Dear Readers,
Here is the fourth question:
Explain two ways in which South Africas constitutional protection of democratic and human rights is similar to or different from the approach provided by the Commonwealth Constitution. (4 marks 2008 – Q5)
Answer:
South Africa’s approach to the constitution protection of its citizen’s rights differs greatly from Australia’s. South Africa has an entrenched bill of rights found in chapter 2 S7-39 that provides protection for a broad range of democratic and human rights. In contrast, the Australian constitution is limited to 5 express rights including S116 freedom to practice or not practice a religion. For example, the South African constitution provides protection against discrimination based on age, race, gender, religion and sexual practice whereas Australia’s constitution only protects from discrimination as a result of state residence (S117).
However, there are also a number of similarities, both nations have a structural protection that allows for the alteration of the wording of the constitution in Australia S128 Referendum provides citizens with a direct vote and a double majority must be achieved in order for it to be successful. Although the process is largely ineffective as only 8/44 have passed including the 1967 referendum to increase the rights of Aboriginal people. Referenda are limited as they can be rejected, as the process is so rigid and the people can be sceptical of the change, this is demonstrated by the failed 1988 referendum to entrench a bill of rights in the Australian constitution. Likewise, under S74, South Africa utilises a representative vote to alter the constitution, requiring 2/3 of the national congress and 6/9 of the provinces to be successful.
Yours,
JB
Legal Studies VCE 