This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Law, justice & rights
People could start genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes proceedings in Australia without first getting written approval from the Attorney-General, for cases started after the law began.
Attorney-General sign-off has blocked most genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes cases in Australia, leaving little or no recourse and undermining the Genocide ConventionThe treaty Australia joined that commits countries to prevent genocide and punish people who commit it.’s aim to prevent and punish these crimes. This bill removes that approval requirement for new prosecutions and expands review of past consent decisions.
Australia signed the Genocide ConventionThe treaty Australia joined that commits countries to prevent genocide and punish people who commit it. in 1948 and brought genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes into domestic law in 2002, but it did so with an Attorney-General veto over prosecutions and near-total limits on reviewing that decision, which the bill’s backers said had blocked most cases and left the conventionThe treaty Australia joined that commits countries to prevent genocide and punish people who commit it.’s promise of prevention and punishment hollow. Senator Lidia Thorpe’s 2024 bill responded by trying to remove that gatekeeping for new cases and open past consent decisions to broader review, but the Senate rejected it in March 2025 so the existing barriers stayed in place.
The main criticism was that removing the Attorney-General's approval safeguard could open genocide and war crimes cases to activist-driven litigation and undermine national security or foreign relations. This objection appears to have been raised chiefly by the Coalition, while other speakers recorded here backed the bill rather than arguing against its policy goal.
Senator Lidia Thorpe introduced this bill. It was supported by Greens, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members; opposed by Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
1 recorded vote before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
413 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
People could start genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes proceedings in Australia without first getting written approval from the Attorney-General, for cases started after the law began.
Past Attorney-General decisions refusing or giving approval for these prosecutions could be challenged more broadly, instead of mostly being closed off from review.
The change to Attorney-General approval would apply even when the alleged genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes happened before the new law started, as long as the prosecution began later.
The bill would remove two Criminal CodeThe main Commonwealth criminal law that this bill would amend to change how atrocity crime prosecutions can begin. sections that currently require Attorney-General sign-off and block most appeals against that sign-off decision.
The practical impact of this Bill, is that the consent of the Attorney-General will not be required for proceedings relating to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against the administration of the justice of the International Criminal Court commenced after the commencement of the Act.Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) explanatory memorandum
It further removes the restrictions on review of decisions of the Attorney-General to give or refuse consent to institute proceedings for such offences made prior to the commencement of the Act.Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) explanatory memorandum
Subitem 2(1) specifies that the repeal of section 268.121 of the Criminal Code by this Schedule applies to proceedings for an offence commenced on or after the commencement of this Schedule, whether or not the offence to which the proceedings relate is alleged to have been committed before, on or after that commencement.Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) explanatory memorandum
This item repeals sections 268.121 and 268.122 of the Criminal Code.Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia signed the Genocide ConventionThe treaty Australia joined that commits countries to prevent genocide and punish people who commit it. in 1948 and brought genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes into domestic law in 2002, but it did so with an Attorney-General veto over prosecutions and near-total limits on reviewing that decision, which the bill’s backers said had blocked most cases and left the conventionThe treaty Australia joined that commits countries to prevent genocide and punish people who commit it.’s promise of prevention and punishment hollow. Senator Lidia Thorpe’s 2024 bill responded by trying to remove that gatekeeping for new cases and open past consent decisions to broader review, but the Senate rejected it in March 2025 so the existing barriers stayed in place.
Australia signs the Genocide ConventionThe treaty Australia joined that commits countries to prevent genocide and punish people who commit it.
Australia joined the new postwar treaty committing states to prevent and punish genocide under international law.
Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) explanatory memorandum ↗The Genocide ConventionThe treaty Australia joined that commits countries to prevent genocide and punish people who commit it. enters into force in Australia
The treaty became operative for Australia, creating an international obligation that supporters later argued domestic law still did not fully match.
Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) explanatory memorandum ↗Australia criminalises genocide and related atrocity crimes with an Attorney-General veto
The 2002 amendments added genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to Australian law but required written Attorney-General consent for prosecutions and largely blocked appeals against that decision.
Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) explanatory memorandum ↗Senator Thorpe introduces a bill to remove the Attorney-General gatekeeping
The private senator's bill was introduced to let new Division 268The part of the Criminal Code that sets out genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences. cases start without written Attorney-General approval and to allow broader review of earlier consent decisions.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Senate rejects the bill at the second readingThe main debate stage in the Senate or House where members vote on whether a bill should proceed further.
The second readingThe main debate stage in the Senate or House where members vote on whether a bill should proceed further. was negatived, leaving the existing consent requirementThe rule that the Attorney-General must give written consent before a genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes case can start. and narrow review limits in the Criminal CodeThe main Commonwealth criminal law that this bill would amend to change how atrocity crime prosecutions can begin. unchanged.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe main debate stage in the Senate or House where members vote on whether a bill should proceed further., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe main debate stage in the Senate or House where members vote on whether a bill should proceed further. moved
Referred to Committee (08/02/2024): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/11/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second readingThe main debate stage in the Senate or House where members vote on whether a bill should proceed further. negatived
Key criticism
The main criticism was that removing the Attorney-General's approval safeguard could open genocide and war crimes cases to activist-driven litigation and undermine national security or foreign relations. This objection appears to have been raised chiefly by the Coalition, while other speakers recorded here backed the bill rather than arguing against its policy goal.
Recorded criticism was limited and focused on safeguards and national-interest risks.
Loss of a safeguard against politicised cases
Opponents argued that taking away the Attorney-General's consent requirementThe rule that the Attorney-General must give written consent before a genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes case can start. removes an important safeguard and could let activist or politically motivated prosecutions reach the courts in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes matters.
Risk to national security and foreign relations
The Coalition said the consent power helps protect broader national interests, and warned that removing it could damage Australia's national security and foreign relations by allowing sensitive prosecutions to proceed without that political check.
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated 14 to 24. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation.
These are votes on the bill itself rather than amendment votes.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Thorpe supports the bill and says it should pass because it would remove the Attorney-General's fiatThe rule that the Attorney-General must give written consent before a genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes case can start., strengthen accountability, and better implement the Genocide ConventionThe treaty Australia joined that commits countries to prevent genocide and punish people who commit it. in domestic law.
Read in Hansard ↗Michaelia Cash says the coalition will oppose the bill because it would remove the Attorney-General's consent safeguard for prosecutions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which she says could expose the courts to activist lawfare and harm national security and foreign relations interests.
Read in Hansard ↗Shoebridge says the Greens support the bill because it removes a political veto over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes prosecutions and helps Australia meet its international obligations.
Read in Hansard ↗Cox says the Greens strongly support the bill and wants the Senate to pass it because the Attorney-General veto over genocide and war crimes prosecutions should be removed.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“We have looked at the bill. We have analysed each section of the bill, and the reason we are not supporting it is because of what it does. As I said, put simply, the bill that we have before us—in other words, the legislation as drafted and the effect of the legislation, should it pass through this place—is, quite frankly, an attempt to further open up our courts to abuse by activists who engage in lawfare to pursue a political agenda.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“So we say this: of course we support this bill. War criminals, those who commit genocide and those who commit crimes against humanity must be held to account—whether those crimes happened here against First Nations peoples or anywhere on this planet. We commend Senator Thorpe for bringing in this bill and we reject the criticism of her passion and her commitment that we saw from the coalition. It's about time that the planet bent towards justice, and we can do a bit here by removing the bars to the prosecution of those who commit genocide and by making Australia live up to its international commitments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill, importantly, challenges the current power—as my colleague Senator Shoebridge has already said—of the Attorney-General, who is the highest lawmaker.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Lidia Thorpe on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Thorpe supports the bill and says it should pass because it would remove the Attorney-General's fiatThe rule that the Attorney-General must give written consent before a genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes case can start., strengthen accountability, and better implement the Genocide ConventionThe treaty Australia joined that commits countries to prevent genocide and punish people who commit it. in domestic law. She argues the current system blocks justice for victims and allows political discretion to interfere with prosecutions.
“As a democratic country who was very supportive of the original intention of the Convention, the Federal Government should have no problem passing this Bill and stating their intention to be accountable to the people who they serve. Passing this Bill is not a substitution for enshrining the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in full into domestic legislation and indeed fully upholding human rights in this country.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Thorpe strongly supports the bill, saying it is needed to give victims access to justice by removing the Attorney-General’s sole power to block genocide prosecutions and by restoring review of those decisions. She argues the current fiat protects perpetrators and keeps Australia from meeting its human rights obligations.
“This bill contains two simple demands: to remove the Attorney-General as the sole person in this country who can decide whether the crime of genocide can be prosecuted in the courts of this country; and to lift the block on the appeal or review of these decisions. The main bill addresses atrocity crimes of genocide that occurred domestically, and the circulated amendment on sheet 3055 upholds the principle of universal jurisdiction and ensures the fiat is removed for crimes that occurred in a foreign country when the individual accused is neither an Australian citizen nor a resident.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingThe main debate stage in the Senate or House where members vote on whether a bill should proceed further. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe main debate stage in the Senate or House where members vote on whether a bill should proceed further., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe main debate stage in the Senate or House where members vote on whether a bill should proceed further. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe main debate stage in the Senate or House where members vote on whether a bill should proceed further. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading negatived
Second readingThe main debate stage in the Senate or House where members vote on whether a bill should proceed further. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/11/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (8 Feb 2024): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (13 Nov 2024)
APH bill page notes
