Major Research Projects

Freedom of Expression in Democratic States: A New Theoretical Direction Project

Adrienne Stone

2008 - 2012 ARC Discovery Project

Freedom of Expression in Democratic States: A New Theoretical Direction

Chief Investigator: Professor Adrienne Stone

Adrienne has published extensively on Australian constitutional law, with a special focus on freedom of political communication, comparative constitutional law of freedom of speech and the legal and institutional questions surrounding bills of rights.

Project Summary: Dominant theories of freedom of expression are strongly influenced by the practices of the United States Supreme Court. To date we do not have a strong theoretical foundation for the practices of courts in most other democratic countries. This project aims to develop a better foundation for an alternative to the dominant American conception of freedom of expression by:

  • Expanding comparative study of principles of freedom of expression to three key jurisdictions so far neglected by constitutional comparativists (India, Israel and South Africa); and
  • Developing theories of freedom of expression that can explain the predominant practices of courts in democratic countries and guide the future development of freedom of expression principles.

In doing so, this proposal aims to make a groundbreaking, internationally significant contribution to the constitutional law and theory of freedom of expression.


The Religion and Law Program

Carolyn Evans

Program Overview: The Religion and Law Program of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies focuses on the relationship between law and religion in domestic legal systems and the international protection of freedom of religion and belief. Particular areas of interest include:

  • Religious freedom and women’s rights
  • Religion and non-discrimination
  • Constitutional and legal protection of religious freedom in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region
  • The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and other international law mechanisms for the protection of religious freedom

The Program welcomes applications from potential PhD students who wish to undertake research on topics related to law and religion. You can find more information on PhD and masters by thesis here.

Books on Religion and Law

CANE, P, EVANS, CM & ROBINSON, Z (eds) Law and Religion in Theoretical and Historical Context (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

WHITING, AJ & EVANS CM (eds) - Mixed Blessings: Laws, Religions and Women’s Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden (2006) 

EVANS, CM, Freedom of Religion under the European Convention on Human Rights, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, 217pp. (2001) 

JANIS, M & EVANS, CM (eds), Religion and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 512pp (1999) 

International Presentations by Carolyn Evans on Religion and Law 

EVANS, CM – ‘Religious Freedom under the European Convention on Human Rights: Cracks in the Intellectual Architecture’ seminar to the Centre for Law and Religion Studies, (Emory LawSchool, Atlanta 25 March 2009; also given at OxfordUniversity on 17 March 2009) 

EVANS, CM – ‘Constitutional Narratives: Foreign, International and Religious Law in Constitutional Adjudication in Australia and Malaysia’ in a Public Lecture (EmoryLawSchool, Atlanta 22 March 2009) 

EVANS, CM –‘Enabling Parliamentary Rights Based Scrutiny’ at an invitation only workshop on Rescuing Rights (King’s College, London, 19 March 2009): accommodation costs from conference organisers, travel costs from Emory University 

EVANS, CM – ‘Women’s Consent to Discriminatory or Harmful Religious Practices’ at a conference on Freedom of Religion and Belief and Protecting Vulnerable Identities: A Global Snapshot (Geneva, Switzerland, 21-22 June 2008) 

EVANS, CM – ‘The Uneasy and Under-theorised Relationship between Non-discrimination Laws and ReligiousSchools’ at the International Conference on Law, Religion and the State: South Asia and Beyond, (New Delhi 14-16 February 2008)

EVANS, CM – ‘Religious Controversy and Curriculum Design in State Schools: An International Human Rights Perspective’ (Hanoi, Vietnam, conference on Religion and the Rule of Law in South East Asia, 2-4 November 2007) 

PhD Students

Nurhafilah Musa is writing her thesis on 'Administration of religion in the federal structure of Malaysia'. Nurhafilah holds an LLB (IIUM), LLB (Syariah) (IIUM), Master Syariah (Malaya) and she has taught law in Malaysia. She is being supervised by Cheryl Saunders and Carolyn Evans. For more information, please click here.

Hajrah Saboor is undertaking doctoral research on 'Pakistan's Islamic Identity, its Blasphemy Law and the International Law of Human Rights'. She has a BA.LLB HONS Shariah and law, International Islamic University Islamabad and an LLM International Law, International Islamic University Islamabad where she was also a Visiting Lecture in 2006-2007. She is being supervised by Carolyn Evans and Amanda Whiting. For further information. please click here.


Religious Freedom and Non-discrimination Project

Carolyn Evans and Beth Gaze

2007-2009 ARC Discovery Project

Project Title: Non-Discrimination Laws and Religious Freedom: Current Conflicts and Future Directions

Funding: $ 162 000

Chief Investigators: Carolyn Evans and Beth Gaze

Carolyn is a recognised expert on religious freedom. She will take primary responsibility for the research into the issues for religious freedom raised by the research. She will also have primary responsibility for the work on the international law on both religious freedom and discrimination, as she has both teaching and research experience in international law. Click here for Carolyn's staff profile.

Beth is a highly experienced discrimination lawyer and academic with experience in empirical studies of law. She will take charge of the research associated with domestic discrimination provisions in the comparator countries. This will include research into the interpretation and application of these laws by the relevant courts, tribunals and officials. Click here for Beth's staff profile.

Project Summary: Achieving the right balance between adequately protecting religious freedom while staying true to principles of non-discrimination is far from easy. This project will advance understanding and analysis of religious freedom and equal treatment in Australia, in principle, in law and empirically. In the context of community tensions along ethno-religious lines, it will benefit Australia to have the issues at stake described and clarified. The project will identify the relevant interests at stake and develop policy recommendations for their protection. The aim is to contribute to inter-religious (and inter-cultural) harmony, as an element of safeguarding Australia.


EVANS, C – ‘Religious Speech that Undermines Gender Equality’ in Extreme Speech and Democracy, Ivan Hare and James Weinstein, Oxford University Press (2009) 357-374

EVANS, C – ‘The Second Vatican Council on Religious Freedom’ in Justice and Rights: Christian and Muslim Perspectives, M. Ipgrave, Georgetown University Press (2009) 4,000 words (in press)

EVANS, CM – Introduction in CANE, P, EVANS, CM & ROBINSON, Z (eds) Law and Religion in Theoretical and Historical Context (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 1-15.

EVANS, C & UJVARI, D – ‘Non-discrimination Laws and Religious Schools in Australia’ (2009) Adelaide Law Review (forthcoming)

EVANS, C – ‘Religious Vilification Laws in Australia’ (2008) Revista Iustel: Carta al Consejo Asesor Internacional ( 8,300 words

EVANS, C – ‘Religious Education in Public Schools: an International Human Rights Perspective’ (2008) 8 Human Rights Law Review 449-473

EVANS, C – ‘Religion as Politics not Law: the Religion Clauses in the Australian Constitution’ (2008) 36 Religion, State and Society 283-302

EVANS, C and Gaze B: Between Religious Freedom and Equality: Complexity and Context 49 Harv. Int'l L. J. Online 40 (2008) see

EVANS, C and GAZE, B – ‘Religious Freedom and Non-discrimination Laws’ (2007) 16 Human Rights Defender 5

EVANS, CM, HOOD A & MOIR J – From Local to Global and Back Again: Religious Freedom and Women’s Rights in Chen K, Puig G and Walker G (eds) Rights Protection in the Age of Global Terrorism 112-130 (Federation Press, 2007)

Conference presentations

EVANS, CM – ‘Religious Freedom under the European Convention on Human Rights: Cracks in the Intellectual Architecture’ seminar to the Centre for Law and Religion Studies, (Emory Law School, Atlanta 25 March 2009; also given at Oxford University on 17 March 2009)

EVANS, CM – ‘Constitutional Narratives: Foreign, International and Religious Law in Constitutional Adjudication in Australia and Malaysia’ in a Public Lecture (Emory Law School, Atlanta 22 March 2009)

EVANS, CM – ‘Women’s Consent to Discriminatory or Harmful Religious Practices’ at a conference on Freedom of Religion and Belief and Protecting Vulnerable Identities: A Global Snapshot (Geneva, Switzerland, 21-22 June 2008)

EVANS, CM - The Uneasy and Under-theorised Relationship between Non-discrimination Laws and Religious Schools, International Conference on Law, Religion and the State: South Asia and Beyond, New Delhi 14-16 February 2008

EVANS, CM – ‘Religious Controversy and Curriculum Design in State Schools: An International Human Rights Perspective’ (Hanoi, Vietnam, conference on Religion and the Rule of Law in South East Asia, 2-4 November 2007)

EVANS, CM – Religious Freedom and Women’s Equality (Athens, Greece: World Conference of Constitutional Law,

EVANS, CM – ‘Spirited Girls who would not Know their Place’: Religious Speech Directed Against Women’s Equality (University of Cambridge, conference on Extreme Speech and Democracy, 21 April 2007; repeated at Bristol Faculty of Law, 25 April 2007)

EVANS, CM – Religious Freedom and Women’s Rights (Oxford Society for Law and Religion, 24 April 2007; repeated at Liverpool Law Faculty, 26 April 2007)


Comparative Tribal Constitutionalism Research Program

Kirsty Gover

Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States

Program Director: Dr Kirsty Gover

The Comparative Tribal Constitutionalism Research Program is co-sponsored by Melbourne Law School’s Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Institute for International Law and Humanities, and Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law. Comments, suggestions and expressions of interest can be forwarded to the Program Director, Dr Kirsty Gover, at Please also contact Dr Gover to be included on the programme’s mailing list.

Tribal constitutions and Self-governance in the Western Settler States

In the western settler states, efforts to implement indigenous self-governance and settle historic land claims have produced a class of officially recognized tribes. As a condition of recognition, tribes are increasingly required to adopt written constitutions, often for the first time. These documents contain the formal rules used by tribal communities to organize and self-govern. They allocate decision-making authority amongst tribal institutions, specify the means by which representatives and decision-makers are to be appointed, define territorial jurisdictions, prescribe law and policy-making processes and provide for dispute resolution fora. The constitutions also contain tribal self-descriptions, including tribal membership criteria. The practice of formal tribal constitutionalism is well underway in these countries, and gaining momentum. Much work goes on in very local settings. To date, these practices have not been the subject of sustained scholarly interest, even while tribal constitutionalism shapes the political theory, governance and constitutional culture of the countries in which it occurs. In this research programme, written tribal constitutions provide a lens through which to observe the rapidly evolving relationship between states, tribes and indigenous communities in the western settler states. 
The programme makes use of a newly collated collection of tribal constitutions, comprising 737 constitutions and membership codes, representing 586 tribes. The collection will be continually updated, and made available to researchers on request. All of the groups in the study are officially recognized by the governments of the states in which they are located, and hold communal assets on behalf of their members. All have a historic connection with a pre-contact group or groups, on which their status is premised, and all are territorial, in the sense that part of their self-description is a defined “ancestral” tribal territory or reserved land. For purposes of this comparative study, the groups are named here as recognized tribes, with the caveat that terminology varies from country to country and the word “tribe” is not in use in some jurisdictions.

The program aims to engage indigenous and non-indigenous scholars, practitioners and policy-makers involved in tribal governance and institutional design. Its goal is to advance thinking on the ways in which tribes self-govern and regulate their relationships with other governments and communities (including other tribes and indigenous groups). Tribal documents provide a formal back-drop for further inquiries into tribal methodologies and strategies. It is hoped that research undertaken in the project will complement and inform work underway on indigenous interests in the more established fields of human rights, comparative constitutional studies, public and private international law, and sociolegal studies. The program is organized around five broad thematic strands:

  1. Tribal self-constitution through membership governance. This is the first-order question of tribal self-governance. By selecting their members, tribes define their jurisdictions. What strategies do they pursue in membership governance?
  2. Checks and balances and procedural justice provisions. How do recognized tribes allocate power amongst governing bodies and what mechanisms exist to restrain governance power exercised by elected officials?
  3. Inter-indigenous relations, boundary-setting and agreement-making. What strategies are used by recognized tribes to share power, conserve resources and maximize efficiency through collaboration with other indigenous communities? What forms do these agreements take? What evidence of inter-indigenous comity is evident in tribal constitutionalism?
  4. Formal constraints operating on tribes in constitutional design, including demands made and enforced via agreement or judicial determination. What form do these constraints take? How many are specific to tribal governments (as opposed to generic national provisions binding all governments)? How are these constraints enforced? Under what circumstances are they imposed (as a condition of recognition, as a sanction, or as a result of changes in ambient public law and policy?)
  5. Informal incentives and pressures operating on tribes, namely the influence of demographic and economic change, and of opportunities for market participation.

Back-drop and Rationale

The opacity of tribal self-governance

Inquiries into tribal constitutionalism have been made more difficult by the opacity of tribal self-governance. Tribal constitutions themselves are often not part of the official public record, kept by settler governments. While most tribes are required to prepare a written constitution as a condition of recognition, most are not thereafter required to publish one. As a consequence, questions about tribal self-governance tend to be debated as matters of normative principle and policy, rather than by reference to tribal practice, and with a focus on the acts and omissions of settler governments. There has been a corresponding lack of attention to the tribal experience of tribal self-governance, and the ways tribal communities formally assign and allocate authority to their representatives. An important body of legal and theoretical scholarship evaluates settler state policies on tribal self-governance. There are also illuminating studies of tribal self-governance in particular communities. This research programme aims to complement that work by contributing a different set of ideas and information to the field, namely a comparative analysis of tribal constitutionalism, as it is practiced by recognized tribes as a distinct class of political actors. 

The sui generis quality of tribes and tribal constitutionalism

Tribes are sui generis in the constitutional frame of settler states. Their jurisdictions are usually defined by negotiated agreement with settler governments, or by the terms of a judicial pronouncement (and sometimes by both). These instruments are ordinarily issued as either as part of the settlement of a historic land claim, or a formal recognition process. There are strong differences in the scope and type of jurisdiction exercised by tribes in Australasia and North America respectively. However, formal jurisdictional arrangements (such as agreements and pronouncements and legislation) also contain evidence of transnational policy sharing. These point to an emerging consensus on what sorts of substantive policy areas “belong” within the jurisdictions of tribes. They are in turn reveal the ideas circulating in public law and policy about what tribes really “are” and “do”, but do not offer much traction on the question from the perspective of tribal communities themselves.

Despite the specificity of intergovernmental arrangements, tribal jurisdictions share characteristics that distinguish them from those of other governments. First, their jurisdiction is primarily consent-based. It is largely confined to members, and to persons who have consented to be governed by tribal law. Secondly, tribal jurisdiction is usually defined by reference to ancestral or reserved territories, regardless of what proportion of their membership is resident on those territories, and regardless of whether the governing body is itself “in situ”. As a result, tribal governments represent members wherever they reside, but many services are provided only on reserved or ancestral territory, and tribal authority in respect of land or resources is confined to that territory. Their human and territorial boundaries accordingly overlap with those of other local governments, in complex ways. This is true notwithstanding the fact that in most cases their primary constitutional relationship is with the central or federal government of the countries in which they live, rather than local governments.

The increasing prominence of tribes in national governance

As a result of claims settlement and self-governance, tribes are increasingly important players in national governance. Non-tribal governments are obliged to make space for the operation of formal tribal jurisdictions within the constitutional framework of the state. Tribal self-governance has operated since pre-colonial times, but its new formality and legibility raises many novel questions of boundary placement. These occur both in respect of human boundaries, for instance where the constituencies of governments overlap, and territorial boundaries, where there is imperfect alignment between tribal boundaries and those used to organize the administrative structure of the state. Scholarship has tended to define tribal jurisdictions in the negative, by focusing on the degree to which public governance is or should be constrained to allow for tribal law-making. There has not been a focus on the ways in which tribal communities define and express their own jurisdiction. The lacunae has practical and methodological import. For example, very little attention has been paid to tribal practices of delegating or sharing powers to which they are formally entitled, through arrangements with other governments. Such practices are relatively common however, as is evidenced in the frequency of agreements between tribal and local governments on policing, service-provision and resource management. Focusing on the negative space in which tribal self-governance operates perpetuates a bias in the field towards the actions of states. It does not sufficiently account for tribal policy-making on jurisdictional issues.

The transformative impacts of tribal constitutionalism on indigeneity

Tribal constitutionalism is a transformative process. It creates new human and territorial boundaries between indigenous communities and recreates longstanding social and cultural boundaries as legal ones. These position tribal communities in formal, jurisdictional relation to one another and to non-tribal indigenous communities. Inter-indigenous boundaries created and reinforced by tribal constitutionalism operate across and within the administrative boundaries used to allocate power amongst settler governments. This adds a layer of indigenous multilateralism to the more visible bilateral relationship between tribes and states. The possible emergence of a semi-autonomous “inter-indigenous” order of governance is consequently of some significance for the political theory of the settler states. Inter-indigenous relations and boundaries on which they are based often predate the acquisition of sovereignty by settler governments, and operate largely independently of their preferences. The inter-indigenous dimensions of tribal governance rarely appear in jurisdictional agreements, since they do not directly implicate the relationship between settler governments and tribes. These arrangements are, however, more likely to be referenced in the governing documents of tribes, as part of the mandate granted by a tribal community to its governing body and officials. These show tribes positioning themselves relative to other political actors. Boundary-placement is the mechanism by which tribes form their constituencies.

Tribal constitutionalism is a field that promises to yield insight on the ways in which the practice of tribal and indigenous self-governance influences settler societies.


Legislatures and Human Rights Project

This project, funded by the Australian Research Council, was conducted between 2005-2008. While the grant period is now finished, the researchers continue to undertake some work in this field and this webpage will be updated periodically with related publications and conference information

The Legislatures and Human Rights project aimed to provide a comprehensive and empirical analysis of the adequacy of the methods that parliaments employ to ensure the protection of human rights in the various Australian jurisdictions. Through a comparative study it aims to compare their performance with world's best practice. It also contributed to the debate over whether Victoria and Australia needed statutory bills of rights, the shape that such bills should take, and the way that they should be applied.

About the researchers

The investigators on the project are Deputy Centre Director Professor Carolyn Evans and Centre Member Professor Simon Evans.

Publications and working papers

Read more about the research publications and working papers produced by the project team here.

International Conference on Legislatures and the Protection of Human Rights

The project presented a major international conference in July 2006. 

A second major international conference was held in September 2007 and a third was held on 3 October 2008.

A jointly organised conference held in Sydney in 2009.

About the Project

There has been considerable debate in Australia over the extent to which parliaments and the democratic processes do a good job promoting and protecting human rights. Some argue that parliaments ignore the interests of minorities or the politically powerless and provide inadequate protection of rights. Others argue that Australia’s generally good performance in the area of human rights demonstrates the adequacy of the existing mechanisms. Academics have also joined this debate at a theoretical level, with some arguing that a democratically elected parliament is the only body with the legitimacy to make controversial moral choices about the how to apply rights in specific, complex situations.

Despite this political and academic debate there has been no comprehensive, empirical research into the adequacy of the methods that parliaments employ to ensure the protection of human rights in the various Australian jurisdictions. This project, funded by the Australian Research Council, sought to fill that gap and to contribute to the on-going debate about Bills of Rights and their application.


Books, articles and book chapters

EVANS, CM and EVANS, SC – Australian Bills of Rights: the Law of the Victorian Charter and ACT Human Rights Act(LexisNexis 2008) i-305.

  1. EVANS, S and EVANS, C – ‘Australian Parliaments and the Protection of Human Rights’ (2007) 47 Papers on Parliament: Lectures in the Senate Occasional Lecture Series
  2. EVANS S & EVANS CM – Parliamentary Deliberation about Religious Vilification Legislation in Gelber K and Stone, A Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech in Australia 170-193 (Federation Press, 2007)
  3. EVANS, C – ‘Undemocratic and Elitist? A Defence of Bills of Rights’ (2007) Rights Now 10
  4.  EVANS, S – ‘The Australian Senate: Form, Function and Effectiveness’ in Rudolf Hrbek (ed), Legislatures in Federal Systems and Multi-Level Governance (Baden-Baden: Nomos. (= Schriftenreihe des Europäischen Zentrums für Föderalismus-Forschung Tübingen, vol. 33) 2008) (in press) (12,800 words)
  5.  EVANS, S – ‘Constitutional Property Rights in Australia: Reconciling Individual Rights and the Common Good’ in Tom Campbell, Jeffrey Goldsworthy and Adrienne Stone (eds), Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights: Institutional Performance and Reform in Australia (Ashgate 2006) 197-222
  6. EVANS, C and EVANS, S – ‘Evaluating The Human Rights Performance Of Legislatures’ (2006) 6(3) Human RightsLaw Review 545-569 (OUP, UK)
  7. EVANS, S and EVANS, C – ‘Legal Redress under the Victorian Charter of Rights And Responsibilities’ (2006) 17Public Law Review 264-281
  8. EVANS, C and EVANS, S – ‘Scrutiny Committees and Parliamentary Conceptions of Human Rights’ [2006] Public Law 785-806
  9. EVANS, S – ‘Improving Human Rights Analysis In The Legislative And Policy Processes’ (2005) [2006] 29Melbourne University Law Review 665-703
  10. EVANS, S – ‘Should Australian Bills of Rights Protect Property Rights?’ (2006) 31 Alternative Law Journal 19-24

Working papers

Carolyn Evans and Simon Evans, Evaluating the Human Rights Performance of Australian Legislatures: A Research Agenda and Methodology', Legal Studies Research Paper No. 123, July 2005.

Simon Evans, Improving Human Rights Analysis in the Legislative and Policy Processes, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 124, July 2005.

Simon Evans and Carolyn Evans, 'A bill of rights for Victoria?' (opinion piece)


EVANS, CM –‘Enabling Parliamentary Rights Based Scrutiny’ workshop on Rescuing Rights (King’s College, London, 19 March 2009)

Simon Evans, "Interpretation, Reasonable Limits and Remedies", presented at the Law Institute of Victoria Victorian Charter of Human Rights Conference, 18 May 2007 (Law Institute)

Simon Evans, "A Territory Human Rights Act? Reflections on some basic issues: What rights? Whose rights?", presented at the Charles Darwin University Symposium Securing Territorians' Rights: Statehood and a Bill of Rights?, 10 May 2007

Carolyn Evans – British Influences on Australian Human Rights Acts (Faculty of Law, Oxford University, 24 April 2007)

Carolyn Evans – States Bills of Rights in Australia - the Seven Deadly Sins of Bills of Rights Opponents(Gilbert+Tobin Centre of Public Law, Constitutional Law Conference, February 2007)

Carolyn Evans – Religious Vilification Laws in Liberal Democraciesn (Castan Centre for Human Rights, Annual Conference, Melbourne, December 2006)

EVANS, CM – Key Legal Changes in the Victorian Charter (roundtable on the Charter, Human Rights Forum, Melbourne 18 August. CM Evans was also a convenor of this conference)

EVANS, CM – Will the Victorian Charter Make a Difference? (Human Rights Forum, lecture at University of Melbourne, 5 September 2006)

Simon Evans, 'Assessing the Deliberative Capacity of Legislatures: A Case-Study of Religious Vilification Legislation', presented at McGill University, Montreal, Canada (Faculty Seminar, 18 October 2006) and Victoria University, British Columbia, Canada (Faculty Seminar, 23 October 2006)

Simon Evans, ‘Parliamentary Deliberation about Religious Hatred Legislation: Report on a Work in Progress’, presented at a Workshop on Free Speech, Hate Speech and Human Rights In Australia, ANU, 8-9 September 2006

Simon Evans, 'The Australian Senate', presented at the Annual Conference of the International Association of Centres for Federal Studies, Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, 29 June-1 July 2006

Carolyn Evans, The ACT Human Rights Act and Administrative Law Presentation'

Carolyn Evans, ‘Administrative Law and Australian Bills of Rights’, presented at the Australian Institute of Administrative Law Annual Forum 14 June 2006

Carolyn Evans and Simon Evans, ‘The effectiveness of Australian parliaments in the protection of rights’, Legislatures and the Protection of Human Rights Conference, Melbourne Law School, 20-22 July 2006

Simon Evans, 'The Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities and the ACT Human Rights Act: Four Key Differences and their Implications for Victoria' Australian Bills of Rights: The ACT and Beyond Conference, Canberra, 21 June 2006

Simon Evans, 'What difference will the Charter of Rights and Responsibilities make to the Victorian Public Service?' Clayton Utz, 13 June 2006

Simon Evans, 'The History of Bills of Rights in Australia', presentation at the Liberty Victoria Symposium, 13 August 2005

Kristen Walker, Carolyn Evans and Simon Evans, 'A Bill of Rights for Victoria? A Public Forum', Wednesday 13 July 2005 at the Melbourne Law School