QCCL president Michael Cope said the state needed a human rights act, like that seen in the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria, to ensure Queensland, a state with no upper house, a long history of extreme legislation and a penchant for gifting governments unassailable majorities, "has some checks and balances".

And he is calling on both the LNP and Labor to commit to introducing legislation which would provide those checks, which were outlined in the Brennan national human rights consultation, before voters head to the polls.

"The way that the system works in the other states is that legislation is passed and then people go off to the court and seek a declaration of compatibility with the act.  Now it is not like the United States Bill of Rights," Mr Cope said.

"If the legislation is found incompatible, that does not strike down the legislation. What happens is a statement of incompatibility is set by the court, the parliament is then required to respond by amending the legislation or by saying it is not going to amend the legislation.

"So that overcomes one of the objections, which I think is a legitimate one, that constitutionally entrenched bills of rights, like the one in the United States,  give too much power to judges in a democratic context.

"But if the court holds that the legislation which is passed violates the human rights act, then obviously public pressure arises on the parliament to fix it, or the parliament can decide it does not want to fix it. Democracy prevails."

A spokesman for Labor said the party would examine a "detailed proposal" from the QCCL, while a spokesman for acting Attorney-General John McVeigh said the LNP had no plans to enact a human rights bill.

"The Newman LNP government has a strong plan to make Queensland the safest place to live, work and raise a family.  We have implemented strong, fair and effective laws which have led to dramatic drops in crime while also protecting the rights of innocent Queenslanders," he said.

"Queenslanders have adequate protections of civil rights under the Constitution, through the High Court of Australia, the judiciary and by virtue of its membership to United Nations conventions."

But not so, said Mr Cope, who said that the constitution only had "limited protections", the High Court only upheld the constitution and international covenants were not legally binding unless they had  been enacted through law, which in Australia usually happened at a federal level.

"We want to put it on the agenda, obviously," Mr Cope said.

"The Labor party has, to some extent, adopted some of the concerns that we have expressed ... but they haven't really put forward any mechanism for which there would be any long-term, permanent change in the system to address those issues.

"If they are serious about this, then they would be talking about this.

"... We would say that they should be following their interstate cousins."