- 21 February 2014: CCCS Expert Seminar
South African Constitutional Law for Australian Lawyers
An expert seminar on the topic South African Constitutional Law for Australian Lawyers was hosted by the Centre for comparative constitutional Studies. This seminar is a sequel to the very successful seminar on United States Constitutional Law held in February 2013 and followed a similar format.
The South African Constitution has been an admired and influential model for modern constitutions. For Australian lawyers the approach of the South African Courts to the principle of proportionality and to the relationship between the common law and the Constitution are among the many points of intersection and influence. The seminar provided Australian lawyers with a grounding in fundamental principles of South African constitutional law and familiarity with the case law in selected key areas that are of the most relevance to Australia. The seminar was designed to be of particular interest to practicing lawyers and judges, though some academics were be involved as well.
The presenter was The Hon. Dennis Davis of the High Court of South Africa. Judge Davis is one of South Africa’s best known jurists. He is a judge of the High Court of South Africa, President of the Competition Appeal Court and an Honorary Professor of Law at the University of Cape Town. He is also a noted constitutional expert having been a Technical Advisor to the Constitutional Assembly where the negotiations for South Africa’s interim and final constitutions were formulated and concluded. He continues to teach constitutional law at the University of Cape Town and has been a visiting professor at the Harvard and Georgetown Law Schools and a senior fellow at Melbourne Law School. Judge Davis is lively presenter who hosted an award winning current affairs TV programme ‘Future Imperfect’ between 1993-1998.
The Role of the Courts under the South African Constitution
Commentator: The Hon. Justice Melissa Perry, Federal Court of Australia
Proportionality as a Principle of Constitutional Law
Commentator: Professor Michael Crommelin AO, Director, Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law
Session ThreeSession Four
The Common Law and the Constitution
Commentator: Professor Adrienne Stone, Director, Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studiues
The Executive and the South African Constitution
Commentator: Professor Cheryl Saunders AO, Melbourne Law School
- 27 February 2014: CCCS Seminar
The Impact of Judicial Enforcement of Socio-Economic Rights: Looking Beyond Emblematic Cases
Presenter:Professor Javier Couso, Universidad Diego Portales, Chile
Ever since Holmes & Sunstein (1999) contributed to undermine the traditional separation between civil and political rights and those of a social and economic nature by demonstrating that the former set of rights also demands public expenditures in order to be effectively protected, there has been a global move demanding judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights, particularly in the developing world. In this presentation, Professor Couso will provide evidence that suggests that judicial enforcement of such fundamental rights has proven to be remarkably ineffective, a fact that has been hidden by the focus of jurists on emblematic judicial decisions, instead of broader socio-economic evidence.
Professor Javier Couso Director, Constitutional Law Program, Universidad Diego Portales Javier Couso is Professor of Law and Director of the Constitutional Law Program at U. Diego Portales (Chile). A member of the Executive Committee of the International Association of Constitutional Law (IACL), he has been a Visiting Professor at the U. of Leiden (2013); the U. of Melbourne (2014 & 2012); Bocconi University (2012) and the U. of Wisconsin-Madison (2006-2007). He specializes in Comparative Public Law and Sociology of Law. His publications include The Constitutional Law of Chile (Kluwer Law International, 2011) and Cultures of Legality: Judicialization and Political Activism in Latin America (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
- 13 March 2014: CCCS Seminar
How Human Rights Transformed the U.S. Constitution
Presenter: Professor David Sloss, Santa Clara University School of Law, United States of America
Most experts agree that international human rights law has had little impact on the evolution of constitutional law in the United States. In this seminar, Professor Sloss explains why the experts are wrong. In fact, international human rights norms had a profound impact on the development of constitutional law in the United States between about 1945 and 1970. Drawing on work that forms part of a book-in-progress, Professor Sloss will focus on Fujii v. California, in which a Japanese national filed suit to challenge the validity of a California law that barred Japanese nationals from owning real property in California. In 1950, an intermediate appellate court in California held that the Alien Land Law was invalid because it conflicted with the human rights provisions of the U.N. Charter. The decision sparked a huge political controversy. On appeal, the California Supreme Court agreed that the Alien Land Law was invalid, but based its decision on the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In effect, the court incorporated the U.N. Charter’s anti- discrimination principle into the Equal Protection Clause. In brief, the Fujii story explains how modern international human rights law transformed the U.S. Constitution.
Professor David Sloss Director, Center for Global Law and Policy, Santa Clara University School of Law David Sloss is a Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, where he served as the Director of the Center for Global Law and Policy. He is the editor of The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009), and co-editor of International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court: Continuity and Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011). The American Society of International Law awarded a Certificate of Merit for the latter book “for high technical craftsmanship and utility to practicing lawyers and scholars.” Professor Sloss has published numerous articles on the history of U.S. foreign affairs law and the judicial enforcement of treaties in domestic courts. He is a member of the American Law Institute (ALI) and is working on the ALI project to draft the Restatement (Fourth) of U.S. Foreign Relations Law. He received his B.A. from Hampshire College, his M.P.P. from Harvard University and his J.D. from Stanford Law School. Before he was a law professor, Sloss spent nine years in the U.S. government, where he worked on East-West arms control negotiations and nuclear proliferation issues. While visiting at Melbourne Law School, he is working on a book examining the influence of international human rights law on the evolution of U.S. constitutional law.
- 28 March 2014: Judges and the Academy Seminar Series
Judging What Are Reasonable Limits on Rights: Proportionality and Its Alternatives
Presenters: Professor Adrienne Stone, Director of Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies and The Hon. Justice Marcia Neave AO, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria
Chair: Profesor Gerry Simpson, Melbourne Law School
- 29 April 2014: CCCS, CELREL and EERN Seminar
Unions NSW and its implications for campaign finance regulation
In Unions of NSW v NSW  HCA 58, the High Court found two sections of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) invalid for impermissibly burdening the freedom of political communication implied by the Australian Constitution. In doing so, the Court affirmed its acceptance of ‘anti-corruption’ as a legitimate object of electoral reform but found these laws invalid as having no relation to such an object.
Presenters: Professor Adrienne Stone and Associate Professor Joo-Cheong Tham
- 28 May 2014: CCCS and ALC Seminar
Consulting for Reform: State Responses to Constitutional Reform Proposals in Vietnam
Presenter: Dr Bui Ngoc Son, School of Law, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
On 4 February 2013, former Minister of Justice, Nguyen Dinh Loc, presented a petition signed by ‘72 senior scholars from different majors’ to the Constitutional Amendment Committee, calling for fundamental and broad-ranging changes to Vietnam’s constitution. Now referred to as Petition 72, the changes proposed include: free and democratic elections and curtailing the current constitutional mandate of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Concurrently it called to reorient the Constitution in a number of ways, including constitutional recognition of human rights and the right to private ownership of land, amongst others. While debate about constitutional and legislative reform is not uncommon, in the life of independent Vietnam there has not been such a public and orchestrated call for change conducted both in Vietnamese and English. Significantly, the suggested changes come almost entirely from the elite, both in terms of being highly educated and holding prior office within the Party-State, although the prospects of changes to land law and reduction of the Party’s exclusive leadership role are not likely. This lecture will discuss why this activism has been initiated and how the Party-State responded to it.
Dr Bui Ngoc Son, Lecturer, School of Law, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City Dr Bui has recently completed a doctorate at Hong Kong University focusing on Vietnamese constitutionalism. He has published several articles in established international peer review journals in English. Dr Bui is one of a handful of leading Vietnamese scholars who has openly engaged with comparative and international discussions about socialist constitutional reform, including through blogs following the constitutional amendment consultation process. A new generation Vietnamese scholar, with experience as a visiting researcher at Harvard Law School and as a constitutional change ‘Blogger’, he is eminently suited to lead the research and discussion of Vietnamese constitutional change. Dr Bui Ngoc Son is currently Vietnam’s pre-eminent constitutional law scholar.
- 29 May 2014: Book Symposium
The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism: Theory and Practice
Panel Commentators: Professor Carolyn Evans, Dean, Melbourne Law School, Professor Rosalind Dixon, Law, University of New South Wales and Dr Lael Weis Centre, Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne Law School
In this book, Stephen Gardbaum argues that recent bills of rights in Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Australia are a ‘new Commonwealth model of constitutionalism’ that promises both an alternative to the conventional dichotomy of legislative versus judicial supremacy and innovative techniques for protecting rights. The book analyses the novelty and normative appeal of this model as a third general model of constitutionalism before presenting individual and comparative assessments of the operational stability, distinctness and success of its different versions in the various jurisdictions. In this seminar Professors Carolyn Evans, Rosalind Dixon and Dr Lael Weis offer commentaries on the book and Professor Gardbaum will then respond.
Stephen Gardbaum is the MacArthur Foundation Professor of International Justice and Human Rights at UCLA School of Law. He was a 2012-13 Fellow at New York University’s Straus Institute for the Advanced Study of Law and Justice and the 2011-12 Guggenheim Fellow in constitutional studies. Apart from The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism, other recent work includes a series of articles on the comparative structure of constitutional rights, which have just been collected and published as a book by the European Research Center of Comparative Law. His scholarship has been cited by the US and Canadian Supreme Courts and widely translated.
- 24 June 2014: CCCS Seminar
Sri Lanka: The Challenge of Constitutional Reform in Post-War Reconciliation
Presenter: Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu (Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), Sri Lanka)
Constitutional reform is one of the challenges with which Sri Lanka now needs to grapple in moving from a post-war to a post-conflict situation. It is a necessary, although by no means sufficient, condition for reconciliation and durable peace. It could also assist to address the growing democratic deficit in governance, of which the culture of impunity and the near collapse of the rule of law, institutionalised militarisation and growing religious intolerance are key and dangerous features. Whilst the government has promised a political settlement of the ethnic conflict to complement the military defeat of the LTTE, there has been no movement on this front. Most importantly, provisions of the Constitution in respect of the devolution of power have yet to be implemented in any of the 9 provinces in the country. Is Sri Lanka willing to create a constitutional architecture which reflects the pluralism inherent in its peoples and a political culture that sustains it?
Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu is the founder Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives, (CPA). He has presented papers on governance and peace in Sri Lanka at a number of international conferences and is widely quoted in the international and local media. In 2010, he was awarded the inaugural Citizens Peace Award by the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, and in 2011, he was invited by the German Government to be a Member of the International Jury to choose an universally recognized human rights logo. In September 2013, he was invited by President Obama to attend his “High Level Event On Civil Society”, in New York. He is also a founder director of the Sri Lanka Chapter of Transparency International and a founding Co- Convenor of the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV), which has monitored all the major elections in Sri Lanka since 1997. In 2004 he was an Eisenhower Fellow (2004). Currently, he is Chairperson of the Eisenhower Fellows, Sri Lanka, member of the Board of the Berghof Foundation, the South Asia Transparency Advisory Group and a Member of the Gratiaen Trust.
- 27 August 2014: CCCS and ALC Roundtable
Asia: GLobalisation, Regionalism and Researching Public Law
Guest: Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh
Participants: Professor Cheryl Saunders,Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh, Professor Simon Evans, Professor Sarah Biddulph, Professor Adrienne Stone, Professor Michael Crommelin and Professor Pip Nicholson.
In this invitation only round table, Melbourne Law School scholars together with Professor Yeh discussed
issues in relation to globalisation, regionalism and researching in Public Law in Asia.
- 4 September 2014: Book Launch
Constitutionalism in Asia: Cases and Material
Thispublication critically examines the study of constitutional orders in Asia, highlighting their histories, colonial influences and cultural particularities.
Book launch and Keynote Speech by Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh
Launched by Justice Susan Kenny of the Federal Court
PROFESSOR JIUNN-RONG YEH holds a distinguished University Chair at National Taiwan University, where he specialises in Environmental Law, Constitutional Law and Administrative Law. Professor Yeh has published in English and Chinese in leading journals and published collections, including both the Routledge and Oxford Handbooks of Comparative Constitutional Law. Professor Yeh has held invited positions in leading international law schools including Columbia, Toronto, Harvard and leading Chinese schools in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Professor Yeh has had considerable practical experience in government, as Minister without Portfolio (2002 – 2004); Executive Director of the National Council for Sustainable Development (2002 - 2006) and the Council for Organic Reform; and Secretary-General of the National Assembly that approved the constitutional revision proposals by Legislative Yuan (2005). He has received the Award of Excellence in Research from the National Science Council.
THE HON. JUSTICE SUSAN KENNY was appointed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria in 1997 and the Federal Court of Australia in 1998. While a Federal Court judge, Justice Kenny has belonged to numerous academic and judicial education bodies and was until recently a part-time Commissioner of the Australian Law Reform Commission. Her extra-curial writing includes papers on the emergence of Australian nationhood, consideration of judicial responsibility, the role of the judge in statutory interpretation, processes of law reform and the policy and practices of secrecy provisions
- 9 September 2014: CCCS and ALC Seminar
Marching to Civil Constitutionalism with Flowers: Has the Sunflower Movement in Taiwan Changed the Landscape of Constitutionalism and its Significance to Hong Kong and the Chinese Mainland
Presenter: Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh
Taiwanese students occupied the Congress for weeks in March 2014 over the legislative fast-track approval of a service trade agreement with China. Recently, there is also a call to occupy the Central in Hong Kong over the controversial rules for choosing the Administrator of the special region. Some have hailed mass movement, or civil disobedience, of this sort as the triumph of civil society, while some have lamented it as the death of the maturing democracy and the end of the rule of law. In this seminar, Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh will look into this issue from the prospects of representative democracy and the changing landscape of constitutionalism. He will argue that the Sunflower Movement has demonstrated a model of marching towards civic constitutionalism, in that civil groups compete with their representative agents and the Court in shaping and defining the constitutional order. The underlying issue of the Sunflower Movement is their increasing engagement across the Taiwan Strait and what the long term holds for the younger generations. The transformation of constitutionalism, in light of the Sunflower Movement bears, has tremendous significance for Hong Kong, Chinese Mainland and beyond.
Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh holds a distinguished University Chair at National Taiwan University, where he specialises in Environmental Law, Constitutional Law and Administrative Law. Professor Yeh has published in English and Chinese in leading journals and published collections, including both the Routledge and Oxford Handbooks of Comparative Constitutional Law. Professor Yeh has held invited positions in leading international law schools including Columbia, Toronto, Harvard and leading Chinese schools in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Professor Yeh has had considerable practical experience in government, as Minister without Portfolio (2002 – 2004); Executive Director of the National Council for Sustainable Development (2002 - 2006) and the Council for Organic Reform; and Secretary-General of the National Assembly that approved the constitutional revision proposals by Legislative Yuan (2005). He has received the Award of Excellence in Research from the National Science Council.
- 18 September 2014: CCCS Seminar
Assessing Mass Surveillance: Is There a Fair ‘Balance’?
Presenter: Professor Martin Scheinin, European University Institute, Florence
The revelations by former NSA and CIA contractor Edward Snowden have brought into public attention the methods and scope of electronic mass surveillance by the United States and other states. While some technology experts and even lawyers have drawn the conclusion that the right to privacy is ‘dead’, or that there cannot be any legitimate expectation of e-privacy anymore, others insist on upholding the status of the right to privacy as a universal human right, possibly with an inviolable core or at least subject to an analytically rigorous test of permissible limitations. The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age and the matter is being further debated in UN circles, including with a view towards new normative instruments or mechanisms. In his lecture, Professor Martin Scheinin will look into these developments and present the ongoing work of his collaborative research project SURVEILLE (Surveillance: Ethical Issues, Legal Limitations, and Efficiency ), funded by the Eurupean Union. One central dimension of SURVEILLE relates to a multidisciplinary methodology of ‘scoring’ surveillance technologies on the basis of their efficiency in delivering better security, the degree of privacy intrusion caused, and ethical issues that arise.
Professor Martin Scheinin is Professor of International Law and Human Rights at the European University Institute, Florence. He served as the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism (2005–2011) and was prior to that a member of the Human Rights Committee (1997–2004). Currently he heads a collaborative multidisciplinary research project on the ethics, legal limitations and efficiency of surveillance technologies, called SURVEILLE and funded by the EU Commission (2012–2015).
- 7 October 2014: CCCS Seminar
The Implied Freedom of Political Communication: The Continuing Uncertainties of the Second Limb of the Lange Test
Presenter: Associate Professor James Stellios (ANU College of Law)
Associate Professor James Stellios will consider a series of recent High Court cases dealing with the implied freedom of political communication. The presentation will highlight a range of continuing uncertainties in relation to the application of the second limb of the Lange test. Although the Lange test is considered to be settled, there remain important differences of approach to the scope of the inquiry that must be undertaken.
Associate Professor James Stellios holds the position of Associate Professor at the ANU College of Law. His primary research interest is constitutional law, and he has published widely in that field. He is also a barrister at the NSW Bar and has appeared as junior counsel in a number of constitutional cases. Prior to joining the ANU in 2001, he spent a number of years in legal practice working for the Australian Government Solicitor and the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, including a period as Counsel Assisting the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth.
- 15 October 2014: CCCS Seminar
Presenter: Professor Rosalind Dixon, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales
Constitutions worldwide are becoming increasingly long and more detailed. Yet there are clear potential costs, as well as benefits, to specificity from the perspective of drafters. The paper investigates one of these costs – the potential for specific constitutional language to create redundancy in respect of more general constitutional language. Courts, the article suggests, have three broad ways of responding to the potential for redundancy of this kind: they can treat specific constitutional language as having purely evidentiary force; they can identify some special procedural function served by specific constitutional language; or they can treat specific language as controlling the meaning of both particular ‘local’ constitutional issues and related, more general constitutional provisions. This latter approach in particular will also often involve a significant distortion in ‘global’ constitutional meaning from the perspective of drafters: provisions that are intended to clarify the scope of a particular norm, or exceptions to it, may end up directly undermining, or distorting, the intended scope of more general constitutional provisions. This form of global interpretive ‘externality’, the article suggests, is also frequently an over-looked downside or cost to efforts at greater constitutional codification. The article thus calls for greater caution by drafters in following the current trend toward constitutional codification, or more serious consideration of the merits of an older style of “framework-style” approach to constitutional drafting. The article makes these arguments by reference to detailed constitutional casestudies from India, South Africa and Australia involving affirmative action; and Canada, India and Australia involving federal legislative power.
Professor Rosalind Dixon is a Professor of Law, at the University of New South Wales, Faculty of Law, having recently served as an Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago Law School. She earned her BA and LLB from the University of New South Wales, and was an associate to the Chief Justice of Australia, the Hon. Murray Gleeson AC, before attending Harvard Law School, where she obtained an LLM and SJD. Her work focuses on comparative constitutional law and constitutional design, theories of constitutional dialogue and amendment, socio-economic rights and constitutional law and gender, and has been published in leading journals in Canada, the US, the UK and Australia, including Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Cornell Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, The International Journal of Constitutional Law and the Sydney Law Review. She is coeditor, with Tom Ginsburg, of a leading handbook on comparative constitutional law, Comparative Constitutional Law (Edward Elgar, 2011), and a new related volume on Comparative Constitutional Law in Asia (Edward Elgar, 2014).
- 31 October 2014: CCCS and IILAH Roundtable
Maloney v R : What’s in it For Us workshop
Presenters: Associate Professor Beth Gaze, Dr Ann Genovese, Associate Professor Kirsty Gover, Dr Coel Kirkby, Dr Mark McMillan, Ms Paula O'Brian, Professor Adrienne Stone, Associate Professor Maureen Tehan and Dr Lael Weis
Convenor: Associate Professor Kirsty Gover
In this roundtable, Melbourne Law School scholars discussed the significance and the consequences of Maloney v R for indigenous-settler relations and social justice in Australia. In June 2013, the High Court decided that alcohol restrictions imposed by the Queensland government on the aboriginal community of Bwgcolman (Palm Island) did not breach the Racial Discrimination Act, because they were "special measures" designed to "secure the adequate advancement" of a racial group. Maloney v R (2013) is a landmark case of almost unprecedented controversy, touching on many of the most difficult and politically volatile aspects of the relationship between Australian governments and indigenous peoples. The case reignites longstanding debates about the meaning of equality and non-discrimination in Australian laws targeting indigenous peoples, the tension between public responsibility and paternalism in indigenous affairs, the status and powers of aboriginal institutions in the face of governmental unilateralism, the relation between individual claims and community self-determination in indigenous politics and the relevance of Australia's international human rights obligations in litigation about indigenous policy.
- 18 November 2014: CCCS and Accountability Round Table Public Lecture
Integrity in Politics: A Media Perspective
Presenter: Michelle Grattan AO (Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra & Chief Political Correspondent, The Conversation)
Michelle Grattan is one of Australia’s most respected and awarded political journalists. She has been a member of the Canberra parliamentary press gallery for more than 40 years, during which time she has covered all the most significant stories in Australian politics. Michelle is uniquely qualified to comment on integrity in politics. Of unquestioned integrity in her own profession, she has observed more examples of integrity, or lack of it, over the years than most people in Canberra. This will be an opportunity for an insight not to be missed.
The Accountability Roundtable is a non-partisan group of citizens with diverse backgrounds (academics, lawyers, politicians, journalists, authors) who are gravely concerned with the current erosion of honesty and integrity of our democratic parliamentary and governmental processes.
- Legal Theory Workshop
The Legal Theory Workshop series meets regularly to discuss unpublished works-in-progress on a variety of theoretical and normative issues in the law.
11 March 2014
Professor Frederick Schauer (Virginia), “How General Must Jurisprudence Be?”
Commentator: Dr Dale Smith (Melbourne)
21 March 2014
Professor David Sloss (Santa Clara), “Polymorphous Public Law Litigation: The Forgotten History of Nineteenth Century Public Law Litigation”
Commentator: Professor Michelle Foster (Melbourne)
28 March 2014
Professor Richard Revesz (NYU), “Rethinking Health-Based Environmental Standards” (with M. Livermore)
Commentator: Professor Lee Godden (Melbourne)
9 April 2014
Dr Kristen Rundle (UNSW), “Legal subjects and juridical persons: Developing “bottom-up” jurisprudence through Fuller and Arendt”
Commentator: Dr Patrick Emerton (Monash)
16 May 2014
Professor Kal Raustiala (UCLA), “How Can Brands Flourish in the Knockoff Kingdom? What China Tells Us About the Bad – And Good – Effects of Luxury Goods Counterfeiting”
Commentator: Professor Sarah Biddulph (Melbourne)
23 May 2014
Dr Arie Rosen (Auckland), “Statutory Interpretation and Political Theory”
Commentator: Professor Jeffrey Goldsworthy (Monash)
29 May 2014
Professor Adrienne Stone (Melbourne) and Professor Rosalind Dixon (UNSW), “Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Amendment”
Commentator: Ms Anna Dziedzic (Melbourne)
1 August 2014
Professor Jeff McMahan (Rutgers), “Proportionality in Defence”
Commentator: Group Captain Ian Henderson AM (Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law)
8 August 2014
Professor Nathaniel Persily (Stanford), “The Stronger Parties as a Solution to Polarization”
Commentator: Professor Donald Critchlow (Arizona State) and Associate Professor Timothy Lynch (Melbourne – Political Science)
22 August 2014
Professor Jeremy Gans(Melbourne), “Current Experiments in Australian Constitutional Criminal Law”
Commentator: Associate Professor Arlie Loughnan (Sydney)
26 September 2014
Professor Julian Savulescu (Oxford), “Ethics and Law of Voluntary Palliated Starvation”
Commentator: Dr Daniel Halliday (Melbourne – Philosophy)
10 October 2014
Dr Zim Nwokora (Melbourne), “Dynamic Designs in Constitutional Engineering”
Commentator: Professor Cheryl Saunders(Melbourne)
24 October 2014
Mr Julian Sempill (Melbourne), “The Limited Government Tradition and its Law”
Commentator: Associate Professor Matthew Harding (Melbourne)