The purpose of this article is to examine the nature and potential impact of s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The article draws upon the experience of courts in other Commonwealth jurisdictions which operate a similar provisions. The author analyses the nature of the interpretative technique, reading down, that s 3 requires and illustrates its potential by reference to a number of situations involving statutory imperfections such as ambiguity and overbreadth. The author also outlines the impact that s 3 may have on the exercise of statutory discretion. The author further argues that reading down should not be confused with more intrusive remedies, such as reading in, which are not available under the Human Rights Act.