Explain how the Commonwealth Constitution protects democratic and human rights - VCE - SSCE Legal Studies - Question 8 - 2010 - Paper 1

The approach adopted by Australia differs significantly from that of New Zealand, particularly in terms of constitutional protection of rights.

In Australia, the Commonwealth Constitution does not have a Bill of Rights; it is characterized by a narrow interpretation of rights. The High Court can interpret legislation but is restricted by the Constitution, and it cannot declare legislation invalid purely on the grounds that it contravenes rights, since there is no comprehensive list of rights.

In contrast, New Zealand's approach includes the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA), which explicitly sets out fundamental rights and freedoms, although it does not have a comprehensive constitutional guarantee. The BORA allows the High Court to review legislation and assesses its consistency with the Bill of Rights. If a conflict arises, the New Zealand Parliament remains the ultimate arbiter and can choose to amend the legislation, unlike in Australia where the High Court's power is more limited.

In summary, while both countries aim to protect democratic rights, Australia lacks an explicit Bill of Rights and relies on judicial interpretation within constitutional boundaries, whereas New Zealand has a specific act that outlines these rights and holds the government accountable through judicial review.