95 per cent thought the right to essential health care was an important or very important right. These rights accord closely with economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to an adequate standard of living (including adequate food, clothing and housing) and the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.55 This reflects similar findings of research conducted in Tasmania, Western Australia and the ACT.56 As noted in the ACT ESCR Report, ‘protection of [ICESCR rights] is an important aspect of the often-identified Australian values of equality and a “fair go’’’.57 In light of this data, and the outcome of Free & Equal consultations, the Commission considers that a failure to include ICESCR rights in a Human Rights Act would represent a failure to uphold key values held by the Australian community. The Human Rights Act would not be a fully representative or cohesive document without them. The Commission notes the earlier debate about how to frame ICESCR rights compatibly with the exercise of judicial power under Chapter III of the Constitution. Chapter III requires the exercise of judicial power to involve ‘the application of criteria or standards that are sufficiently definite’.58 The Human Rights Law Centre requested advice on this question from Peter Hanks KC, Debbie Mortimer SC, Associate Professor Kristen Walker and Graeme Hill (HRLC advice).59 The HRLC advice concluded that ‘the legal issue is not so much which rights can be contained in a federal Human Rights Act, but how those rights are framed and what powers are given to the courts in relation to those rights’.60 The HRLC advice suggested that it is possible to frame ICESCR rights in a manner that is It is true that many social and economic rights are broadly expressed; however they are no more broadly expressed than many civil and political rights that can be interpreted and applied in the exercise of federal judicial power.61 … It is also true that decisions about social and economic rights may often have implications for the allocation of budgetary resources. However the same is true of many, if not all, human rights.62 The HRLC advice provides examples of ‘broadly expressed’ ICCPR rights, including that ‘every person is equal before the law’ and ‘all persons deprived of liberty must be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person’. It notes that these rights have been given specific content by the courts, observing that ‘the courts can apply judicial techniques to very general provisions, by giving content to these provisions on a case-by-case basis and by requiring the criteria to be satisfied by evidence’.63 The OHCHR has made similar points to the HRLC advice in this regard, noting that, While adjudicating [ICESCR] rights may raise questions of what constitutes, for example, hunger, adequate housing, or a fair wage, judges have already dealt ably with questions of what constitutes torture, a fair trial or arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy. Filling in the gaps in legislation is a clear function of the judiciary, not only in human rights law but in any area of law.64 The courts’ work can be aided by reference to CESCR General Comments, which flesh out the elements of key rights in some detail.65 appropriate for the courts to adjudicate. In reaching this conclusion, the HRLC advice made the following key points: FREE AND EQUAL A Human Rights Act for Australia 2022 127