say either 'don't worry, it's the states' responsibility; someone else will fix that,' or 'because that's not our bill, we will not support it'. I urge the government to rethink this approach, to embrace a more collaborative approach to our democracy and to actually do the sorts of things that protect women, that protect children and that rebuild trust in our democracy and make Australia a better country.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put on the second reading of the bills.

I rise to continue speaking to the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026, both of which the coalition and Labor just refused to allow to go to a vote. Shame on you! You don't even have the courage to put on the record that you support stripsearching children and shackling women. If you didn't, you'd be on this side of the chamber. Shame!

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.