2. Context for reform The NHRCC also recommended the development of a ‘whole-of-government framework for ensuring that human rights – based either on Australia’s international obligations or on a federal Human Rights Act, or both – are better integrated into public sector policy and legislative development, decision making, service delivery, and practice more generally’.11 Australia’s Human Rights Framework 2010, considered below, reflected this recommendation. A central recommendation was that Australia adopt a federal Human Rights Act. This was to be based on a legislative dialogue model, incorporating rights from the international treaties to which Australia is party, primarily the ICCPR.12 One of the further key recommendations was the introduction of a human rights parliamentary scrutiny regime, including a requirement of a Statement of Compatibility process.13 Both were established and continue in operation. They are considered in chapter 5 of this report. The 16 recommendations made by the National Human Rights Consultation Committee are attached as Appendix 1 to this report. (b) Australia’s Human Rights Framework 2010 (i) Overview and assessment The Australian Government responded to the NHRCC report through the introduction of Australia’s Human Rights Framework in 2010 (2010 Framework). The Framework accepted some, but not all, of the recommendations of the NHRCC Report. The Government chose not to pursue a Human Rights Act as part of the Framework, although noting at the time that the possibility of introducing a Human Rights Act would be considered when reviewing the operation of the Framework.14 This decision was made despite strong public support for a Human Rights Act.15 Other measures, such as the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights,16 were pursued. The parliamentary scrutiny regime came into effect the following year in partial fulfilment of the NHRCC Report recommendations. A National Action Plan on Human Rights was also introduced in 2012, following the completion of a baseline study in 2011.17 Measures to introduce human rights education were also undertaken and a process to update and consolidate federal discrimination law reform commenced with the development of an Exposure Draft Bill for public consultation. This Exposure Draft Bill was not pursued with the change of government in 2013, and Australia’s Human Rights Framework also expired and was not renewed.18 The Commission welcomed the announcement of the introduction of the 2010 Framework as a step towards better protection, although of limited reach. The Commission’s then President, the Hon Catherine Branson AC KC, noted that recommendations about, for example, human rights education, would be difficult to deliver ‘while human rights in protections in Australia remain an incomplete patchwork’.19 Looking back, the 2010 Framework cannot be seen to have met its objectives. The failure of the Framework was due to lack of implementation and lack of commitment from the Government at the time. The 2010 Framework lacked transparency mechanisms to hold the Australian Government to account (such as self-reporting of progress by the Government or assessments of quality of actions by an independent agency) and lacked regular independent monitoring. Moreover, it did not enjoy engagement and buy-in from state and territory governments, which also made it fragile and capable of being rendered inoperable without any discussion with other governments. Actions under the 2010 Framework were only funded to a very limited degree. For example, the National Human Rights Action Plan 2012 had no funding attached to it, which limited the ability to achieve outcomes or even buy-in from federal government departments and state and territory governments. FREE & EQUAL: Revitalising Australia’s Commitment to Human Rights 35