case that most Western democracies prioritise civil and political rights in domestic instruments, as these rights are strongly rooted in common law tradition and theories of ‘natural rights’ predominant in enlightenment thought.44 However, there is no fundamental difference between the nature of ICESCR rights and ICCPR rights. Both sets of rights are of equal importance in international law, and to ensuring a dignified life for individuals. Australia signed ICESCR in 1973 and ratified it without reservations in 1975. Australia’s obligations under ICESCR are of the same status as its obligations under the ICCPR. The Committee on Economic and Social Rights (CESCR Committee) has repeatedly recommended that Australia implement ICESCR into law.45 Currently, there are some protections for ICESCR rights in Australia (for example, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which embeds workrelated rights, and the ILO 111 jurisdiction in the AHRC Act), but they are only protected in an inchoate and fragmented manner. Queensland and ACT’s human rights instruments have implemented key ICESCR rights, including the right to education and health, setting an example for the federal context. It is commonly stated that ICESCR involves ‘positive’ obligations, which require investment of resources, while the ICCPR involves ‘negative’ obligations.46 It is argued that the latter form of obligations is more familiar to the common law tradition. However, many commentators have noted that this distinction breaks down upon closer analysis. For example, the 2010 Australian Capital Territory Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Research Project Report (ACT ESCR Report) on the implementation of ICESCR rights in the ACT, explains: Take, for example, the right to a fair trial, considered a classic [civil and political right]. This right depends for its enjoyment on the allocation by the State of extensive financial resources to run a court system, with independent judges, the availability of legal aid, interpreters and other forms of support. There is little difference between this and the expenditure involved in the maintenance of a health system that gives effect to the right to the highest attainable standard of health care. … Conversely, obligations in relation to [economic, social and cultural rights] may often involve negative obligations, for example, not unlawfully evicting a tenant from state housing or discriminating against an employee for union membership or related activities.47 Similar points about positive elements of the ICCPR can be made regarding the right to vote, which requires a functioning electoral system; and the prohibition on inhumane treatment in detention, which requires prisons to respect minimum living conditions and conduct training for officials.48 Moreover, as noted above, ICESCR rights are intrinsically linked with the fulfilment of ICCPR rights. ICESCR and ICCPR rights are not fundamentally distinct from one another. They are often simply two sides of the same conceptual coin. In the Commission’s experience, many of the most pressing human rights concerns facing people in Australia relate to economic, social and cultural rights. These include access to adequate health care, education and housing.49 And the restriction of these rights is often linked to civil and political rights – like the right to nondiscrimination. A clear majority of Free & Equal submitters50 and consultees supported the inclusion of ICESCR rights in the Human Rights Act. Stakeholders emphasised the importance of ICESCR rights to marginalised and disadvantaged people who often fall through the cracks in Australian society. For example, ICESCR rights are important to: • prevent homelessness, including by ensuring adequate housing is available; and prohibiting unfair evictions FREE AND EQUAL A Human Rights Act for Australia 2022 125