Key points​

• There are some protections of human rights in NSW through the common law, the Australian Constitution, state and federal legislation, and a parliamentary scrutiny mechanism for bills. A key issue in the debate about a human rights Act is whether these protections are adequate.
• A 2001 committee report recommended, by majority, not enacting a human rights Act in NSW. A 2018 committee report noted that many stakeholders advocated for such an Act, and this needed wider debate. Several national reports have recommended a human rights Act.​
  
• Three Australian jurisdictions have enacted human rights Acts: the ACT in 2004, Victoria in 2006 and Queensland in 2019. These Acts are all based on a dialogue model of human rights, which maintains parliamentary sovereignty.​
  
• The Acts require government bills to be accompanied by a statement of compatibility, public entities to make decisions and act in ways that are compatible with human rights, and courts to interpret legislation consistently with human rights where possible.​
• A person who believes their human rights have been breached by a public entity can complain to the entity, complain to an independent oversight body, or raise the human rights ground in legal proceedings. Courts can provide a range of remedies but not damages.
• ​​Notable differences between the 3 Acts include the range of human rights that are protected, whether there is provision for parliament to make an override declaration, and whether individuals have a direct or indirect right of action to the courts.​
  
• Most reviews of the 3 Acts have concluded that they are helping to protect and promote human rights. However, these reviews have identified a range of issues with the Acts and have made recommendations to improve their operation.