This is the key value of a human rights framework. It ensures that human rights are considered in the planning phase, encouraging greater due diligence, transparency and accountability. It requires decisions about prioritising resources and policy responses to be justified publicly with reference to human rights so that the public can properly assess them. It ensures that the stringent effects of emergency measures are mitigated through the provision of supports and the embedding of safeguards. It prevents emergency measures from becoming the ‘new normal’. It sets out a balancing process that takes into account the needs of everyone in the community and prevents the most vulnerable from falling through the cracks. It prevents arbitrary decisions and blanket rules by requiring sufficient flexibility to respond to individual circumstances: for example, allowing a person to cross a border to bury a family member, or an elderly person to receive a visitor. It provides a check on executive power by drawing lines that should not be crossed — such as locking vulnerable citizens out of their own country. It ensures that responses to emergencies are humane. A Human Rights Act may not lead to perfect results, but it would help us make better decisions. COVID-19 has highlighted the need for a shared set of rights and values to guide us through difficult times. (d) Examples of how Human Rights Acts have been used to address COVID-19 The following case studies provide examples of how Human Rights Acts have helped protect rights during COVID-19. UK: Protecting the rights of those in care facilities Edna is 83 and lives in residential care, her daughter Emily visits most days after work. Following a COVID-19 outbreak, the home put a ‘no visiting’ policy in place. It has now been 34 days, and Edna is isolated and lonely, missing Emily hugely. Emily had accessed some support on the Human Rights Act and speaks to the care home manager about her mother’s right to privacy, family life, home and correspondence, which the home is legally obliged to respect. Emily discusses how this right includes mental and physical wellbeing, family and other relationships, and while it can be restricted to protect her mum and/or others from harm, this needs to be proportionate. With no consideration of Edna’s ability to keep in touch with Emily, the manager recognises that a blanket ban on visiting is not the least restrictive option. Knowing that they have legal duties to act in accordance with human rights,33 a meeting is called to agree what alternatives can be put in place whilst they deal with the current outbreak. After the meeting, staff put in place several measures which are less restrictive to support people’s mental and physical wellbeing while still protecting the right to life. The measures vary, as staff know the same measure will not work for everyone but include video calls, PPE provision for visitors of those for whom video calls not possible, a gazebo in the garden and a floor-to-ceiling screen. Some restrictions are still needed, but applying the Human Rights Act in practice has ensured this is based on each individual and is more proportionate. Emily now visits her mum every Sunday, wearing full PPE, until the outbreak is contained. The Human Rights Act helped keep a family together at a time when they need each other the most. Sourced from British Institute of Human Rights.34 FREE AND EQUAL A Human Rights Act for Australia 2022 39