Caste discrimination and the adequacy of Australia’s anti-discrimination laws were thrust into the spotlight during Senate Estimates on 9 February 2026, as David Shoebridge questioned Hugh de Kretser, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, about legal protections for caste-oppressed communities.
The exchange centred on Recommendation 17 of the Commission’s National Anti-Racism Framework (NARF), which calls on the federal government to investigate explicit legal protections against caste discrimination.
Complaint lodged under Racial Discrimination Act
Senator Shoebridge referred to a recent complaint reportedly lodged with the Commission by two groups — the Alliance Against Islamophobia and the Periyar Ambedkar Thoughts Circle of Australia (PATCA) — under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The complaint allegedly concerns caste discrimination in funding decisions and other conduct by Multicultural NSW and a state minister.
Mr de Kretser declined to comment on the specific matter, citing section 49 of the Commission’s legislation, which makes it a criminal offence to disclose details relating to complaints.
However, he acknowledged the broader issue of caste discrimination and its legal complexity.
“Imported caste discrimination” in Australia
Mr de Kretser told the hearing that caste discrimination had been raised with him last year and that he had sought legal advice about whether complaints could be accepted under existing federal law.
“Particularly in the Indian community, there’s the imported caste discrimination that’s happening in the Indian community here,” he said.
While the Racial Discrimination Act does not explicitly mention caste, Mr de Kretser noted that it refers to discrimination based on “descent” and “social origin”. The Commission’s legal advice, he said, suggests that a “beneficial interpretation” of those terms could permit the Commission to receive certain complaints of caste discrimination.
“It hasn’t been tested in Australian courts,” he added, acknowledging legal uncertainty.
He also noted that the Act is drafted differently from other discrimination statutes, meaning protections may vary depending on the context in which discrimination occurs.
Recommendation 17: Explicit legal protection urged
The questioning comes against the backdrop of Recommendation 17 of the National Anti-Racism Framework, released by the Commission in late 2024. The recommendation urges the Australian Government to investigate legislative reforms — including amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act — to explicitly recognise caste as a protected attribute.
The Framework formally recognises casteism as a form of intersectional racial discrimination and notes that caste discrimination, while often “structurally invisible”, affects access to housing, employment and education in South Asian Australian communities.
The recommendation sits within a broader reform agenda aimed at “Enhancing Protections Against Racism Across Different Areas of Law”.
Concerns from caste-oppressed communities
Senator Shoebridge said he had heard directly from members of caste-oppressed communities who believe current Australian discrimination laws fail to adequately protect them.
He cited lived experiences of employment discrimination, social exclusion and overt marginalisation within community spaces, arguing that the absence of explicit legislative recognition creates uncertainty and undermines confidence in the law.
In response, Mr de Kretser confirmed that the Commission had advised at least one group that it could accept certain caste-based complaints under existing provisions, though he conceded the matter remains legally untested.
When asked whether caste discrimination is covered under state and territory laws, Mr de Kretser said he would need to take the question on notice. He indicated that Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman had been engaging most closely with multicultural communities on the issue.
From scoping report to reform roadmap
The 2024 Framework builds on the Commission’s 2022 Scoping Report, which documented how caste can shape professional opportunities and social relations within diaspora communities in Australia.
Consultations conducted as part of that process found that caste discrimination can manifest in workplace settings, student groups, religious and cultural associations, and matrimonial networks.
By including Recommendation 17, the Commission signalled that the issue warrants clearer legislative treatment, rather than reliance on expansive interpretation of existing terms such as “descent”.
Legal uncertainty and policy momentum
The Senate exchange highlights the tension between the Commission’s current interpretive approach and calls for explicit statutory reform.
While the Commission believes certain complaints may already fall within the Racial Discrimination Act, the absence of clear wording leaves both complainants and respondents in uncertain territory until the matter is tested in court.
With caste discrimination now formally recognised in the National Anti-Racism Framework and raised during parliamentary scrutiny, pressure is likely to grow on the federal government to clarify the law.
For caste-oppressed Australians, the debate is not abstract. As Senator Shoebridge noted during the hearing, many say discrimination is part of their lived experience — and they want legal protections that name the harm they face.
