The human rights framework also requires safeguards such as time constraints and reviews on any steps taken to limit human rights. If the measures are no longer necessary, they should cease. It has been noted that ‘infrastructure deployed as a temporary measure tends to persist after crises’.13 This must be avoided. Additionally, measures taken must be equitable and should not discriminate; for example, a person’s nationality should not affect their access to social security and health services during a pandemic. Australia’s COVID response was relatively effective in protecting rights to life and to health, compared to many other nations. However, there were key failures which resulted in human rights breaches, and insufficient consideration for certain vulnerable and marginalised groups throughout the COVID response. A domestic Human Rights Act would have provided law and guidance that may have improved Australia’s response in certain key respects. (b) Some key human rights concerns associated with Australia’s COVID-19 response • Lack of lawful basis for measures Many restrictions on rights and penalties were introduced to combat the COVID-19 pandemic through delegated legislation, without legislative oversight or review.14 Many of these measures were also implemented without sufficient transparency about government decisionmaking process, including regarding the evidence upon which decisions were based.15 They were often accompanied by increased police enforcement powers. • Border closures Australia implemented international and internal border closures and restrictions for extended periods of time during COVID-19. This included the unprecedented step of travel caps effectively preventing thousands of Australian citizens from re-entering Australia;16 and an outright ban on citizens returning from India (with penalties of 5 years imprisonment or a $66,000 fine) during the Delta outbreak, which drew concern by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.17 These policies resulted in the potential for physical endangerment of Australians overseas;18 extended periods of family separation; high financial costs associated with inflated travel prices, accommodation abroad and mandated hotel quarantine upon return to Australia; lost employment opportunities; and mental health impacts. The Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 found that The government’s pandemic plan should have provided a workable means of repatriating citizens early in the pandemic. Instead, when Australia’s international border closed, Australian citizens stranded overseas were effectively abandoned.19 • Vaccine rollout Australia has a high vaccination rate against COVID-19.20 However, Australia’s initial vaccine rollout was plagued with problems and lengthy delays, affecting the right to health for all Australians.21 There were also inequities associated with vaccination of certain vulnerable groups. • Lack of consideration for vulnerable groups First Nations peoples have lower vaccination rates compared to the overall population despite being classified as high priority at the commencement of the rollout, and there have been several outbreaks in remote First Nations communities.22 FREE AND EQUAL A Human Rights Act for Australia 2022 37