Australia is unique across Western nations in not protecting human rights through a bill of rights which allows judges to review the decisions of government and parliament against human rights considerations, and to invalidate those decisions which violate human rights standards. Instead, Australian jurisdictions predominately rely on the government and parliament to self-regulate their human rights performance and rely on voters to show their support or disapproval of government and parliamentary decisions impacting on human rights at periodic elections. This collection focuses on how governments and parliaments self-regulate when making laws, with a focus on human rights scrutiny in upstream and downstream law-making practices and processes. The practice of human rights scrutiny across Australian jurisdictions is diverse, and the differing systems produce varying results in terms of rights-respecting laws. Despite this divergence, the aim of law making across Australian jurisdictions ought to be the same: accountability for and transparency about the impact on human rights of the laws that are enacted; and the development and infusion of a culture of justification for any and all human rights consequences of enacted laws. The chapters in this collection offer insightful, analytical, astute and critical perspectives on how the processes and practices are operating and how they can be reformed to achieve better accountability, transparency and justification.