Protecting Constitutional Democracy Collaboratively

Rosalind Dixon

This is the second in a special series of posts reflecting on 25 years of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law. To see other posts in this series, click here.

Rosalind Dixon

13.10.2026

Australia is one of the world’s most longstanding constitutional democracies. It also has important legal and political guardrails that help reduce the risk of democratic erosion.  But it is not immune from the risk of backsliding, nor exempt from the tide of illiberal, populist politics sweeping the globe.  

Addressing these risks also requires us to look beyond our shores – to gain insights as to how we might avoid these risks eventuating.  My work on comparative constitutional studies (CCS) aims to do just that, including through close attention to the trajectory of successful, and failed, attempts to promote democratic resilience.

No single scholar can do this work alone – it is simply too vast, and traverses too many jurisdictions.  This is one reason I have argued for a collaborative and concentric approach to CCS. An approach of this kind leverages economies of scale in CCS research.  It draws on the expertise of scholars across different topics and regions, and with different language abilities. And it allows for more inter-disciplinary approaches to understanding cause and effect.

Translating these lessons likewise requires a collaborative approach among scholars – though this time focused on collaborative approaches to engagement rather than scholarship.  To have impact on public debate, scholars need to draw on broad expertise and evidence. But more importantly, they need credibility in the eyes of the public and political leaders, and a wide audience for their arguments.  Often, this will be much easier when they work together rather than alone.

An example of this in my own work relates to the proposal by the Morrison government to introduce a form of voter identification (ID) requirement. Comparative experience teaches us two things about these laws: first, while voter ID restrictions may seem on their face to be relatively benign or even legitimate as a means of reducing voter fraud, in practice they almost always end up privileging incumbent governments over political challengers; and second, they operate to further exclude already marginalised groups within society.  These groups are less likely to own formal identification, or to be willing to produce it to the state for fear of reprisal. It is no accident, therefore, that President Trump has systematically sought to disadvantage the Democratic Party and racial minorities through proposals of this kind.

When Morrison proposed these ideas, it was thus not surprising that colleagues at the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law (the Centre), and indeed, Danny Gilbert himself, were deeply concerned about the potential impacts. In the usual mode of the Centre, we met and discussed what we could do and then launched an effort to bring together experts from across the country to respond. The Centre worked closely with colleagues from other universities, and, with the help of Melbourne University Law School Professor Joo Cheong Tam and the University of New South Wales’ own Associate Professor Paul Kildea, organisations such as the Electoral Regulation Research Network (EERN). We also worked quickly and efficiently to produce a submission on the topic, and to write publicly, raising our concerns about its impacts and likely (un)constitutionality.  Moreover, these concerns ultimately prevailed in the court of public opinion: the government withdrew the proposal.

Many people and organisations around the country made similar arguments and interventions, and I am not suggesting that, by itself, the Centre's intervention was decisive in this context. What we did do, however, was bring together expertise and evidence to raise substantial concerns about the proposal. And those ideas made their way into the media and public debate. That would also not have been possible without our tradition of collaboration and the way that has helped drive our national reputation for excellence and engagement in public law. 

This also aligns with how the Centre has always tried to do its work in protecting public law knowledge and values in Australia.  The Centre has a long history of cooperating with the Australian Association of Constitutional Law and was a driver behind the founding of the Australia-New Zealand chapter of the International Society of Public Law (ICON·S). It works closely with the Australian Association of Administrative Law and EERN. It helped create the Greater Sydney Law Schools Public Law Reading Group, and works closely with colleagues at Monash University, Adelaide University and Western Sydney University law schools in organising the Public Law in the Classroom Workshop.  The Centre’s Comparative Constitutional Law Project also works closely with Melbourne University Law School’s Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies.  Indeed, AUSPUBLAW, which is publishing this post, was deliberately created as a public platform designed to serve the entire national public law community.  That is a great credit to Centre colleagues including Professor Gabrielle Appleby, who helped conceptualise and drive the creation of the blog, but also to the traditions and values of the Centre; and the leadership of Professors George Williams and Andrew Lynch, and Associate Professor Sean Brennan, who helped realise it as Directors of the Centre. I know this reputation will only continue to grow and broaden under the leadership of its new Director, Professor Janina Boughey.

This kind of collaborative ethos, however, is something that must animate all our work as Australian public lawyers – both within and across borders.

When I became Director, one of the things George encouraged me to do was to think of how I might contribute to building a similar model of collaboration internationally; and during my time as Director, I worked to build formal linkages between the Centre and public law centres at the University of Munster and the University of Ottawa, Victoria University Wellington, the National University of Singapore, Hong Kong University, and Trinity College Dublin.  These linkages helped enrich our research, but even more important, strengthened the capacity of the Centre to play a role in the promotion and protection of public law values globally.

The world is a large place, and Australian public lawyers are likely to play a relatively small part in global debates on the future of democracy. But the chances of impact go up dramatically, if we work collaboratively in the manner we have done so effectively in Australia.

Rosalind Dixon is a Scientia Professor and the Sir Anthony Professor at UNSW Law & Justice. She is the Director of the Comparative Constitutional Law Project at the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and previously served as the Centre’s Director.

Suggested citation: Rosalind Dixon, ‘Protecting Constitutional Democracy Collaboratively’ (13 October 2026) <https://www.auspublaw.org/blog/2026/10/protecting-constitutional-democracy-collaboratively>