The following provides an overview of Assessment 1, part 1.
Overview
The following provides an overview of Assessment 1, part 1.
Overview
Task type Method Individual weighting Due date Length/time
Annotation Individual 5% Week 1, 10/07/22,Sunday 23:59 AEST 250 words +/- 5%
Purpose
Understand the structure of the constitution
Evaluate foundational constitutional law principles
Explain the structure of Parliament and how it is regulated under the Constitution
Analyse the Constitutional regulation and protection of voting rights
Identify and interpret the Constitutional rules that apply to money bills, double dissolution elections, and the judicial review of the legislative process.
Outcomes
Unit learning outcomes alignment Graduate learning outcomes alignment
ULO 1: Analyse and explain Australia's adherence to fundamental constitutional principles, including federalism, the rule of law, separation of powers, representative and responsible government, and assess competing theories of constitutional interpretation. 1.1: Employ up-to-date and relevant knowledge and skills.
1.2: Communicate effectively.
1.5: Display initiative and drive, and use their organisation skills to plan and manage their workload.
3.3: Adapt to complexity, ambiguity and change by being flexible and keen to engage with new ideas.
Instructions
Assessment 1 will be split into two parts. Part A will require students to analyse and annotate the following article: Harry Hobbs, Sangeetha Pillai and George Williams, The Disqualification of Dual Citizens from Parliament: Three Problems and a Solution (2018) 43(2)Alternative Law Journal73.
In annotating this article, please answer the following questions:
What are the main arguments of the article? (Please summarise them in your own words.)
What are the three key problems with s 44(i) identified by the authors?
What options for reform are explored in the article?
What are the limitations of Options 1 and 2, according to the authors?
What are the two options presented in the article for constitutional reform?
What do the authors ultimately recommend?
Useful resources
For more tips and tricks on annotating articles, watch the below videos.
Below 2 videos provides useful tips on how to annotate for Mac users. For those using Windows, its still worth a watch on the method of annotating effectively.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKzjGvz1ukI&t=13shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enXBvGexT9QMarking Rubric 11437 A1 Part 1 rubric
11437 A1 Part 1 rubric
Criteria Ratings PtsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcomeKnowledge and understanding 50to >42.5PtsHigh distinction
Answers the questions accurately and presents an analysis of legal issues relevant to the unit, giving a clear sense of understanding. 42.5to >37.5PtsDistinction
Answers the questions accurately and presents an overview of legal issues relevant to the unit, giving a good sense of understanding. 37.5to >32.5PtsCredit
Answers the questions accurately and includes some discussion of legal issues relevant to the unit. 32.5to >25.0PtsPass
Mostly answers the questions accurately. 25to >0PtsFail
Answers the questions inaccurately and There is no connection to the issues relevant to the unit.
50ptsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEvidence25to >21.25PtsHigh distinction
Sophisticated use of relevant evidence to support responses, including pinpoint citations, thoughtfully selected short quotes from the article, case law and other scholarly material. 21.25to >18.75PtsDistinction
Responses are well supported with relevant evidence, such as page numbers, thoughtfully selected short quotes from the article, case law and other scholarly material. 18.75to >16.25PtsCredit
Responses are well supported with relevant evidence, such as page numbers or short quotes from the article, case law or other scholarly material. 16.25to >12.5PtsPass
Responses are supported with relevant evidence, such as page numbers or short quotes from the article, case law or other scholarly material. 12.5to >0PtsFail
Responses are not supported with relevant evidence, such as page numbers or short quotes from the article, case law or other scholarly material.
25ptsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCommunicationAppropriate language, grammar, syntax, spelling, clarity of thought and expression 25to >21.25PtsHigh distinction
Uses professional language throughout. No spelling or grammar errors. Structure flows well throughout, and writing is both clear and concise. 21.25to >18.75PtsDistinction
Appropriate spelling, tense and use of punctuation. Structure and writing are clear and concise. 18.75to >16.25PtsCredit
Clarity of the writing could be improved through more attention to spelling, grammar, and/or structural coherence. 16.25to >12.5PtsPass
Spelling errors, incorrect grammar, and/or lack of structural coherence obscure meaning or distract from the core message. 12.5to >0PtsFail
Spelling errors, incorrect grammar and little structural coherence make the work difficult to understand.
25ptsTotal points:100
Overview
The following provides an overview of Assessment 1.
Overview
Task type Method Individual weighting Due date Length/time
Reflection Individual 5% Week 2, 17/07/22,Sunday 23:59 AEST 250 words +/- 5%
Purpose
Analyse theories of federalism
Identify the doctrines of 'implied intergovernmental immunity' and reserved state powers, and apply the Melbourne Corporation principle
Explain the exclusive Commonwealth powers
Evaluate the theory and practice of cooperative federalism
Interpret sections 92 and 51(xxxi).
Outcomes
Unit learning outcomes alignment Graduate learning outcomes alignment
ULO 1: Analyse and explain Australia's adherence to fundamental constitutional principles, including federalism, the rule of law, separation of powers, representative and responsible government, and assess competing theories of constitutional interpretation
ULO3: Understand and apply distinctive methods of constitutional interpretation to solve problems regarding constitutional validity of Commonwealth, State or Territory laws and exercise of executive and judicial power. 1.3: Use creativity, critical thinking, analysis and research skills to solve theoretical and real-world problems.
1.4: Work collaboratively as part of a team, negotiate and resolve conflict.
1.5: Display initiative and drive, and use their organisation skills to plan and manage their workload.
3.3: Adapt to complexity, ambiguity and change by being flexible and keen to engage with new ideas.
Instructions
Assessment 1 will be split into 2 parts. Part B will require students to summarise the judgement of Kiefel CJ and Keane J in:Palmer v Western Australia[2021] HCA 5.
In summarising this judgement, it is recommended that you take note of the answer to the following questions:
[paras 24-25] What were the questions reserved for the High Court in this case?
[paras 27-32] How did Cole v Whitfield change the jurisprudence around s 92?
[paras 36-37] What kind of justification of a discriminatory law which burdened interstate trade was said to be required in Betfair v WA?
[paras 40-46] What do Kiefel CJ and Keane J say about the distinction drawn in Cole v Whitfield between 'interstate intercourse' and 'interstate trade and commerce'?
[para 47] What do Kiefel CJ and Keane J conclude about the applicability of the test of discrimination to the intercourse limb?
[paras 49-52] How do Kiefel CJ and Keane J explain the relevance of a structured proportionality test to the intercourse limb of s 92?
[para 54] Which case do Kiefel CJ and Keane J cite when setting out the structured proportionality test?
[para 62] How do Kiefel CJ and Keane J summarise the operation of s 92?
[paras 71-72] Do Kiefel CJ and Keane J agree with the plaintiff that the Directions are directed at preventing interstate movement?
[para 77] What do Kiefel CJ and Keane J conclude about the suitability of the law for its legitimate objective/purpose?
[paras 78-81] What do Kiefel CJ and Keane J conclude about the effectiveness of alternatives?
Marking Rubric 11437 A1 Part 2 rubric
11437 A1 Part 2 rubric
Criteria Ratings PtsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcomeKnowledge and understanding 30to >25.5PtsHigh distinction
Reflection demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the judgment. 25.5to >22.5PtsDistinction
Reflection demonstrates a strong understanding of the judgment. 22.5to >19.5PtsCredit
Reflection demonstrates a decent understanding of the judgment. 19.5to >15.0PtsPass
Reflection demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the judgment. 15to >0PtsFail
Reflection does not demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the judgment.
30ptsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcomeContext30to >25.5PtsHigh distinction
Reflection presents a sophisticated analysis of the legal issues relevant to the question, giving a clear sense of understanding. 25.5to >22.5PtsDistinction
Reflection presents an analysis of the legal issues relevant to the question, giving a good sense of understanding. 22.5to >19.5PtsCredit
Reflection includes an informed overview of the legal issues relevant to the question. 19.5to >15.0PtsPass
Reflection includes an informed discussion of legal issues relevant to the question. 15to >0PtsFail
There is little to no informed discussion of legal issues relevant to the question.
30ptsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcomeMaterial considered 20to >17.0PtsHigh distinction
Evidence of wider reading in addition to drawing on relevant unit materials, including core materials to contextualise reflection. 17to >15.0PtsDistinction
Draws on relevant lectures/readings on Canvas in addition to core materials to contextualise reflection. 15to >13.0PtsCredit
Refers to relevant core materials to contextualise reflection. 13to >10.0PtsPass
Some use of relevant materials beyond case to contextualise reflection. 10to >0PtsFail
Reflection demonstrates no connection to relevant materials in unit.
20ptsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCommunicationAppropriate language, grammar, syntax, spelling, clarity of thought and expression 20to >17.0PtsHigh distinction
Uses professional language throughout. No spelling or grammar errors. Structure flows well throughout, and writing is both clear and concise. 17to >15.0PtsDistinction
Appropriate spelling, tense and use of punctuation. Structure and writing are clear and concise. 15to >13.0PtsCredit
Clarity of the writing could be improved through more attention to spelling, grammar, and/or structural coherence. 13to >10.0PtsPass
Spelling errors, incorrect grammar, and/or lack of structural coherence obscure meaning or distract from the core message. 10to >0PtsFail
Spelling errors, incorrect grammar and little structural coherence make the work difficult to understand.
20ptsTotal points:100
