In The Case for an Australian Bill of Rights: Freedom in the War on Terror (UNSW Press, 2004), George Williams summarises the major arguments for and against a Charter of Human Rights in Australia:

A Charter of Human Rights would recognise and protect universal rights, including many that are not currently protected by Australian law.

	A Charter of Human Rights would enhance our democracy by setting out and protecting the rights that attach to Australian citizenship.
	A Charter of Human Rights would protect the rights of minorities, possibly including the rights of non-citizens.
	A Charter of Human Rights would give legal rights to Australians who are otherwise powerless.
	A Charter of Human Rights would bring Australia into line with every other western nation.
	A Charter of Human Rights would meet the obligations we have voluntarily assumed to incorporate into our law instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
	A Charter of Human Rights would put rights above politics and above arbitrary governmental action.
	A Charter of Human Rights would improve government policy-making and administrative decision-making.
	A Charter of Human Rights would help to educate Australians about human rights and their system of government.
	A Charter of Human Rights would promote tolerance and understanding in the community and could contribute to a stronger culture of respect for human rights.

Arguments against a Charter of Human Rights

	Bob Carr writes against a Charter of Rights in the Sydney Morning Herald.
	Rights are already well enough protected in Australia.
	The High Court is already protecting rights through its interpretation of the constitution and the common law.
	Rights listed in the law actually make little or no practical difference to the protection of rights.
	The political system itself is the best protection of rights in Australia. We should trust in our politicians and our power to vote them out.
	A Charter of Human Rights would actually restrict rights; in other words, to define a right is to limit it.
	A Charter of Human Rights would be undemocratic because it might give unelected judges too much power over important social issues.
	A Charter of Human Rights would politicise the judiciary and affect public confidence in the courts.
	A Charter of Human Rights would be expensive given the amount of litigation it could generate.
	A Charter of Human Rights would be alien to our tradition of parliamentary sovereignty.
	A Charter of Human Rights would protect some rights that may not be as important to future generations.
	The ACT Bill of Rights Consultative Committee also lists arguments for and against a Charter of Human Rights.

The ACT Bill of Rights Consultative Committee also lists arguments for and against a Charter of Human Rights.