Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025: removing mandatory minimums explained

The short answer

Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025: removing mandatory minimums explained

The Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025 is a private senator's bill introduced by Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi on 26 March 2025. It amends the Crimes Act 1914 to remove mandatory minimum sentences for certain Commonwealth offences. Mandatory minimum sentences require courts to impose at least a specified prison term regardless of the individual circumstances of the offence or the offender. The bill would restore judicial discretion, allowing courts to consider all relevant factors — including the offender's circumstances, prospects of rehabilitation, and the nature of the offence — when determining an appropriate sentence. The bill is currently before the Senate.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes

The Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025 is a concise but significant private senator's bill. Its core proposal is straightforward: amend the Crimes Act 1914 to remove mandatory minimum sentences that currently apply to certain Commonwealth offences. The bill was introduced by Senator Mehreen Faruqi of the Australian Greens on 26 March 2025.

Mandatory minimum sentences are legislative provisions that require courts to impose a minimum term of imprisonment for specific offences, regardless of mitigating factors. They remove judicial discretion by preventing judges from imposing a sentence below the statutory minimum, even if the judge considers that the individual circumstances warrant a lesser penalty.

By repealing these provisions, the bill would restore the normal sentencing framework in which Parliament sets maximum penalties and courts determine the appropriate sentence within that range, guided by sentencing principles and the individual facts of each case.

Evidence review

Mandatory minimum sentences in Australian law

Mandatory minimum sentences exist in both Commonwealth and state and territory legislation in Australia. At the Commonwealth level, they were introduced incrementally — primarily for people smuggling offences and certain terrorism-related crimes — by successive governments. The Northern Territory and Western Australia have also enacted mandatory sentencing provisions for various state offences.

The debate over mandatory sentencing involves competing principles of criminal justice. Proponents argue that mandatory minimums ensure consistency, reflect community condemnation of serious offences, and provide deterrence. Opponents argue that they produce unjust outcomes in individual cases, disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups including First Nations people, and undermine the constitutional role of courts in administering justice according to the circumstances of each case.

Legal bodies including the Law Council of Australia, state and territory law societies and bar associations, and the Australian Human Rights Commission have consistently opposed mandatory sentencing, citing evidence that it is ineffective as a deterrent and produces unfair outcomes.

Evidence review

Which offences are affected?

The Crimes Act 1914 contains mandatory minimum sentence provisions for several categories of Commonwealth offences. The most prominent are people smuggling offences under the Migration Act 1958, which carry mandatory minimums of three to eight years depending on the specific offence. Terrorism-related offences and certain child sex offences also carry mandatory minimums.

The bill's repeal of mandatory minimums would affect these provisions. It is important to note that repealing mandatory minimums does not reduce maximum penalties — courts would still have the power to impose sentences up to the statutory maximum for the most serious examples of these offences. The change is to the floor, not the ceiling.

The exact list of provisions to be repealed would be detailed in the bill's schedule. The Explanatory Memorandum should provide the government's analysis of which specific sections of the Crimes Act are affected and the rationale for each amendment.

Evidence review

The political context

Senator Faruqi's bill is consistent with a long-standing Greens policy position opposing mandatory sentencing. The Greens have consistently argued that sentencing should be a judicial function, not a legislative one, and that mandatory minimums cause injustice by preventing judges from considering the full circumstances of each case.

The major parties have taken different positions on mandatory sentencing over time. The Coalition has generally supported mandatory minimums for people smuggling, terrorism, and child sex offences. Labor has been more divided — some state Labor governments have enacted mandatory sentencing for certain violent offences, while the Commonwealth parliamentary Labor Party has at times opposed mandatory minimums for federal offences.

As a private senator's bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill faces the same procedural challenges as other non-government legislation. Its main function may be to provide a parliamentary vehicle for debate on mandatory sentencing, even if it does not pass.

Evidence review

What happens next

The bill is before the Senate, having been introduced on 26 March 2025. As with all private senators' bills, its progression depends on the government allocating time for debate and on it securing majority support in both chambers.

In practice, this bill would require government support to progress, given the political sensitivity of mandatory sentencing and the government's control of the legislative programme. However, the bill serves to keep the issue of mandatory sentencing on the parliamentary agenda and provides a legislative reference point for future reform efforts.

OzPolitics will update this review if the bill is debated, amended, or if the government introduces its own sentencing reform legislation. Readers should check the Parliament of Australia website for the bill's current status and any committee reports.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer