The call for a Human Rights Act in Australia | The Daily Aus 

Professor Nolan didn't seem to give a real counterpoint to creating a federal Human Rights Act, so viewers of this report might have received only one side of the argument. Consider: Many Latin American countries have extensive human rights stipulations in their constitutions, yet their human rights protection is still relatively weak compared to Australia or the UK. Why is that the case? The reality is having laws titled "Human Rights" means very little when it comes to the country's ability to actually protect such rights. This is especially true when it comes to positive rights such as housing and healthcare (as opposed to negative rights which are prohibitions on what the government may do). If a government is unable to manage the country's economy, then simply having "housing rights" on the book will not magically create houses for people. On the other hand, if a government is corrupt, having a national Human Rights Act will give the federal government the pretext or excuse to meddle in state and local politics. For example, to use a bogus human rights claim to sabotage a private organization that challenges the federal government's leadership. Therefore, from the perspective of opponents to a national Human Rights Act, human rights is better protected through individual laws that are passed as the need arises, and they can be state laws rather than federal laws because each state has its own circumstances and challenges, which are better managed at the local level.