English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The three Australasian statutory human rights charters have proved surprisingly unstable in their interpretation and application. In the New Zealand context, a reason that has been suggested for this is that there are two competing explanatory narratives underlying the instrument, neither of which has been able to achieve ascendency. This article adopts that account and suggests that it also has explanatory power in the Australian context. The article then uses this “two stories” analysis to explore similarities and differences between the two jurisdictions and, in particular, to reflect on the broader constitutional cultures in which the Australasian statutory human rights charters must operate.

What’s the story? The instability of the Australasian bills of rights