The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) today released its Discussion Paper in its Review of Surrogacy Laws. The Discussion Paper sets out proposed reforms of surrogacy laws for feedback and also asks a number of questions. Organisations and individuals with an interest in the review are invited to provide submissions until 19 December 2025. 

ALRC President the Hon Justice Mordy Bromberg said:

“Regulated surrogacy is an accepted practice in every Australian jurisdiction. Our ideas for reform seek to improve regulation of surrogacy in Australia so that our laws better realise the underlying policy intent – avoiding exploitation and promoting the best interests of the child. ALRC Inquiries are underpinned by extensive research, stakeholder consultations and engagement with experts, and we want to hear from as many people as possible in relation to our proposals. I encourage all those with an interest to make a submission.”  

Assistant Commissioner for the Inquiry, Associate Professor Ronli Sifris, added:

“The ideas for reform in the Discussion Paper are informed by our research, consultations, analysis and the submissions we have received to date. It contains options for reform aimed at better supporting the formation of families, protecting the rights of children, preventing exploitation, and ensuring all parties to surrogacy are treated fairly. I encourage individuals to read the Discussion Paper, consider the proposed reforms and tell us what they think as we prepare recommendations for our Final Report.”  

Surrogacy is a practice in which a person carries and gives birth to a child for another person or couple. While surrogacy laws exist in all Australian states and territories, they vary across jurisdictions, creating complexity and challenges in effectively regulating surrogacy. These challenges create a surrogacy landscape in Australia that is confusing and difficult to navigate, with constraints on access that cause many to travel overseas for surrogacy. 

The ALRC’s Discussion Paper contains 41 proposals for reforms, along with 24 questions seeking feedback on how proposed reforms could work. Proposals include: 

• Creating a nationally consistent legal and regulatory framework for surrogacy, with oversight by a national regulator 

• Safeguards that must be complied with before a surrogacy arrangement begins 

• Financial and other support 

• Appropriate domestic pathways to legal parentage 

• For overseas surrogacy arrangements, if intended parents have gone through certain steps to register the arrangement, they can access a streamlined process for the child to obtain citizenship and passport documents. 

• Information about the surrogacy arrangement available as an addendum to the birth certificate and via a surrogacy register. 

Background 

The Commonwealth Attorney-General referred the Review of Surrogacy Laws to the ALRC in December 2024. The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference request the ALRC to make law reform proposals that: are consistent with Australia’s obligations under international law and conventions; and protect and promote the human rights of children born as a result of surrogacy arrangements, surrogates and intending parents, noting that the best interests of children are paramount. 

The Review of Surrogacy Laws is being led by ALRC President, the Hon Justice Mordy Bromberg, along with Assistant Commissioner Associate Professor Ronli Sifris. The ALRC is to provide its final report to the Government by 29 July 2026.  

Learn more about the review at https://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiry/review-of-surrogacy-laws/ 

Links 

Review of Surrogacy Laws Discussion Paper (2025)

Two page explainer 

Review of Surrogacy Laws Issues Paper (2025) 

Terms of Reference 

ENDS 

For more information contact: 

Jez Hunghanfoo
Director of Communications and Engagement 
P: 03 9959 5313 
E: comms@alrc.gov.au 
W: www.alrc.gov.au 

Keynote address to the Australian Institute of Employment Rights‘s Ron McCallum Debate: Reforming Australia’s Labour Laws, 6 November 2025, Sydney

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

In my current position as President of the Australian Law Reform Commission, I get invited to speak at events such as tonight’s often. As the founding president of the Australian Institute of Employment Rights, the important institution hosting tonight’s Debate, I was particularly pleased to receive this invitation to speak, especially as I was instructed that I had to be brief. But what pleased me more was that the invitation was to speak at an event which honours my great friend and mentor – Ron McCallum.

Ron McCallum and I go back a long way. Ron was my lecturer in labour law at university. Ron ignited my passion for labour law – a passion which has dominated my work as a lawyer and as a judge. If I have any wisdom about labour law, it is largely due to Ron. Even the little bit of wisdom I wish to convey to you tonight – that there is a better way to reform our labour laws – has a connection to Ron.

Ron and I were both members of the steering committee of eminent persons which, as part of a law reform exercise engaged in by the Australian Institute of Employment Rights in 2007, developed the “Australian Charter of Employment Rights” and the accompanying book of the same name. As the introduction to the book states, the Charter was created as an instrument for advocating for the reform of labour law in Australia.

The message that I want to convey tonight is not so much about how we should reform the substance of our labour laws – it is largely a message about process. However, I cannot pass over the Charter of Employment Rights without saying that that document was and remains a very useful guide to how the content of our labour laws should be reformed. The Charter is framed as a statement of the reciprocal rights of workers and employers that our laws should recognise and enforce. It was crafted on the premise that improved workplace relations requires a collaborative culture in which workers commit to the legitimate expectations of the enterprise in which they work, and employers provide for the legitimate expectations of their workers.

The importance of collaboration, or of a collaborative approach, was not only an essential element, central to the Charter’s content, it was also the defining ingredient in the law reform process through which the Charter was created.

The Charter is largely based on rights recognised in Conventions and Recommendations made through the collaborative, tripartite processes of the International Labour Organisation, in which all of the three stakeholders in labour relations – workers, employers and government – have direct input into the formation of labour law reform at the international level.

Indeed, the very idea for the formation of the Australian Institute of Employment Rights as a think tank for promoting labour law reform, was that a tripartite structure fairly reflecting the perspectives of employers, workers and government, should beat the heart of the Institute as well as its proposals for reform.

The impetus for that approach to labour law reform is reflected in Bob Hawke’s forward to the Charter of Employment Rights. Our esteemed former Prime Minister said this:

My appeal to Australia – to all workers, to all employers, to all political parties – is this: let Australia move beyond the class politics, the vitriol, the entrenched distrust, and the short-sightedness that have characterized at least the last ten years of industrial relations in this country. Let us set side, forever the senseless tug-of-war between labour and capital, and encourage both to pull co-operatively in the one direction. Australian industrial relations has now reached the tipping point. Australia needs to recognize that a winner-take-all approach is unsustainable, but that a win-win solution is attainable.

That impetus for a changed way of reforming labour law in Australia, is also reflected in my own words in the Introduction to the book where I said this:

A balanced, fair and inclusive approach to workplace relations in Australia is long overdue. Labour law has been a political football kicked back and forth by the ideological warriors of class politics for far too long and at far too great a cost. Class-based politics have engendered an adversarial and conflict-driven approach to workplace relations that has not served Australia well. This trend continues. The Charter is an attempt to encourage a new direction.

Unfortunately, the new collaborative, tripartite direction to labour law reform that the Charter was based upon and which it tried to foster, has not eventuated. Labour law reform in Australia remains a largely partisan exercise which, depending on which of our major political parties is in government, either the agenda of the workers or, alternatively, the agenda of the employers is the primary basis for the reform.

A well-crafted and far more effective law reform process would be based on a contemporaneous, holistic consideration of the agendas of all relevant stakeholders. That consideration would be conducted with comprehensive consultation and the active participation of all relevant stakeholders. It would make a non-partisan, independent, evidence-based assessment of the merits of each and every claim for reform. The process would identify the legitimate rights and needs of workers and those of employers and, supported by transparent reasoning, the law reform process would demonstrate how, in accordance with a principled rather than a value-laden approach, those rights and interests have been appropriately balanced to achieve a regime which is fair to all.

Now if, noting that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is in the room, you’re beginning to think that my speech is a pitch for an Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into Australia’s labour laws, let me assure you – that you are correct!

But let me end by saying that, based on my 45 years experience of labour law, whoever is given the opportunity to conduct a labour law reform exercise of the kind that I am advocating for, that exercise can be expected to unveil a very rich vein of productivity benefits. A gold-mine of productivity able to be accessed and shared by both workers and employers alike. That gold-mine is what Bob Hawke had in mind as the ‘win-win’ solution to the problematic ‘winner-take-all approach’ to the reform of Australia’s labour laws.

Address to the Australian Law Forum 2025 by ALRC President the Hon Justice Mordy Bromberg, 14 August 2025

Source: Lawyers Weekly (Instagram: Lawyers Weekly)

Transcript

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

“Sensation is unorganised stimulus, perception is organised sensation, conception is organised perception, science is organised knowledge, wisdom is organised life: each is a greater degree of order, and sequence and unity.”

At the essence of that quote – a quote often attributed to Immanuel Kant – is the idea that wisdom is more valuable than intelligence. I will come back to that because it is at the heart of one of the fundamental propositions I want to develop and leave you with. That proposition is this – in a changing world and, in particular, in a legal world about to be transformed by Artificial Intelligence, lawyers need to lean into and enhance the uniquely human skills we have that AI will complement but cannot replicate.

But before I develop that proposition, let me firstly say good morning and tell you how pleased I am to be joining you here at the inaugural Australian Law Forum. I would like to commence my address by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the lands on which we are meeting here today, the Gadigal Peoples of the Eora Nation, and pay my respects to their Elders past and present, as well as any First Nations people in attendance here today. Not only are the First Nations of Australia the oldest continuing cultures on the planet, they are also the keepers of a long tradition and history and of an ancient philosophy which I think shares my own view that wisdom is of a greater order of value than intelligence.

I understand that this audience today is a blend of lawyers from the major law firms, boutique firms, and in-house counsel. My intention is to speak to you today on a tension that all of us legal professionals are beginning to face in our work, whether in the world of law reform, in the courts, in private practice, or in our pro bono and community work. That tension is, in an environment that changes so rapidly, how do we both adapt to keep up while holding firm to the foundational virtues that underpin the worth of our profession and the services that we provide? What are the qualities that must sustain us through the next great challenge brought to our door by the winds of change?

Most of us would agree that the complexity and pace of change in the world is accelerating across all domains. Technology and data, health and science, environment and nature, social and individual norms and values, political and national dynamics and power. All of these areas are experiencing major shifts at speeds which test all of us both as professionals and as human beings.

The last five years have certainly demonstrated how rapidly change can take hold in so many aspects of our life. Let me take an example from the world of employment, a particular interest of mine. Five years ago, we experienced an unprecedented shift in our working lives as working from home became a new normal. We took our devices home expecting a few weeks of remote work, which became months, and then became a new pattern of hybrid work.

The working from home revolution – which has brought about arguably the greatest shift in power from employers to employees in living memory – is an example of the type of change that brings new opportunities and challenges to how we ourselves work, how we work with others, and how the law guides and shapes our shared expectations and boundaries about where work and life intersect.

And as the world changes, so too should the law. Leading the Australian Law Reform Commission in its 49th and now its 50th year of providing government with the best available advice on the law and how it may be designed and improved, I have learnt that change is the catalyst for law reform. Law is about regulating human behaviour, and law reform is about reforming the law to change behaviour or otherwise accommodate changed circumstances. Sometimes change comes in the form of changed social mores or attitudes. In such a case, the law needs to be updated to reflect evolving societal values. Or often, changed circumstances brought about by science or technology call for the reform of the law.

A case in point is the ALRC’s current review of Australia’s human tissue laws, some half a century after the ALRC first did so in the 1970s. Since the ALRC originally examined the laws relating to the regulation of human tissue, medical science has dramatically shifted our understandings of health and the capabilities for sustaining healthy organs for transplantation after a donor has died. The opportunities created by medical advances which do not diminish the inherent worth and dignity of life should be facilitated by the law. That challenge has raised difficult ethical issues, including whether death should now be differently defined.

Another case in point is the advent of Artificial Intelligence. Let me touch on that subject briefly because I think the current debate about it and whether and how the law should regulate Artificial Intelligence suffers from a number of fundamental misconceptions.

First, the debate does not recognise nor grapple with the enormity of the law reform task. Artificial Intelligence has the capacity to affect and to influence human behaviour on a scale which we have never before experienced. Because every law in one way or another seeks to regulate human behaviour, an instrument with that capacity will likely touch most of our laws.

AI is not just another new product, which our product liability laws will readily accommodate. It is not just another technological advancement on the same continuum as available technology. It is a different species of technology. As Waleed Aly recently described it – “technology has hitherto been something we build. We determine what it is and what it will do. But AI is not something we build. It is instead something we train. That is, we give it the tools to direct itself.”

The autonomy provided to AI is unique and gives rise to new and challenging risks of harm. The likely ubiquity of AI and its forthcoming role as the dominant purchasing and transactional agent for us all, together with its capacity to become the primary source of our information and news, also gives rise to risks never before encountered on this scale.

Yet, much of the current debate on the regulation of AI proceeds as though we are clear-eyed about the potential for risk and the capacity for our current laws to effectively address those risks.

The advent of Artificial Intelligence requires that we firstly identify the potential risks and harms that Artificial Intelligence may create. We then need to review the ‘Statute Book’ and many aspects of the common law to discern whether the law currently addresses those potential harms. Second, we will need to evaluate the extent to which the law addresses those harms effectively. That exercise will reveal the gaps in the law, those harms that need to be but are not going to be effectively addressed by our current laws.

The enormity of that exercise needs to be understood in the context of AI throwing up unique regulatory challenges. Many AI products allow for adaptation by a distributor as well as by the ultimate user. Who should be made legally responsible for any harm caused and in what measure will likely raise difficult legal questions. The attribution of legal liability will also likely face problems of proof because of AI’s lack of transparency – the algorithmic black box.

Then, of course, the law reform process will be faced with deciding whether relief from harm provided by the law should be preventative or merely remedial, or, perhaps a combination of both. Our laws ordinarily provide for preventative mechanisms to deal with products capable of causing serious harms, such as dangerous goods, hazardous chemicals or pharmaceuticals. Once we have identified and evaluated the full range of harms Artificial Intelligence is capable of causing, difficult evaluative judgements will need to be made about the nature of the relief from harm that the law should provide.

For those reasons amongst others, I regard the regulation of Artificial Intelligence as the largest and most complex law reform exercise that currently confronts Australia. It is the profundity and breadth of this change and challenge that will require us to take a deep dive and provide well-considered evidence-based solutions.

Yet, the public debate we are having has barely identified the fact that the regulation of Artificial Intelligence is a law reform exercise, let alone the largest of its kind. The debate about the regulation of Artificial Intelligence seems to be focused on whether we enact a single Artificial Intelligence Act or regulate Artificial Intelligence by amending existing laws, should that be required. That is a question largely of form and not of substance. We need to address substance first, and we need to engage in the evaluative law reform exercise I have described in order to appreciate what, if any, changes to our current laws need to be made. That exercise will enable the government to properly consider and determine the policy objectives that the laws regulating artificial intelligence should facilitate.

Whether the regulation of artificial intelligence should be “light touch” is not a question that can be properly answered without first identifying the potential risks and harms of AI, the extent to which the law is currently capable of addressing those risks and harms effectively, and the extent to which the regulation of those risks and harms may impede Artificial Intelligence from delivering the productivity benefits that it can obviously provide.

If we do not do that, the law will be left to chase a tail it will never ever catch.

Artificial Intelligence is potent, and it will be indispensable. It is wrong, however, to say that it is unstoppable and therefore that it cannot be regulated. That is another false assumption in the current debate.

However, whether Artificial Intelligence is regulated and whatever form that regulation takes, AI is and will remain an agent of change that will transform the legal profession. And so it should. There are aspects of our work and some aspects of the services the legal profession provides which will be greatly enhanced by Artificial Intelligence. There are also tasks which are currently provided by lawyers which AI will replace. It may be that AI will result in fewer lawyers.

We ought to be enthused by those features of AI that will enhance the services we provide. We are, however, somewhat threatened by the notion that AI will replace us.

During this conference, the lawyers here gathered, will be given opportunities to better understand the way that Artificial Intelligence can enhance the work that you do. I am personally optimistic that AI can and will make very substantial contributions to the productivity of legal professionals. I am confident that AI will get better at what it does. However, I think it important that we also recognise the limitations of AI.

To my mind, some of the forecasts I have seen which suggest that many tens of thousands of lawyers will be left without a job, are likely to be misplaced. They are likely to be wrong because of a failure to fully understand the valuable skills that lawyers have and the extent to which AI can or will replicate those skills.

First, the practise of the law is highly interpersonal. It requires human interaction and collaboration. It involves building important relationships with clients, opponents, government officials and others. Interpersonal skills, including emotional intelligence are significant to the lawyer’s critical function of persuasion and advocacy, both in and out of court.

Artificial Intelligence has no charm or charisma. It has no capacity to create bonds based on personal affection and trust. It has no understanding of those nuances of human communications which are not captured by data. It cannot replicate the trusting relationship that a client has with their respected lawyer, nor the trust that a judge has of reputable counsel. It does not network. It will not persuade new clients to join your practise, nor maintain and service the good relations lawyers must have with their existing clients.

Artificial Intelligence is data driven. AI finds patterns in data and uses that to make predictions designed to communicate the most relevant response to the prompt or the question asked of it. This is a form of intelligence. It is a means of organising knowledge that lawyers use extensively. We lawyers collect and organise evidence into rational categories. AI can do that. We identify and collect the law on a particular subject, be it statutory or case-law. AI can do that too. AI is as good at and potentially much better at dealing with what is known. Organising existing knowledge requires intelligence and AI has that intelligence.

Where the law is settled and the legal answer to the legal dispute or problem is obvious, organising existing knowledge about the law to identify the legal answer will be sufficient. But a capacity to organise existing knowledge will not suffice if the legal answer is unclear or ambiguous by reference to the existing state of knowledge of the law. That is because the legal answer, whether given by way of a lawyer’s advice or the decision of a court, will involve a judgement. In the case of a lawyer’s advice, that judgement will require a prediction about what is currently not known in law. In the case of a court’s decision, that judgement will involve creating new knowledge about the law.

The skill required to make those judgements is a far more valuable skill of a lawyer than the skill of organising existing knowledge. That is so because people who need legal advice and assistance will usually seek it where the law is unclear, rather than clear—where the legal answer needs to be predicted rather than merely stated by reference to what is already known.

The capacity to make those judgements—judgements upon which reasonable minds will often differ – depend not only on intelligence but on wisdom. Wisdom is a skill of a greater degree of order than mere intelligence. It is far harder to be wise than it is to be smart. And wisdom is a skill developed and exercised not merely by reference to data but by reference to innately human experiences that AI does not share.

Wisdom requires more than knowledge of existing data. It requires human experience and human understandings that are not well captured by data. For the wise lawyer, wisdom entails intuition and creativity of a kind not provided by data analysis. It includes navigating moral dilemmas and making value judgements in complex legal situations, where context, language, and nuance provide important clues in the search for parliamentary intent or in predicting how the common law or a judge or a jury will respond to any given factual situation.

Wisdom is also required in asking the right questions when trying to find the right legal solution. This is another task AI is not well-suited to undertake.

Wisdom includes creating new knowledge and not merely intelligently organising existing knowledge. It is a uniquely human contribution to good legal advice and representation. Whilst AI can complement wisdom, it cannot replace it.

The delivery of justice is a heavy responsibility and one that cannot be well executed without wisdom.

The legal profession will, I think, be resilient in meeting the challenge of AI. It can and I believe will do so by leaning in and focusing on those invaluable and irreplaceable skills good lawyers have. In the face of AI’s challenge to our profession, you need to make your clients appreciate that whilst AI can complement what you offer, it cannot and will not replace the value-adding critical skills which only the human lawyer can provide.

I hope that my analysis, including the dichotomy I have drawn between intelligence and wisdom, helps you to do so.

Webinar presentation slide deck (PDF)

From the ALRC President

ALRC President the Hon Justice Mordy Bromberg

Welcome to the latest edition of the ALRC’s In Brief newsletter. It has been a busy few months at the Commission, with all three of our Inquiries releasing publications, and a major media event for our most recently completed Inquiry.

The Review of the Future Acts Regime has delivered its Discussion Paper, the second publication for the Inquiry. The Discussion Paper outlines options for reform and asks for further feedback from native title holders and stakeholders on how the future Acts regime can be reformed, and invites submissions in response to the Discussion Paper.

Our Review of Human Tissue Laws and Review of Surrogacy Laws have both also released their Issues Papers in recent weeks, calling for submissions and asking stakeholders and the public to comment on the issues that we are likely to look at in these Inquiries, as well as outlining the approaches and principles we are considering in conducting these reviews. You can read further updates from all three teams below.

I was also pleased to visit Canberra last week to deliver a National Press Club address, ‘Safe, informed, supported: addressing sexual violence’ following the publication earlier this year of the Final Report for our Justice Responses to Sexual Violence Inquiry. Alongside Domestic, Family and Sexual violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin, we addressed the gathered media, stakeholders, and the audience watching the broadcast event, highlighting our Final Report’s important recommendations for reform in this area.

Commissioner Cronin and I took the opportunity to talk about the profound impact that sexual violence has on our communities and on individuals who experience sexual violence, and the imperative for substantial and sustainable reform across the justice system and beyond. You can watch the recording of the National Press Club address on the ALRC website.

We continue to plan the Australasian Law Reform Agencies Conference (ALRAC 2025) and our 50th Anniversary Celebration dinner in October this year. Further information will be coming in the next few weeks, including registration and ticketing for both events. If you wish to get in touch about these events, in particular for those who may wish to organise a table for our 50th anniversary celebration dinner, please email events@alrc.gov.au. I do hope we will see you there.

– Mordy Bromberg

The Hon Justice Mordecai Bromberg
President, Australian Law Reform Commission

Tell us what you think: submissions now open until 10 July

The Discussion Paper for the Review of the Future Acts Regime is out now. The Discussion Paper outlines options for reform to the future acts regime in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), and continues the conversation started earlier in our Inquiry by asking for your thoughts on potential reforms. Submissions in response to the Discussion Paper are now open, and will close on 11 July.

Join us at our free webinar, 1–2pm AEST on Wednesday, 2 July

On Wednesday 2 July, we will be hosting a free webinar to outline what we’ve heard so far, discuss some of our key ideas for reform, and answer your questions. You can learn more and register via the link before.

A message from Commissioner, Tony McAvoy SC

Our Commissioner, Tony McAvoy SC, has recorded a short video about the Inquiry and seeking your feedback to help us develop recommendations for reform.

Issues Papers released for the Review of Human Tissue Laws and the Review of Surrogacy Laws

Issues Papers have recently been released for both our Review of Human Tissue Laws and Review of Surrogacy Laws. Read more on these publications below.

The Issues Paper for the Review of Human Tissue Laws outlines key issues the Inquiry is considering, proposes principles to guide law reform in this area, and sets out questions for stakeholders to consider. Key issues include donation by living and deceased persons, anatomical and post-mortem examinations, advertising and trade in human tissue, and allocation of donated human tissue. Submissions in response to the Human Tissue Laws Issues Paper are open until 4 July.

The Issues Paper for the Review of Surrogacy Laws outlines topics of focus for the Inquiry, including barriers to domestic surrogacy, legal parentage of children born through surrogacy, oversight and harmonisation. The Issues Paper also seeks feedback on principles to guide the Inquiry, such as accessibility, pragmatism, harm minimisation, harmonisation and human rights. Submissions in response to the Surrogacy Laws Issues Paper are open until 11 July 2025.

Watch now: National Press Club address, ‘Safe, Informed, Supported’

Justice Mordy Bromberg addresses the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra on 4 June 2025

On June 4th, ALRC President the Hon Justice Mordy Bromberg joined Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin to deliver a National Press Club address titled ‘Safe, informed, supported: addressing sexual violence’. Justice Bromberg and Commissioner Cronin addressed the ALRC’s 2025 Final Report in its Inquiry into Justice Responses to Sexual Violence, highlighted the seriousness and prevalence of sexual violence in Australia, and outlined the roadmap to tackle the challenges.

You can now watch the National Press Club’s recording of the joint address online via ABC iView (address and media questions) or the NPC channel on Youtube below (address only).

Upcoming events

Registrations will soon open for the ALRC’s 50th anniversary celebration dinner on October 9th, 2025. Hosted in Melbourne at the elegant RACV City Club’s 17th floor, the evening promises to be an engaging and enjoyable celebration of this iconic Australian legal institution, and an opportunity to network and hear from eminent peers and colleagues across the legal profession.

We will be announcing our program for the evening soon, along with ticket sales (both individual and table tickets), as well as a range of exciting featured guests. To stay updated on our 50th anniversary as well as the ALRAC 2025 event, and to be notified when tickets are released for sale, subscribe for event updates at www.alrc.gov.au/events.

Address to the National Press Club of Australia by ALRC President the Hon Justice Mordy Bromberg, 4 June 2025

Transcript

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Can I commence by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples as the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet today. I pay my deep respects to their Elders, past and present. I also extend my thanks to the National Press Club for giving Micaela and I the opportunity to shine a spotlight on a social problem which is clearly out of control.

Not only out of control because sexual violence is experienced in Australia in endemic proportions, but out of control in the sense that no strategy has yet effectively addressed the problem. There are many levers government can pull to help address sexual violence, such as improved education, improved social services, and improving the way the justice system deals with sexual violence. Commendably, Government has begun to address that third lever. Improving the Justice System’s response to sexual violence was the focus of a recently completed 12-month Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry.

One of the principal findings of our Inquiry, and the fundamental point that I want to make today, is that the problem of sexual violence will not be addressed unless the justice system is given a better  opportunity to deal with it, in circumstances where currently, it is largely not dealing with it. Why – because, typically, sexual violence occurs in Australia without leaving a trace on the justice system. Most perpetrators are not held to account, and the vast majority of people who have experienced sexual violence are not given the opportunity of a just outcome.

Nine out of ten women who disclosed to a recent ABS survey that they had been subjected to sexual violence did not report to police. But even when victims do report, their engagement with the justice system is typically short-lived. In New South Wales, Victoria, and right here in the ACT (and likely across all States and Territories), in the order of 75-85% of reports to police do not proceed to a charge.

That all suggests that only about 2% of women who say they have been subjected to sexual violence are able to overcome the barriers to access to justice. It also suggests that, at best, only about 2% of those alleged to have perpetrated sexual offending are held accountable before the law.

That is why the Australian Law Reform Commission says that most people who experience sexual violence in Australia shoulder that harm without an opportunity for a just outcome; and why we say that most people who perpetrate sexual violence face no consequences for their wrongdoing. This means that in our society, sexual violence is typically invisible – it is not recorded, recognized, or renounced. Community safety is not enhanced.

The justice system – and by that, I mean police, prosecutors, the legal profession and the Courts – will not fix the staggering prevalence of sexual violence on its own. However, the justice system has a critical role to play and the problem of sexual violence cannot be addressed unless the significant failings of the justice system are rectified. Many of the barriers to engagement with the justice system for people who have experienced sexual violence, are barriers for which the justice system bears some responsibility. Those barriers need to be addressed and are the main subject of the ALRC’s report.

We need to better understand that people who have experienced sexual violence need to be assisted to access the justice system and the just outcomes it is capable of providing. We also need to better appreciate that for our community to be safer, society needs the perpetrators of sexual violence to be brought to justice – for their conduct to be exposed, renounced, and addressed, and for a message to be sent to all – that sexual violence will no longer occur in Australia with impunity. Bringing people who have perpetrated sexual violence to account under the law is a fundamental requirement of a society governed by the rule of law.

The Australian Law Reform Commission is government’s trusted, expert and independent research and advisory body on law reform, providing government with frank, fearless, and expert advice for the last 50 years. In our national inquiry into the adequacy of the justice system’s response to sexual violence, the ALRC received hundreds of submissions, and was greatly assisted by the insight of a lived experience Expert Advisory Group. We also extensively consulted with police, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and judges. Front-line service providers were also consulted as well as academic experts. We also heard from many other people with lived experience of sexual violence and the justice system. Those valuable contributions were then supplemented by research and the astute consideration of our talented team of law reformers, led by subject-matter experts the Honourable Marcia Neave and Judge Liesl Kudelka.

Our 12-month inquiry produced a report titled “Safe, Informed, Supported: Reforming Justice Responses to Sexual Violence”, which makes 64 recommendations for either reform or further inquiry.

Of all the conclusions made about the justice system’s response to sexual violence, the ALRC considers under-engagement with the justice system to be the most significant problem. Most of the recommendations made in the Report are directed at addressing the barriers to access and engagement with the justice system that people who have experienced sexual violence face.

The ALRC, does not suggest that the problem of low trust and underuse of the justice system by those who have experienced sexual violence is the fault of those harmed.

Nor, by focusing on that problem, have we ignored the problem that many victims of sexual violence who do engage with the justice system are subjected to more harm than good. To the contrary, the ill-treatment and re-traumatization often experienced by complainants of sexual violence who do engage with the justice system, is itself one of the most significant barriers to engagement. The reason that many people who have experienced sexual violence do not engage with the justice system is their fear of ill treatment by police and prosecutors and during a trial. To address this, the ALRC has made many recommendations, including to:

• improve education and training about trauma for police, prosecutors, lawyers and judges;
• strengthen police and prosecution guidelines to better prevent traumatisation and the high rates of disengagement;
• ensure that prohibitions on inappropriate questioning of complainants during cross-examination are properly applied and enforced;
• challenge and address myths and misconceptions about sexual violence; and
• provide more assistance to complainants so that they can effectively engage with the justice system by giving them access to their own legal advice and to legal representation to protect them from the unwarranted disclosure of their private and confidential information.

If those failings of the justice system can be avoided or diminished, then one of the most significant causes for the under-engagement problem – the perception that if you engage with the justice system you will be re-traumatised – will itself be diminished.

The ALRC’s road map to improving the justice system otherwise addresses the under-engagement problem in three main ways.

First, we tackle the current absence of a safe, informed and supportive place to report sexual violence as a pathway into the justice system. Currently, police reporting is the principal place that people who have experienced sexual violence seek access into the justice system.

We know that people who experience sexual violence can feel scared, ashamed, humiliated or embarrassed. Feeling angry and betrayed, and feeling powerless and unworthy, can stop people who experience sexual violence from talking about what happened to them. We know that the formal disclosure of sexual violence can be a difficult experience. To overcome this significant barrier, the ALRC found that people who have experienced sexual violence need a safe, informed and supported place to disclose.

Research tells us that properly-resourced front-line sexual assault service providers can provide a best practice, trusted and safe place to formally report sexual violence. These services are also well placed to connect people who have experienced sexual violence to the legal advice that they need. Once connected, people who have experienced sexual violence can then make well-informed choices about their rights and entitlements, and to decide whether and how to engage with the justice system. The ALRC proposes, firstly, that this kind of legal assistance and advice be available to every person who has experienced sexual violence irrespective of where they live. And secondly, that the support services of a Justice System Navigator be provided – that is a support person who would walk alongside and guide complainants through the criminal justice system, including by supporting them to report
to police.

Second, we tackle the high attrition rate – the up to 85% disengagement rate for those people who have reported to police. The 2021 inquiry held here in the Australian Capital Territory found that the predominant reason for the low charge rates in the ACT is the failure of police to properly and appropriately investigate sexual offences. The findings of the ACT Review reflect what complainants of sexual violence have been saying for decades – that they feel disempowered, disrespected, and re-traumatised by police responses to their reports and consequently withdraw.

The ALRC considers that greater scrutiny and accountability of police behaviour and decision-making is required. To better understand the systemic reasons sexual violence matters typically drop out of the criminal justice system, we have recommended that each state and territory establish a task force to review all reports of sexual violence made to police within the last 12-18 months. We also recommend establishing an independent review and complaints mechanism, to both facilitate the on-going review of police decision-making, and enable an opportunity for complainants to challenge decisions made by police not to progress to charge.

Thirdly, the ALRC considers that people who have experienced sexual violence will more likely engage with the justice system if we expand their access to civil and to restorative justice pathways and remedies. We recognise that people who have experienced sexual violence have diverse justice needs well beyond a need to see a perpetrator convicted and imprisoned through the criminal justice system.

In the context of 1.7 million Australians experiencing sexual harassment over a recent 12-month period, the ALRC makes recommendations to make civil justice pathways more accessible by:

• extending the prohibition on sexual harassment (which in practical terms is currently mainly confined to workplaces) to all areas of public activity;
• reducing financial barriers and giving expanded access to cheaper and quicker tribunal processes;
• shifting the burden of, and responsibility for, addressing sexual harassment from the individual
  harmed to organisations and regulatory bodies; and
• expanding the range of orders that can be made when a court or tribunal finds that someone has been sexually harassed.

These proposals build upon the very good work undertaken by the Australian Human Rights Commission’s “Respect At Work” Report.

We also recommend making the restorative justice pathway more accessible — by legislating for restorative justice in sexual violence matters so this pathway is more widely available.

There are many more recommendations I don’t have time to outline, such as the need for better data collection and better evaluation of previous law reform exercises. But it is important to emphasise that all of the ALRC’s recommendations can be implemented without compromising the fundamental rights of an accused person to a fair trial.

Finally, may I conclude by saying that The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children puts the annual economic cost of gender-based violence, including sexual violence, against women and children at $26 billion. It states that ‘more needs to be done to ensure justice systems are safe, accessible, and easy for victim-survivors to navigate’. Doing more will require more commitment and more resources. However, the investment necessary is well justified. It far outstrips the financial and human cost of sexual violence remaining widespread, under-reported, and, in the words of the National Plan, ‘in the shadows’.

The work of Micaela and the Domestic, Family, and Sexual Violence Commission and the ALRC’s proposed reforms will help to take Australia out of those shadows. We shine a light on both the problem and the solution. My appeal to you – the media here gathered – is that you now amplify that light into the blow torch required to help to finally bring the problem of sexual violence under control.

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) today released the Issues Paper for its Review of Surrogacy Laws, and called for submissions to the Inquiry. The Issues Paper provides a broad overview of the Inquiry and sets out 27 questions for stakeholders to consider.  

ALRC Assistant Commissioner Associate Professor Ronli Sifris, commented on the Issue Paper’s release:  

“I am pleased to have published our Issues Paper for the Review of Surrogacy Laws. This is a valuable opportunity to hear from people with personal experience of surrogacy and stakeholders about the direction of the Inquiry. Importantly, the Issues Paper also suggests the principles and approach that should guide our work in this Inquiry. I encourage anyone with an interest, expertise, or experience in surrogacy to read the Issues Paper and make a submission.” 

ALRC President the Hon Justice Mordy Bromberg added:  

“Surrogacy is an important area for law reform given the lack of consistent laws across Australian states and territories, and because of the growing number of children born via surrogacy, which is increasingly being accessed overseas. Public feedback on the Issues Paper, particularly from those who have experience of surrogacy, is vital to informing our reform thinking.” 

The Issues Paper outlines the ALRC’s proposed principles to guide the Inquiry, including: respect and dignity, accessibility, pragmatism, harm minimisation, harmonisation and human rights, with a particular focus on the rights of the child. The Issues Paper asks stakeholders to provide feedback on these principles, as well as issues and topics including: 

• Barriers to domestic surrogacy 

• Legal parentage of children born through surrogacy 

• Citizenship, passports and visas for children born through surrogacy overseas 

• Oversight and harmonisation 

Submissions are now open in response to the Issues Paper, and the ALRC is inviting individuals and organisations to provide submissions until 11 July 2025. 

The ALRC has undertaken thorough initial work and consultations in preparation of this Issues Paper, including considering what is working in overseas jurisdictions and the formation and meeting of an expert Advisory Committee. 

The ALRC will publish a Discussion Paper in late 2025, which will invite submissions on options for reform. 

Background 

The Commonwealth Attorney-General referred the Review of Surrogacy Laws to the ALRC on 6 December 2024. 

The Review’s Terms of Reference ask the ALRC to review surrogacy laws, policies and practices, to identify reforms, particularly proposals for uniform or complementary state, territory and Commonwealth laws that are consistent with Australia’s obligations, and protect and promote human rights. The ALRC is also asked to consult widely with relevant stakeholders and the Australian public. 

The Inquiry is being led by ALRC President, the Hon Justice Mordecai Bromberg, together with Assistant Commissioner Associate Professor Ronli Sifris and the ALRC Inquiry team. The ALRC is to provide its final report to the Attorney-General by 29 July 2026.  

Learn more about the review at https://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiry/review-of-surrogacy-laws/ 

Links 

Review of Surrogacy Laws Issues Paper (2025)
Terms of Reference of the Review of Surrogacy Laws 

The Hon Justice Mordy Bromberg, President of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), and Commissioner Micaela Cronin of the Domestic, Family, and Sexual Violence Commission (DFSVC), will address the National Press Club in Canberra tomorrow, speaking on the challenge of addressing sexual violence in Australia. 

The joint address, entitled ‘Safe, informed and supported: addressing sexual violence’, follows the ALRC’s 12 month Inquiry into Justice Responses to Sexual Violence and the tabling of the Final Report on 6 March this year.  

Justice Bromberg will outline the ALRC’s findings and recommendations, highlighting how the justice system has failed in achieving its twin goals of accountability and access to justice, while Commissioner Cronin will speak to the importance of addressing the needs of the community, and what action should be taken to advance and achieve the goals of the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. 

Commenting ahead of the National Press Club Address, Justice Bromberg said: 

“This address is an important opportunity to deepen the national conversation on addressing sexual violence. The work of the ALRC and the DFSVC highlights the scale of the challenge, and the matching need for significant reform right across the justice system and beyond. Sexual violence is a unique and widespread harm. The justice system has a critical role to play in ending this harm by providing people who have experienced sexual violence with a safe, informed, and supported way of accessing justice; and by holding perpetrators of sexual violence to account.” 

Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, Micaela Cronin, said:

“The ALRC has made a powerful statement, recognising that sexual violence causes widespread harm, particularly for women, that often has lifelong impacts. We must also recognise that rates of sexual violence are getting worse, and our response is not improving fast enough – it is one of the most harmful, under reported, and under prosecuted crimes. 

“National Cabinet has identified domestic, family and sexual violence as one of its top priorities, and the national Women’s and Women’s Safety Ministerial Council is leading governments’ collective efforts. Our shared goal under the National Plan is, and should be, to end domestic, family and sexual violence in one generation. This report helps us on that path, now we must act.” 

Background 

The Final Report of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) Inquiry into Justice Reponses to Sexual Violence, Safe, Informed, Supported: Reforming Justice Responses to Sexual Violence, was tabled on 6 March 2025 and contained 64 recommendations.  

The ALRC’s 64 recommendations would improve the justice system’s response to sexual violence by:  

• Addressing barriers for people who have experienced sexual violence to access and engage with the justice system;  

• Strengthening the justice system’s accountability and processes, including by avoiding retraumatisation and countering myths and misconceptions about sexual violence; and 

• Expanding justice pathways and the remedies available, including through civil and restorative justice pathways.  

During the Inquiry, the ALRC received 220 submissions from individuals and organisations, and undertook 126 consultations, involving more than 384 consultees. The Inquiry was led by Justice Bromberg together with subject matter experts and  Commissioners for the Inquiry, the Hon Marcia Neave and Judge Liesl Kudelka. The Inquiry was also supported by an Australian Government appointed Expert Advisory Group comprised of people with lived experience of sexual violence and advocates, who provided critical input and guidance to the Inquiry. 

Links 

• Safe, Informed, Supported: Reforming Justice Responses to Sexual Violence (Final Report/Summary Report)

• Inquiry into Justice Responses to Sexual Violence page

• Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission

• The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032

ENDS 

For more information or to request interviews contact: 

Jez Hunghanfoo 
Director of Communications and Engagement 
Australian Law Reform Commission 
P: 03 9959 5313 
E: comms@alrc.gov.au 
W: www.alrc.gov.au