However, the Commission’s ability to resolve human rights complaints can be very limited. Unlike complaints alleging unlawful discrimination, if the Commission cannot conciliate a human rights complaint, the person cannot then bring court proceedings. Rather, if the Commission finds a breach of human rights it can report to the Attorney-General.106 Any recommendations made by the Commission are non-binding and are not enforceable by the courts. The Federal Government is not required to respond to a Commission report about non-compliant laws or policies, or to recommendations by the Commission that the government should provide remedies to an individual victim of human rights violations. Up until amendments to the Commission’s Act in 2017, the Attorney-General was obliged to table these reports in Parliament within 15 sitting days. For complaints received since 2017, the Attorney-General is no longer required to table the reports. When the inquiry function was first conferred on the Commission, the then AttorneyGeneral, the Hon Senator Durack, said that the Commission would not need enforcement powers ‘of the kind vested in courts’.107 Rather, the process itself would promote increased recognition and observance of human rights; as would the attendant publicity and government awareness that would result from the reporting to the Minister. The Attorney concluded that the Commission’s reports would ‘ensure that governments and parliaments are aware of situations in which there needs to be a redefinition of the rights of different individuals and will stimulate them to take appropriate action’.108 A range of reports that have resulted in positive outcomes in addressing the human rights violations identified through the reporting process. For example: 58 • As recommended in report 40, the Australian Government paid compensation to 25 Chinese people in immigration detention who were interviewed by Chinese authorities while detained or subject to separation detention.109 • Report 80 led to a parliamentary inquiry into the detention of people unfit to plead to criminal charges.110 • Following Report 56, dealing with the prospect of indefinite detention for immigration detainees with adverse security assessments, the Government established the Independent Reviewer of National Security Assessments.111 • Report 141 dealt with the situation of people who had had their visas cancelled on character grounds, and made a number of recommendations including an improved risk assessment process and the establishment of an independent body to advise on the release of people from immigration detention.112 These initiatives are currently being considered by the Department of Home Affairs.113 However, these outcomes are discretionary responses to recommendations by the Commission. There is no requirement on the Government to take action in response to a finding by the Commission that there has been a breach of human rights. In many cases, no action is taken, particularly where the findings of the Commission conflict with Government policy, such as the mandatory and indefinite detention of asylum seekers. In effect, human rights complainants can be left at the end of a pathway with nowhere to go. While they have been able to make a complaint to the Commission, the result is a non-binding report which may not be effective in achieving individual justice or reform.