I imagine much of this information can be easily found in your textbook.
These are not properly written answers, but they should serve as a good guide:
Question 1
Explain the concept of "democratic and human rights"
Human rights - basic or fundamental freedoms.
Democratic rights - more sophisticated, these are 'political' rights that help operate a democracy and reflect its ideals.
Question 2
Describe the five express democratic and human rights of Australians that are protected by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1990(UK)
s.116 - Freedom of Religion - the Cth cannot make laws to prevent people from practicing their religion.
s.117 - Rights of Residents in States - the Cth cannot discriminate against a person based on which state he lives in.
s.80 - Trial by Jury - A person charged with a Cth indictable offence has a right to trial by jury, and to be convicted only by unanimous verdict.
s.51(xxxi) - Cth Compulsory Acquisitions - A person from which the Cth compulsorily acquires property has a right to receive fair compensation; "the acquisition of property" must be "on just terms" (think The Castle!)
...there should be more in your textbook.
Question 3
Distinguish between express rights and implied right in the Australin Constitution. Explain one implied right within the Australian Constitution.
Express rights - rights actually written in the Constitution.
Implied rights - rights that have not been explicity stated in the Constitution, but are 'assumed' to exist.
Only the High Court has the power to legally decide whether an implicit constitutional right exists.
A good example is the right to vote - s.24 of the Constitution dictates that the members of the House of Representatives shall be "directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth", yet it does not explicitly state that citizens have a right to vote. Additionally, back when the Constitution was written, "the people" did not include anyone under 21, female, or Aboriginal. In this case, the Cth has decided that this right is implied and the matter has not actually been brought before the High Court, but the right to vote is such a fundamental part of our democratic society that the Cth would likely find insurmountable difficulty in trying to prove to the High Court that an implied right does not exist here.
If you'd like a less complicated implied right, then discuss the right to freedom of political speech (also covered by s.24).
Question 4
Some countries have an entrenched Bill of rights, while others have adopted a statutory Bill of Rights. Explain the difference between these forms of rights bill.
An entrenched Bill of Rights is part of a country's Constitution, making it difficult to change (for example, in Australia it would require a successful referendum). Also, Courts can declare any legislation that infringes the Bill of Rights to be
ultra vires.
With a statutory Bill of Rights (an "unentrenched" Bill of Rights), the courts do not have such a power. A statutory Bill of Rights is NOT a part of the Constitution.
(Remember, the only way a Bill of Rights can be added to the Australian Constitution is via referendum.) Also, just as parliament can create this Bill of Rights, it can take it away as well. Parliament has the power to amend or repeal this kind of Bill of Rights at its discretion - it can change rights or 'take them back' whenever it is convenient for them.
Question 5
Describe the constitutional approach used for the protection of democratic and human rights adopted by a country that you have studied (other than Australia). Analyse the similarities and differences of this approach with the approach with the approach used in the Australian Constitution.
You should have studied a country with which you can make comparisons against.
Take a look at
this thread for some discussion ideas for your answer.
Edit: Hard's answers are better, but I half-wrote this, ate dinner, then saw his answer... I decided to finish and post it anyway...