3. A Human Rights Act for Australia 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 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. There would be an adapted and quick internal lodgment and review process, so that the Commission could return a response quickly in urgent cases. 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. (c) 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 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.8 In the Commission’s Position Paper, Free & Equal: A Reform Agenda for Federal Discrimination Laws (December 2021), the Commission recommended that serious consideration be given to reintroducing an intermediate adjudicative process to bridge the gap between voluntary conciliation at the Commission and litigation in the federal courts in relation to unlawful discrimination matters. This could also be extended to the resolution of disputes in relation to Human Rights Act matters. A person who considers that a statutory decision maker did not give proper consideration to a relevant human right, as required by a Human Rights Act, could also seek judicial review of the decision through the courts. Under existing grounds for review, a person may be able to argue that the decision was affected by jurisdictional error, that the decision involved an error of law, or that the decision was an improper exercise of power because of a failure to take into account a relevant consideration that the decision maker was bound to take into account. Principles of administrative law, and administrative remedies should apply as usual to decisions that require adherence to the Human Rights Act. FREE & EQUAL: Revitalising Australia’s Commitment to Human Rights 65