If Australia had a humans right act the Northern Territory intervention would have been struck down, the author of a government report recommending such a charter says.
Similarly, tough anti-terror laws allowing for detention without charge, and the locking up of asylum seekers' children, may also have been scuttled, according to National Human Rights Consultation committee chair Frank Brennan.
The committee's final report, released on Thursday, argues Australia "has a patchwork quilt of protection for human rights" that could be improved through national human rights legislation.
Father Brennan, a Jesuit priest and lawyer, says the NT intervention, introduced by the former Howard government, would have come under stricter scrutiny if such a charter existed.
"The executive ... would have to say it complied with the human rights act, you would then have a joint committee of human rights of parliament which would scrutinise the legislation and, I think in that instance, strike it down," he told ABC Radio.
Tough anti-terror laws, introduced following the September 11 attacks in the United States, would also have been in trouble.
"Eventually that legislation would end up before one of the superior courts and the court would then have the task ... to interpret that law as consistently as possible with human rights."
Further, it was "less likely" laws allowing children to be detained would have been passed. If there were "there could then be a challenge in the courts".
The consultation committee recommended a joint committee on human rights review all laws to ensure they protect human rights.
It also wants the federal government to appoint a human rights minister to review its policies.
The committee said a human rights act would enshrine rights already expected under international obligations and make any breach eligible for compensation. But the call for legislation has sparked fierce criticism from some opponents, who are demanding any final decision be put to a referendum.
The federal opposition says it will shift important decision-making powers from elected parliamentarians to unelected judges.
Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis wants the Rudd government to reject the move.
The consultation process was driven by a small group of lawyers and political activists, including online group GetUp! which claims its members made up more than 10,000 submissions, he said.
"It (the recommendation) hasn't arisen from any widespread community view."
Senator Brandis said a charter of rights would turn High Court judges into "overtly political figures" who can oversee politically sensitive issues and clog up the courts with claims.
"There's no doubt, at all, that lawyers would be laughing all the way to the bank if this were to be enacted."
The criticism was echoed by former NSW Labor premier Bob Carr, who said judges would be able "to effectively strike down federal parliament legislation".
But the Australian Human Rights Commission says a human rights act should be adopted immediately, and there is no reason to hold a referendum.
"The Australian people want it, the Australian government should now accept that and act on it," commission president Cathy Branson QC told AAP.
Ms Branson also rejected the notion that judges would get too much power.
"It absolutely protects the power of the Australian parliament to make any law that it can now make."
The Australian Greens, The Australian Council of Social Service and not-for-profit legal policy group PIAC also want the government to act without delay.
Australia is currently the only western democracy without a legislated charter of rights.
The Rudd government says it will respond to the report by the end of the year.