While the capacity to vote politicians out of power is a fundamental aspect of Australia’s democracy, the majority view is not always aware of, or sympathetic to, the human rights of vulnerable and marginalised groups. Sometimes public pressure will result in parliament making changes to laws that better protect these groups, but these changes often occur belatedly. Vulnerable and marginalised people and groups may also be subject to unfair administrative decision making by public bodies. Human rights considerations in government decisionmaking can mean the difference between being homeless and being housed; being destitute and being able to afford basic necessities; being locked up and being free; being shut away from society and being provided with supports to engage in life; being removed from home and living with family. A lack of care for human rights can escalate to human rights violations occurring at a systemic level, affecting innumerable vulnerable people. A Human Rights Act would mean that if a person’s human rights were breached or disregarded, there would be pathways to enable them to seek and receive justice. Currently, there are very limited options for people to gain redress for human rights abuses, both formally and informally. • Effective A Human Rights Act could reduce social and other costs, providing economic benefits for Australians. It would be designed to be effective through the prevention of costly breaches. It would lead to improvements in the quality and accessibility of service delivery through a more considered and flexible approach to service provision. There may be initial upfront costs, but long-term savings to individuals, to government and to the court system. 16 (b) A Human Rights Act based on dialogue The Commission proposes a Human Rights Act built on the legislative dialogue model. Dialogue Human Rights Act models incorporate a formal ‘dialogue’ between the executive, legislature and judiciary, with each branch of government sharing responsibility for respecting and protecting human rights. Dialogue models also strongly focus on the ‘upstream’ arena of decision making and policy development. In accordance with this model, there would be a specific ‘positive duty’ on the executive to act compatibly with human rights, and give proper consideration to human rights when making decisions. Government entities, known as ‘public authorities’ would be bound by this duty. Parliament would be required to consider human rights when making and debating laws, through existing parliamentary scrutiny measures. The judiciary would be required to interpret laws in a way that is compatible with the Human Rights Act where it is reasonably possible to do in light of Parliament’s intention. The judiciary would also review the executive’s compliance with the positive duty in relation to particular decisions and issue remedies for breaches of the Human Rights Act. Unlike the state and territory models, and the UK model, the Commission’s model does not include provision for a formal ‘declaration of incompatibility’ by a federal court, given some uncertainty about the constitutionality of such a provision.