Public pressure also eventually led to the removal of many asylum-seeking children from immigration detention centres – but only after hundreds of children were held in detention centres for long periods of time, during which the mental health of many children was severely damaged.110 • Overlooked in decision making In addition to being overlooked in the lawmaking process, vulnerable and marginalised people and groups may be subject to unfair decision making by public authorities. As noted above, executive power has expanded in recent years, and public authorities are not obligated to consider human rights impacts on individuals or groups when making decisions. Those most likely to be subjected to administrative decisions that adversely affect their rights are vulnerable members of the population, as they have increased interaction with public services and institutions compared with the rest of the population. Welfare recipients, persons with disability, prisoners, homeless people, migrants and children in care are all directly affected by administrative decision making, often on a daily basis. The impacts of these administrative decisions can be the difference between being housed and being homeless; being able to afford basic necessities and being destitute; being free and being locked up; being provided with supports to engage in life and being shut away from society; living with family and being taken away from home. When officials do not have a clear responsibility to respect human rights, an important safeguard is missing from the decision-making process, which can lead to unnecessary suffering. Vulnerable people are also less likely to have the information or means to challenge administrative decisions and may entirely slip through the cracks in public systems. A lack of care for human rights can escalate to human rights violations occurring at a systemic level, affecting innumerable vulnerable people, violations that may only be uncovered years later through Royal Commissions.111 Concern about the lack of, or limited, protections for vulnerable and minority groups was perhaps the most consistent theme of Free & Equal submissions and consultations. For example, Professor Liz Curran submitted that, While many of our politicians do not see a need for better protection of human rights, the lived experience for people without their privilege, is that human rights intrusions are commonplace. This is especially the case if you are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander with a daily grind of racial prejudice that becomes just a normal part of lived experience, for the poor, for the elderly, children in out of home care and people with a disability and refugees (to name just a few sections of society).112 The Uniting Church supported a Human Rights Act, particularly because of the protections it would provide to the most vulnerable, marginalised and disadvantaged in our community, who currently have few avenues for remedy when their rights are violated ... These groups in our community generally struggle to have their experiences heard and are often marginalised from the political process. This means that abuses of their human rights often go unnoticed or unaddressed and leave people with little option for redress or for the realisation of their rights.113 • Role of the Human Rights Act A Human Rights Act would transform how public authorities interact with individuals in their everyday decision making.114 Public authorities would be required to actively take into account the effect of policies and decisions on the human rights of affected individuals.115 This would result in more administrative FREE AND EQUAL A Human Rights Act for Australia 2022 87