The short answer

Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023 explained

The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023 is a private senator's bill introduced by Senator Lidia Thorpe (Independent, Victoria) on 29 November 2023. It amends the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to expand the definition of 'human rights' to include the rights and freedoms recognised by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. All Commonwealth bills would require a Statement of Compatibility with UNDRIP, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights would scrutinise legislation for Indigenous rights compliance.

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

UNDRIP and what it requires

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. Australia initially voted against it (along with Canada, New Zealand and the United States) but endorsed it in 2009. UNDRIP is a declaration, not a treaty — it does not create binding legal obligations in the same way a ratified convention does, but it represents the international community's agreed standards for the treatment of Indigenous peoples.

UNDRIP recognises a range of Indigenous rights including: self-determination; free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) regarding matters affecting Indigenous peoples; protection of cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and intellectual property; rights to lands, territories and resources; and participation in decision-making. These rights are broad and their application to specific legislative proposals would require interpretation.

Unlike the seven international human rights treaties currently covered by the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 — including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child — UNDRIP is not a treaty. This is significant because the existing framework is built around treaty-based rights. The bill would treat UNDRIP on the same footing as treaty rights for the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny.

Evidence review

How the bill would change parliamentary scrutiny

The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 currently requires every bill introduced into Parliament and every legislative instrument to be accompanied by a Statement of Compatibility with the seven international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party. The statement must assess whether the bill or instrument is compatible with those human rights. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights examines bills and instruments for compatibility and reports to Parliament.

The bill would add UNDRIP to the definition of 'human rights' in the Act. This means every bill — whether about taxation, defence procurement, health funding, environmental regulation or any other subject — would need to include an assessment of its compatibility with UNDRIP. The PJCHR would scrutinise bills for UNDRIP compliance.

This is a structural reform. Currently, Indigenous rights are considered through specific legislative mechanisms — the Native Title Act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, and various state and territory laws. The bill would create a universal obligation to consider UNDRIP in every legislative proposal, mainstreaming Indigenous rights scrutiny across all portfolios.

Evidence review

The sponsor and the political context

Senator Lidia Thorpe is a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung woman and an Independent senator for Victoria, having previously been a Greens senator. She has been a prominent advocate for Indigenous sovereignty, treaty and UNDRIP implementation. The bill reflects her consistent parliamentary focus on structural change to the legislative process rather than individual policy measures.

The bill was introduced in November 2023, shortly after the unsuccessful 2023 referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The referendum's defeat removed one path for Indigenous rights reform; the bill proposes an alternative path through parliamentary process rather than constitutional amendment. This context is significant — the bill is part of a broader conversation about how Australia implements its international commitments to Indigenous peoples following the referendum.

At the time of writing in July 2026, Senator Thorpe continued to raise UNDRIP in Senate proceedings — including during the Closing the Gap debate on 2 March 2026 — demonstrating the connection between her legislative agenda and her broader parliamentary strategy.

Evidence review

Implementation questions

The bill raises significant implementation questions. A Statement of Compatibility with UNDRIP for every bill is a substantial analytical task. Government departments would need expertise in UNDRIP interpretation to draft meaningful compatibility statements. The PJCHR would need additional resources to scrutinise UNDRIP compliance across all legislation.

The interpretive challenge is particularly acute. UNDRIP's provisions — such as FPIC — do not have settled legal meanings in Australian law. Different departments, the PJCHR and ultimately the courts would need to develop interpretive frameworks. The first few years of operation would be characterised by uncertainty and legal development.

Four sets of amendments have been circulated for the bill — an unusually high number for a private senator's bill. This suggests active engagement with the bill's text and attempts to refine its scope or address concerns. The amendments may address questions such as which articles of UNDRIP are included, how conflicts between rights are resolved, and the standard of compatibility required.

The bill has been before the Senate for more than two and a half years without coming to a vote. This longevity — unusual for a private senator's bill — suggests it has attracted ongoing attention even if government support for passage has not materialised.

Evidence review

Parliamentary pathway and what happens next

The bill has been before the Senate since November 2023 — more than two and a half years — without coming to a vote. Four sets of amendments have been circulated, an unusually high number for a private senator's bill, suggesting active engagement with the text.

As a private senator's bill, its prospects depend on securing government support or a majority of non-government senators. The government has not indicated support, and no major party has adopted UNDRIP implementation as a legislative priority. The bill's longevity on the notice paper reflects sustained interest rather than imminent passage.

Even if the bill does not pass, its presence on the notice paper serves an agenda-setting function. It provides a reference point for debate when other Indigenous rights legislation is considered, and it keeps UNDRIP implementation in the parliamentary conversation. Senator Thorpe's continued references to UNDRIP in Senate proceedings — including during the 2 March 2026 Closing the Gap debate — demonstrate this function.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer

What is the difference between a treaty and a declaration like UNDRIP?

A treaty creates binding legal obligations when ratified. A UN declaration expresses agreed international standards but is not legally binding in the same way. Australia ratified the seven treaties currently covered by the PJCHR. UNDRIP is a declaration, not a treaty. The bill would give it equivalent scrutiny status.

Would this bill create new legal rights for Indigenous people?

Not directly. The bill changes the parliamentary scrutiny process — it requires the government to assess whether legislation is compatible with UNDRIP and allows the PJCHR to report on that assessment. It does not create a direct cause of action or give individuals new rights to sue. However, over time, systematic UNDRIP scrutiny could influence how courts interpret legislation.

What is 'free, prior and informed consent' (FPIC)?

FPIC is a principle in UNDRIP that Indigenous peoples should be consulted and give their consent before projects or laws affecting them are approved. Its precise meaning and application in Australian law is contested. The bill would require the government to assess legislation against FPIC without defining exactly what that means — that interpretive work would fall to departments, the PJCHR and ultimately the courts.

Source spine

Primary material used for this guide

Review trigger: Review if the bill is brought to a vote in the Senate, if any of the circulated amendments are agreed to, or if the government announces alternative UNDRIP implementation mechanisms.

Archive note: Written from the bill's APH page, first reading text, Explanatory Memorandum, circulated amendments and Senator Thorpe's parliamentary statements. The bill was introduced on 29 November 2023 and was still before the Senate in July 2026.

Primary links are provided without affiliate or tracking parameters. Confirm that the source still applies to the bill, sitting date, jurisdiction or reporting period before relying on it.