What happened?
The High Court of Australia recently handed down its decision in Smith v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services & Ors [2026] HCA 37– a landmark case in which the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019 was considered for the first time in Australia’s highest court.
On 14 October 2026, the High Court ruled in favour of a prisoner in Queensland being provided with access to health care to preserve her reproductive health.
The Queensland Human Rights Commission intervened in this case at the Court of Appeal as it raised a question about the interpretation of a law in relation to the Human Rights Act 2019.
The judgment
The High Court unanimously found that ‘assisted reproductive technology’ in the Corrective Services Act did not include egg extraction and freezing, which assists to preserve fertility but is separate from the processes of reproduction.
In the ruling, Justices Edelman and Gleeson also confirmed that the requirement imposed by section 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 to interpret laws compatibly with human rights is a mandatory statutory directive that forms part of the provision’s context when interpreting it.
The rest of the court made their decision by considering the objectives, which are consistent with human rights principles, embedded in the Corrective Services Act.
Key takeaways
The case provides guidance as to which reproductive health services people in Queensland prisons can apply to access, and considerations for prison authorities in assessing such applications.
It considers the importance of reproductive freedom to human dignity, the impact that healthcare decisions during a period of imprisonment may have on a person’s life post-release, and the relevance of healthcare to humane treatment.
It also indicates that section 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 is a mandatory statutory directive that forms part of a provision’s context when interpreting legislation.
The Commission contributed to the case by providing submissions on the role of section 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 when interpreting laws, and what domestic and international law and cases say about dignity and human rights relevant to this case.
As intervener, the Commission provided independent and expert assistance to the Courts and did not act as representative for either party.
More information is available below on our website: