Most human rights are not absolute. Limitations on rights are an inevitable part of a democratic society, where there are intersecting public interests, as well as individuals and groups with different needs and priorities. Government transparency about limitations and public debates focused on weighing rights and interests are a sign of a healthy democracy. Human rights law provides guidance on how different rights and public interests are to be balanced with each other when they intersect, including that all limitations on rights should occur through an open, democratic and rational process of justification.8 The above principles have influenced the development of international law and The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (ACT Human Rights Act) was introduced first, setting out key ICCPR rights. It has been updated to include additional rights in the years since. The ACT Human Rights Act influenced the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 (Vic) (Victorian Charter), and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (Queensland Human Rights Act) was influenced by both ACT and Victorian models. In the ACT and Victoria, there have been 18 and 16 years of human rights jurisprudence respectively, resulting in a wealth of precedent and practical knowledge about the application of rights within the public service and the legal profession in those jurisdictions. A series of reviews in Victoria and the ACT has also led democratic standards, and they underpin all human rights. They could usefully be included in the preamble to the Human Rights Act, guiding interpretation. For example, the preamble should specify that human rights apply from the time a person is born, and that they are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. to incremental changes over time, and areas highlighted for future improvements. (c) Approach to rights content in context with the broader Human Rights Act A federal Human Rights Act should build from the lessons learned in these jurisdictions and make improvements, developing from a solid foundation of tested law. The Commission also has the benefit of previous inquiries and proposals for the development of a federal Human Rights Act, most notably the 2009 NHRCC report, which involved widespread consultations with the Australian public on the rights that were considered most important.9 The Commission’s recommendations are designed to implement the ICCPR and ICESCR into domestic law, as well as key aspects of the thematic treaties, as discussed above. The Commission has also assessed comparative models in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. Each of these models are dialogue models that implement international standards, and although they differ in key respects, there are many commonalities between the rights chosen for incorporation and how rights are worded, amongst these instruments. In addition to international models the Commission has drawn upon the state and territory instruments as a base for determining how best to embed key rights through an Australian model at the federal level. The ACT, Victorian and Queensland models are very similar to each other in terms of rights-content. The Commission considers that the federal Human Rights Act should be part of this legislative and jurisprudential tradition, reflecting the work of state and territory jurisdictions, and enabling consistency wherever possible. While it is important that the federal model complement existing human rights law developed at the state level, it is also important to recognise that the Federal Government has particular responsibilities regarding human rights and can be distinguished from the states due to its responsibilities arising from voluntarily committing to human rights treaties. FREE AND EQUAL A Human Rights Act for Australia 2022 107