← Back to home Browse all bills

Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth)

Current status

This bill is currently before Parliament.

Policy area

Government & democracy

What does this bill do?

People giving birth in prison, hospital detention or other custodyBeing held by government authorities. could not be restrained during the birth process.

Why was it introduced?

Senator Lidia Thorpe (Independent), who introduced the bill, said shackling can cause bleeding, reduced foetal heart rate and dangerous delays in an emergency caesarean. She said even a few minutes' delay could cause permanent brain damage or endanger a baby's life. Thorpe also said state and territory policies had not stopped shackling, while there were no reported escape attempts by unrestrained people during childbirth.

Broader context

Australia already had state and territory laws, policies and guidelines intended to regulate restraints in custodyBeing held by government authorities., but official findings and reporting showed that shackling in hospitals could breach legal standards and cause injuries; the explanatory memorandum says childbirth restraints remained medically damaging, traumatising and degrading. On 18 August 2026, Senator Lidia Thorpe introduced a private member’s bill to replace that patchwork with a national ban covering all forms of restraint during childbirth, because existing laws had not stopped the practice.

Key criticism

The evidence pack does not contain criticism from another speaker or party. It contains Thorpe's speech supporting the bill, after which the debate was adjourned.

Who supported it?

Senator Lidia Thorpe introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from some crossbench members.

Introduced in Senate 18 Aug 2026
At second reading in Senate 18 Aug 2026
Not yet reached House —
Not yet law —

Did it become law?

Not yet

Final passage

No final vote yet

The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.

Days since introduction

49 days

Updated 06 Oct 2026.

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

Meaning

What does this bill do?

  1. People giving birth in prison, hospital detention or other custodyBeing held by government authorities. could not be restrained during the birth process.

  2. People in custodyBeing held by government authorities. would also be protected immediately before labour and immediately after giving birth.

  3. People giving birth could not be restrained through physical force, medication, restricted surroundings or devices used to control behaviour.

  4. Patients could still receive prescribed medication for physical treatment or end-of-life care.

  5. People giving birth would receive this protection across Commonwealth, state and territory laws. Conflicting laws would have no effect.

  6. People giving birth would be covered for conduct from the law's starting date. The bill would start one day after royal assentFormal approval that makes a bill law..

Show source excerpts
  1. 87A Persons must not be restrained while giving birth (1) This section applies to a person who is: (a) detained in prison; or (b) detained in a hospital; or (c) otherwise in custody. (2) Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (whether written or unwritten), a person to whom this section applies must not be restrained at any time during the child birthing process, including: (a) while giving birth; or (b) while in labour; or (c) immediately before entering labour; or (d) immediately after giving birth.
    Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) introduced text
  2. (2) Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (whether written or unwritten), a person to whom this section applies must not be restrained at any time during the child birthing process, including: (a) while giving birth; or (b) while in labour; or (c) immediately before entering labour; or (d) immediately after giving birth.
    Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) introduced text
  3. (5) In this section: chemical restraint means a restraint that is, or involves, the use of medication or a chemical substance for the primary purpose of influencing a person’s behaviour, but does not include the use of medication prescribed for: (a) the treatment of, or to enable treatment of, the person for: (i) a physical illness; or (ii) a physical condition; or (b) end‑of‑life care for the person. environmental restraint means a restraint that restricts, or that involves restricting, a person’s free access to all parts of the person’s environment (including items and activities) for
    Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) introduced text
  4. chemical restraint means a restraint that is, or involves, the use of medication or a chemical substance for the primary purpose of influencing a person’s behaviour, but does not include the use of medication prescribed for: (a) the treatment of, or to enable treatment of, the person for: (i) a physical illness; or (ii) a physical condition; or (b) end‑of‑life care for the person.
    Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) introduced text
  5. (2) Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (whether written or unwritten), a person to whom this section applies must not be restrained at any time during the child birthing process, including: (a) while giving birth; or (b) while in labour; or (c) immediately before entering labour; or (d) immediately after giving birth. (3) Any law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, in force immediately before the commencement of this section, or enacted after that commencement, is of no effect so far as it is inconsistent with this section. (4) This section doe
    Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) introduced text
  6. 2 Application The amendments of the Crimes Act 1914 made by this Schedule apply to conduct engaged in on or after the commencement of this Schedule.
    Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) introduced text

Context

Broader context for this bill

Australia already had state and territory laws, policies and guidelines intended to regulate restraints in custodyBeing held by government authorities., but official findings and reporting showed that shackling in hospitals could breach legal standards and cause injuries; the explanatory memorandum says childbirth restraints remained medically damaging, traumatising and degrading. On 18 August 2026, Senator Lidia Thorpe introduced a private member’s bill to replace that patchwork with a national ban covering all forms of restraint during childbirth, because existing laws had not stopped the practice.

  1. 19 July 2012

    Ombudsman finds inmates shackled in breach of law

    An ombudsman report found some inmates in hospitals were mistreated by prison staff, including shackling in breach of the law.

    ABC News ↗
  2. 24 May 2016

    Ombudsman uncovers injuries from hospital shackling

    A South Australian ombudsman investigation reported that correctional staff continued restraining a man with schizophrenia in a Royal Adelaide Hospital emergency room for days and that shackles caused injuries.

    ABC News ↗
  3. 18 Aug 2026

    Senator Lidia Thorpe introduces private member’s bill

    Senator Lidia Thorpe formally presented the bill in the Senate, proposing a national prohibition after state and territory laws had failed to stop shackling during childbirth.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗

Legislative route

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced 18 Aug 2026

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 18 Aug 2026

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Legal and Constitutional Affairs review 20 Aug 2026

Referred to Committee (20/08/2026): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Report due 07/10/2026

Report due 07 Oct 2026

APH bill page notes

Key criticism

The main case against this bill

The evidence pack does not contain criticism from another speaker or party. It contains Thorpe's speech supporting the bill, after which the debate was adjourned.

Thorpe argued that shackling was medically harmful, traumatic and ineffective. No opposing argument is available in the supplied debate material.

Further sources

parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗

Votes

Recorded votes

No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.

Parliamentary debate

Who spoke, and what they said

Start here — lead voices

Sponsor speech Supports

Lidia Thorpe

Independent • Senator 18 Aug 2026

Thorpe supports the bill because shackling during childbirth is cruel, medically dangerous and unsupported by evidence, and state and territory policies have failed to stop it.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Minor parties and independents

1 speaker · 1 support

  1. Lidia Thorpe ★ Thorpe supports the bill because shackling during childbirth is cruel, medically dangerous and unsupported by evidence, and state and territory policies have failed to stop it.
    “Shackling during childbirth still happens Australia-wide. It is completely unnecessary and ineffective, while being dangerous for both parent and child. State and territory policies have not successfully ended it—federal legislation is now needed to do so.”

    Independent • Senator • 18 Aug 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Record

Full record

Full chat