Similarities:
There are some similarities that exists between the way in which Australia and Canada attempts to protect their democratic human rights. One of these similarities is the existence of entrenched rights. In Canada, the Charter of rights and Freedoms is embedded within their Constitution. In Australia there are five express rights entrenched within ours. Secondly, in both countries a referendum like process is required to change these entrenched rights. This process requiring both Houses to agree to the change, the majority of the population and support from majority of states (provinces in Canada) means that only changes that are deemed necessary by the people will pass. Lastly, both countries have courts that can interpret legislation and determine whether rights have been infringed. In Australia the High Court is given this ability whereas disputes are handled by the Supreme Court.
Despite these similarities, there are most differences that tend to exist. In Canada, the Charter features approximately 34 rights that have been adopted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This list is designed to specifically and extensively protect the rights of the Canadian people. In Australia, we only have 5 express rights that have remained unchanged since the Constitution was written. The rights protected are concerned with political and civil protection and some argue, do not adequately ensure our rights are safeguarded.
Another difference between Canada and Australia is the limitations of rights. In Canada, the rights within the Charter can be limited. The first method is referred to as the 'Nothwithstanding Clause'. This allows Canadian parliament to create legislation infringing any right within the Charter (except for voting and mobility rights) if they declare their intention in parliament. This clause also has a sunset provision whereby this law will lapse after 5 years if parliament does not choose to extend it.
Another ability to limit the rights in Canada is the 'Reasonable Limits' clause whereby parliament may introduce legislation that infringes upon certain rights of the people if it is deemed necessary for the 'peace and democracy of a good society and' of the people. An example of this is limiting the freedom of speech through legislation by introducing a law that prevents hate speech.
Lastly another major difference is the remedy available to the infringed parties. In Canada, if the courts determined that an individuals rights have been infringed, they may be awarded damages in the form of monetary compensation. Furthermore in Canada, evidence that is determined to be obtained illegal may not be used at trial. The Supreme court may also declare the legislation invalid and allow parliament the opportunity to amend the legislation. In Australia, there are no remedies available to parties. Once the High Court has declared that legislation or amendments infringes our rights, it will be declared invalid and no remedies are required to be offered to parties.
There are some similarities that exists between the way in which Australia and Canada attempts to protect their democratic human rights. One of these similarities is the existence of entrenched rights. In Canada, the Charter of rights and Freedoms is embedded within their Constitution. In Australia there are five express rights entrenched within ours. Secondly, in both countries a referendum like process is required to change these entrenched rights. This process requiring both Houses to agree to the change, the majority of the population and support from majority of states (provinces in Canada) means that only changes that are deemed necessary by the people will pass. Lastly, both countries have courts that can interpret legislation and determine whether rights have been infringed. In Australia the High Court is given this ability whereas disputes are handled by the Supreme Court.
Despite these similarities, there are most differences that tend to exist. In Canada, the Charter features approximately 34 rights that have been adopted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This list is designed to specifically and extensively protect the rights of the Canadian people. In Australia, we only have 5 express rights that have remained unchanged since the Constitution was written. The rights protected are concerned with political and civil protection and some argue, do not adequately ensure our rights are safeguarded.
Another difference between Canada and Australia is the limitations of rights. In Canada, the rights within the Charter can be limited. The first method is referred to as the 'Nothwithstanding Clause'. This allows Canadian parliament to create legislation infringing any right within the Charter (except for voting and mobility rights) if they declare their intention in parliament. This clause also has a sunset provision whereby this law will lapse after 5 years if parliament does not choose to extend it.
Another ability to limit the rights in Canada is the 'Reasonable Limits' clause whereby parliament may introduce legislation that infringes upon certain rights of the people if it is deemed necessary for the 'peace and democracy of a good society and' of the people. An example of this is limiting the freedom of speech through legislation by introducing a law that prevents hate speech.
Lastly another major difference is the remedy available to the infringed parties. In Canada, if the courts determined that an individuals rights have been infringed, they may be awarded damages in the form of monetary compensation. Furthermore in Canada, evidence that is determined to be obtained illegal may not be used at trial. The Supreme court may also declare the legislation invalid and allow parliament the opportunity to amend the legislation. In Australia, there are no remedies available to parties. Once the High Court has declared that legislation or amendments infringes our rights, it will be declared invalid and no remedies are required to be offered to parties.