• Remedies The Commission proposes that the Human Rights Act give courts discretion over the range of remedies available, noting the range of different kinds of human rights claims and the importance of flexibility. Available remedies may include injunctions, orders requiring action, monetary damages and the setting aside of administrative decisions. • Complaints The Human Rights Act should allow a person to make a human rights complaint to the Commission. The Commission’s existing unlawful discrimination jurisdiction could be suitably adapted to human rights complaints. The Commission proposes implementing a Human Rights Act complaint system that mirrors the discrimination law jurisdiction. This would mean that there would be requirement for complainants to first bring a complaint to the Commission, and if conciliation fails, or is inappropriate, the complaint would be terminated by the Commission and the complainant could then make an application to a court for adjudication. The same processes that currently exist for unlawful discrimination matters would apply in the human rights context (including all the termination grounds, and representative complaints processes). For example, existing termination grounds would enable a person to proceed to court when there is another claim on foot in a court or tribunal (that the human rights claim will be joined to). The Commission suggests that the complaints model be subject to review at a future date, through the broader Human Rights Act review process. An accessible complaints process including conciliation would reduce the impact of a Human Rights Act on the judicial system. Litigation need not be the only port of call for people who wish to make a complaint alleging a breach of human rights. Rather, it is a necessary last resort when other avenues have failed. • Administrative law Australia has existing administrative law mechanisms to review the actions and decisions of public authorities. A Human Rights Act could have an impact on those mechanisms by supplementing existing bases for challenging government decisions. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has the function of conducting a merits review of many kinds of government decisions. In doing so, the AAT reconsiders the facts, law and policy aspects of the original decision and determines what is the correct and preferable decision. This process is often described as ‘stepping into the shoes’ of the original decision maker. A ‘correct’ decision is one made according to law. A ‘preferable’ decision is the best decision that could be made on the basis of the relevant facts. If human rights (either consideration of, or substantive compliance with) were a requirement for a particular administrative decision that is reviewable by the AAT, the AAT will be able to consider those human rights issues again independently. The Commission also proposes one additional termination ground. This would enable a claim to be fast tracked to the court where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm, to circumvent the complaint process when there is urgency. There would be an adapted and quick internal lodgment and review process, so that the Commission could return a response quickly in urgent cases. FREE AND EQUAL A Human Rights Act for Australia 2022 29