 |
Focus question 2: How do governments and political parties respond to new issues?
Teaching and learning activities
Introduction
In this section you explore the ways governments responded to the proposal to dam the Franklin River and to the controversy surrounding it.
 |
|
Political parties and public policy
Political power and values
Political power is having the ability to create change or prevent change in the way society is organised or governed.
Political values come from beliefs held by different groups of people about how power, wealth and other resources of the nation should be shared and used and about the sort of society that they want to live in.
Political parties
A political party is a group of people with some common views about society and what governments should do, and which are organised to 'win' government through the electoral process.
Party policy and public policy
Party policy is what political parties intend to do, while public policy is what governments actually choose to do or not to do to solve public problems.
The party policies promised during an election campaign are not always delivered when a party is elected to government. This may be because the party understands the situation differently when it is in government, or because conditions have changed.
One of the goals of both party policy and public policy is to keep or gain enough votes to form a government at an election. |
|
|
1a Explain:
- the difference between party policy and public policy
- the influence of political values on a party's policies
- why having power may cause party policy to change.
|
|
The Labor Party's fundamental beliefs
Labor wants greater equality in the distribution of income, wealth and opportunity through the provision of resources and services and other activities of the government. Labor believes strongly that private businesses produce injustices and inequalities and so need to be controlled for the benefit of workers and for the common good. Many party members are also trade union members. Federal Labor governments tend to favour federal government action which may override the States and Territories.
The Liberal Party's fundamental beliefs
Liberals believe strongly in private business and individuals looking after themselves. They want more freedom, less government control, and encouragement of wealth making so that everyone can enjoy a good standard of living. Many Liberal Party members and supporters are drawn from the business sector. Federal Liberal governments tend to support the right of the States to control what happens within their borders. |
|
|
1b Describe the political values of the Labor and Liberal parties.
1c Which level of government do federal Labor and Liberal parties tend to favour having most power? Do you think state Labor and Liberal governments would think the same way as their parties in the federal sphere?
|
|
Decisions, decisions, decisions: public policy making
Parliament, interest groups, the public service, and the media influence public policy. The key elements of the policy-making process are illustrated below.
Parliament
Parliament is a law-making body composed of government and opposition members of parliament elected at regularly held elections. Parliament serves four broad functions: to form government; to discuss, amend and pass legislation including the supply of money to deliver government policies; to investigate the actions of government; and to represent the needs of the community.
Commonwealth Parliament represents people in two places: in the House of Representatives where the States with the most people have the most representatives and through the Senate where each State, no matter how big or small, has 12 Senators and each of the two Territories has two Senators.
Interest groups
Interest groups, like political parties, represent particular sets of interests and hold certain political values. The role of an interest group is to influence government decisions, not to form a government.
The Tasmanian Wilderness Society was an interest group that said that they valued a balance between economic growth and conservation of the environment:
Wilderness is a living link between ourselves and all that has ever happened on the planet. It is an avenue to our origins. It gives us an anchor on the reasons for creation and life, on all unwritten history ... Wilderness has values for mankind that no scientist can synthesise, no economist can price and no technological distraction can replace ...
Bob Brown 1980, Foreword to A Time to Care by Bell & Sanders, cited in Sornarajah, M (ed) 1983, The South-West Dam Dispute: The Legal and Political Issues, Law School, University of Tasmania, p 5.
Pro-dam interest groups such as the Organisation for Tasmanian Development and people who supported the dam thought differently:
'If people want progress they have to sacrifice something.'
The Mercury 18/12/1982.
Davies Brothers/The Mercury.
The public service
The public service is a part of government responsible for putting decisions into practice.
The public service is also involved in policy development. For example, the proposals of the Hydro-Electric Commission, which is a semi-independent part of government, were developed outside parliament. Similarly, projects like the Snowy Mountains River Scheme and the Sydney Tunnel both had their origins within government departments rather than parliaments.
The media
The media, that is, newspapers, radio and television provide their own views on what current political problems are confronting government. The media make their own decisions about what is newsworthy and what is not. In turn, the way the media treats an issue may influence governments. (The media and its role in the Franklin dispute are examined in section 3). |
|
|
Activity 2: Influencing and making policy
Collect a number of recent Australian newspapers and select eight headlines similar to these:
- 'National Farmers' Federation organises march on Canberra'
- 'Unions reject unfair dismissal legislation'
- 'Gun lobby musters support in rural electorates'
- 'Greens launch High Court appeal'.
2a List the names of the interest groups you find.
2b Who are they trying to influence?
2c What are they trying to achieve, and how?
2d Which of the other groups listed in 'Decisions, decisions, decisions' will be necessary or helpful in achieving the aims of each interest group?
Economic development and the environment
Despite rich water, mineral and forestry resources, Tasmania continued to have the highest rate of unemployment in Australia. Significantly, the Hydro-Electric Commission was the largest employer in Tasmania at the time of the Franklin dispute.
To help solve these economic problems, successive Tasmanian Labor and Liberal governments supported economic development plans based on a policy of hydro-industrialisation. That is, government attempted to attract economic development by offering cheap electricity to large industries.
For a Labor government, hydro-electricity projects produced jobs, 'blue-collar' jobs, jobs for the 'worker', most of whom were union members and Labor voters. These developments provided financial stability and job security to the people of the area, and financially benefited local regional Tasmanian communities. By supporting developments such as these, Labor seemed pro-development and pro-job creation.
For a Liberal government, hydro-electricity projects produced cheap electricity to encourage large companies to invest and develop in Tasmania. Large companies would attract small businesses to invest in the State, creating greater economic prosperity, higher standards of living and more jobs, making Tasmania a more attractive place for people to live.
However, the struggle over the damming of Lake Pedder caused a change in State thinking, from a narrow concern about resource development to long-term concerns about the future of Tasmania's environment. For Tasmania, this was the first step towards a recognition of both economic and environmental issues when making decisions about development.
Activity 3: Parties and the Franklin
3a What fundamental beliefs, held by Liberal and Labor parties, caused Tasmanian governments to support hydro-electricity projects in Tasmania? (See above for help with this question.)
3b How would dams and hydro-electricity help to solve the problem of unemployment?
Tasmanian State governments
The first government that had to deal with the dam was the Lowe Labor Government (1977-81). The Gray Liberal Government (1982-89) saw the conflict through to its resolution in 1983. Both the Lowe Labor Government and the Gray Liberal Government supported hydro-electricity generation.
|
|
Tasmanian State Labor government: timeline of events
| March 1979 |
In an attempt to reduce public concerns about dams and the environment, Labor Premier Lowe announces a moratorium, that is, a stop on future dam proposals.
|
| Later 1979 |
Lowe establishes the independent Energy Advisory Council to advise Cabinet on alternative policy options.
The Department of Environment is instructed to advise the Hydro-Electric Commission regarding guidelines for assessing the environmental impact of proposed projects.
|
| October 1979 |
The Hydro-Electric Commission's Report on the Gordon River Power Development is tabled in parliament. In spite of the moves by the Labor Government to respond to public concerns about the future of the Tasmanian wilderness region, the Hydro-Electric Commission's proposal involved the flooding of the Franklin-below-Gordon River and with it some of Tasmania's unique wilderness.
Two alternative proposals are released, both with the purpose of environmental protection:
- the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service proposal recommends a national park be established in the same area as the Hydro-Electric Commission dam
- the Tasmanian Conservation Trust questions the entire Hydro-Electric Commission proposal. Close to 500 public submissions are received by Government, most of which are opposed to the Hydro-Electric Commission proposal.
A Tasmanian Opinion Polls Survey shows 53 per cent in favour of saving the Franklin; and 28 per cent against.
|
| Months later ... July 1980 |
After months of argument, the Labor Government, faced with growing levels of unemployment, counter-proposals, internal argument and increasing citizen opposition to the dam, reaches a compromise: an Upper Gordon dam that would be less destructive than the Lower Gordon option.
This is the first time a Hydro-Electric Commission proposal has been rejected. But the compromise pleases neither the Hydro-Electric Commission nor the Tasmanian Wilderness Society.
|
| December 1980 |
|
|
|
|
Kev Art Services/The Mercury. |
|
Lowe writes to the Prime Minister suggesting that the National Park be proposed for World Heritage listing with UNESCO. Lowe was by now privately opposed to any dam construction in the area.
Tasmania's Upper House of Parliament rejects the Government's legislation, approving instead the Lower Gordon dam. The parliament is stalled. The Lower House has rejected one dam, the Upper House has rejected the other.
|
| July 1981 |
During this period Lowe is under increasing pressure from within the party and outside. He survives a challenge to his leadership from within the parliamentary party and is being pressured from powerful unions who were in favour of the dam.
Despite the deadlocked parliament the area of the Franklin, Lower Gordon and Olga Rivers is declared the Wild Rivers National Park.
|
| September 1981 |
To break the deadlock in the Tasmanian Parliament the Government proposes a State referendum. The decision is made after long and heated argument and is publicly announced before the final decisions on the questions have been made. Lowe announces the decision to the media. When he is asked whether there will be a 'No dams' option, he says 'Yes'.
The State President of the Labor Party writes to parliamentary members, virtually instructing them to withdraw the 'No dams' option. Lowe is publicly humiliated in having to withdraw the 'No dams' option. More than a hundred conservationists storm the public gallery in the parliament.
The decision is made to restrict the choice in the referendum to two dam sites. However, the Tasmanian Wilderness Society encourages voters to hand-write 'No dams' on the ballot papers. While writing on the ballot paper made their vote informal, it provided a way for citizens to register a significant 'protest' vote against either dam proposal.
|
| November 1981 |
|
|
|
|
Petition by Tasmanian Parliamentary Labor Party requesting their leader and Premier, Doug Lowe, to resign
Reproduced with permission of Mr DA Lowe, Former Tasmanian Premier, Courtesy Clerk of the House, House of Assembly, Tasmania. |
|
This time Lowe does not survive a challenge to his leadership.
Doug Lowe, looking pale and a decade older than his age, entered the House of Assembly. All eyes were riveted on him as he moved to take his place on the back bench. With a simple dignity he took a few steps - not to the back bench - but to the cross bench, the traditional place for independents. The man who had woken that morning as Premier was severing his connection with the Government. He was turning away from the party in which he had been State secretary at 21, a minister by 30 and deputy-premier and premier for six years. The government of Tasmania was in a shambles. The fate of the Franklin River had put it there.
Thompson, Peter 1984, Bob Brown of the Franklin River, George Allen & Unwin, North Sydney, p 139.
http://www.allen-unwin.com.au
Premier Holgate takes Lowe's place.
|
| 12 December 1981 |
The referendum is held. The results of the referendum are unclear.
|
The Hydro-Electric Commission's preferred Lower Gordon: |
|
53% |
|
|
| The Government's Upper Gordon compromise: |
9% |
|
|
| Tasmanian Wilderness Society 'No dams' protest: |
38% |
The large informal vote proves the extent of the opposition to having any dams in wilderness areas.
|
| May 1982 |
At the State election of May 1982, the pro Franklin dam Liberal Party wins office. Many people see Labor's loss as a result of the lack of unity within the party and changes over the Franklin proposal.
|
|
|
|
Activity 4: The State Labor Government and the Franklin
4a Using the timeline above, complete the table below. Some of the outcomes have been completed for you. You may not always be able to complete the first column. Sometimes the pressure will be coming from conservationists, sometimes from public opinion and sometimes from the party's usual supporters.
| Influencing factor or pressure |
Tasmanian Labor government action |
Outcome |
| |
March 1979 moratorium on future dams proposals |
HEC proposal for dam |
| |
1979 Appoint new government departments to advise on environment and provide balance for Hydro-Electric Commission |
|
| |
HEC proposal |
- Two opposing reports to protect environment
-
-
-
|
| |
Decide on compromise dam |
|
| |
Plan referendum including 'No dams' option |
|
| |
Hold referendum without 'No dams' option |
|
4b As a class, be the Lowe Government Cabinet (the group of senior ministers who make most of the decisions about how the government should act) and have the discussion you think they should have had! What would be said in favour of, and against, putting the 'No dams' option that Premier Lowe wanted on the referendum ballot papers? Your teacher may assign you 'for' and 'against' roles.
|
|
Tasmanian State Liberal Government: Timeline of events
| December 1982 |
At the request of Australia, the World Heritage Committee meets to decide whether the Franklin-Gordon Wild Rivers National Park will be given World Heritage status by the United Nations.
The Liberal Tasmanian Government sends its Attorney-General to Paris to try to stop the nomination. He is not given a hearing because Tasmania is not a nation.
The Wild Rivers National Park is accepted as a World Heritage site by the sixty signatory nations with its Committee expressing serious concern at the likely effect of the dam.
As Australia is a signatory to this United Nations agreement, the Commonwealth Government is obliged to protect the site.
Bulldozers begin work on the site.
The Tasmanian Premier, Robin Gray, elected to construct the dam, chooses to ignore the World Heritage listing of the dam area. |
| December 1982 - February 1983 |
The Tasmanian Wilderness Society begins a range of tactics to gain support across the nation and internationally. One tactic is to form a human blockade of the dam site.
The Gray Government responds by passing legislation so that trespassers on HEC land can be arrested.
Gray declares that the Franklin River is grossly over-rated and that Tasmania might secede [break away from the Commonwealth and form a separate country] if the Commonwealth Government were to interfere.
The environmental significance of the area has been greatly overstated - for 11 months of the year it is nothing but a brown ditch, leech-ridden, unattractive to the majority of people.
Robin Gray, on Saving the Franklin (video) 1996, The Australian Experience series, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
People from all over Australia come to participate in the blockade. In a three-month period more than 1200 people are arrested and either fined or imprisoned. The blockade and the arrests receive enormous media coverage.
In response to a new federal Labor government's legislation to stop the dam, the Tasmanian Liberal Government lodges a challenge in the High Court, claiming the proposed legislation is unconstitutional and erodes State rights. |
|
|
|
Activity 5: The State Liberal Government and the Franklin
5a Using the information above, complete the table below. Some of the outcomes have been completed for you. You may not always be able to complete the first column. Sometimes the pressure will be coming from conservationists, sometimes from public opinion and sometimes from the party's usual supporters.
| Influencing factor or pressure |
Tasmanian Liberal Government action |
Outcome |
| |
Work begins on dam despite World Heritage listing |
|
| |
Legislation passed to make protesting an arrestable offence |
|
| |
Challenges national legislation to stop the dam in the High Court |
|
|
|
Commonwealth governments (Liberal and Labor): timeline of events
At the federal level both the Fraser Liberal Government and the Hawke Labor Government which followed it, did not support the Franklin dam proposal. However, the Fraser and Hawke governments differed as to how the dam should be stopped.
| November 1981 |
The Fraser Liberal Government enters the dispute by lodging an application to the United Nations for the Franklin River to be granted World Heritage status. This was at the suggestion of Premier Lowe. |
| December 1982 |
The United Nations grants World Heritage status and the federal government is obliged to exert pressure on the Tasmanian Government to abandon the dam proposal. But as a pro-States'-rights Liberal Government, Fraser is unwilling to trample on the right of Tasmania to determine its own future and is not prepared to legislate to stop the dam. |
| January 1983 |
Prime Minister Fraser, as a compromise, offers $500 million compensation to the newly elected Tasmanian Liberal Government to stop the dam. The offer is rejected.
Fraser's position on the dam is not simply a matter of trying to have things both ways. He believes, as do many Liberal Party members, that federal governments should not interfere in the business of the States. The Constitution had set out what powers States had and what powers the Commonwealth had. This is what he said about this issue in 1983:
Is the Constitution that Australians have put together something which is important in protecting the rights and liberties of Australians right throughout this continent, or is it a document to be torn up by a ... government in Canberra that signs some foreign treaty?
The Mercury, 8/2/1983.
Davies Brothers, The Mercury. |
| December 1982 - February 1983 |
Eight hundred conservationists blockade the Franklin trying to attract media attention and stop work on the dam. Thousands of citizens demonstrate on the mainland and federal Labor and Liberal politicians are lobbied in the lead-up to the 1983 federal election.
During the election campaign the Labor Party's first promise is to save the Franklin River.
Bob Hawke, the leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, had none of Fraser's concerns about States' rights. In a 1979 lecture he had said:
I believe ... that Australia would be better served by the elimination of the second tier of government - that is the States - which no longer serve their original purpose and act as a positive impediment to achieving good government ...
Hawke, RJ 1979, The Resolution of Conflict, Boyer Lectures, Australian Broadcasting Commission, pp 18-19.
The Tasmanian Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation respond by actively campaigning to tip the Liberals out of power. They spend about $500,000 on establishing offices in 13 Tasmanian and mainland marginal electorates - electorates that could easily be won by either the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. Nationally the campaign is supported by 20 conservation groups around the country and major public rallies are held in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. |
| March 1983 |
The Fraser Liberal Government is defeated in the federal election.
Tasmania votes against the Labor Party with a strong swing to the Liberals. Labor had consciously sacrificed the votes in Tasmania, gambling accurately on making up for the loss by gains from votes on the mainland.
Australian Public Opinion Polls, when surveying voters after the election, found that for 3 per cent of voters the dam has been the most important issue. Some say that was sufficient for Labor to win the election, while others disagree.
Doug Anthony, leader of the Country Party, said:
There is no doubt that the dam was the issue that lost the government the election.
Thompson, Peter 1984, Bob Brown of the Franklin River, George Allen & Unwin, North Sydney, p 178.
http://www.allen-unwin.com.au
What is important is the fact that Labor believed that it needed the support of the conservationists and the votes of mainlanders opposed to the dam, and therefore took a strong stand against the dam. That was the real success of the conservationists. |
| April 1983 |
The newly elected Hawke Labor Government introduces legislation to protect the World Heritage site. The Government begins collecting evidence for the case and sends two F111 fighter bombers to fly over Tasmania's south-west to gather photographic evidence. There is an uproar over this provocative move. It is seen as sending the national armed forces against one of the nation's States. Hawke orders the flights to stop. |
| May-July 1983 |
The Tasmanian Government challenged the Federal Government's law in the High Court, saying that the Australian Constitution did not give the Federal Government the power to make such a law. In its decision of 1 July 1983, the High Court upholds the federal Labor Government's World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, and halts the Franklin dam project. The Tasmanian government reluctantly concedes defeat and receives $277 million in compensation.
The High Court votes 4 to 3 in favour of the Commonwealth.
The Franklin River, now safe, is removed from the political stage.
If the High Court case had been lost, the Tasmanian Wilderness Society was ready to start a campaign for a national referendum. |
|
|
|
Activity 6: National Liberal and Labor governments
6a Complete the table below. Some of the outcomes have been completed for you. You may not always be able to complete the first column. Sometimes the pressure will be coming from conservationists, sometimes from public opinion and sometimes from the party's usual supporters.
| Influencing factor or pressure |
National government action |
Outcome |
| |
Liberal: World Heritage listing application to United Nations |
|
| |
Liberal: $500 million offer to Tasmania in compensation for stopping work on dam |
|
| |
Liberal: Does not legislate to stop dam |
|
| |
Liberal: Does not promise to stop the dam in 1983 election campaign |
Labor promises to stop the dam in 1983 election campaign |
| |
Labor: Legislates to stop the dam |
|
| |
Labor: Fights challenge from Tasmania in High Court |
|
Activity 7: Governments' actions, party beliefs and people represented
7a Do the actions of each government fit with the fundamental beliefs of their party? Do the actions support the people each party claims to represent? Explain your answer. (See 'Political parties and public policy' in Activity 1 for help with this question.)
7b In groups of four discuss:
- How did each of the two Federal governments react to the 'new' issue of the environment?
- Why did Federal Labor and Liberal governments both oppose the dam but react differently as the dispute progressed?
- Which of the following would be the most important factors in a government deciding on a policy or course of action in relation to an issue such as whether to have a dam or not: concern for economic progress (and therefore prosperity and jobs); concern for the environment; winning or keeping votes (and therefore gaining or losing the power to govern)?
- Are the first two concerns always opposed to each other?
- What should be the main motivating force behind government action?
7c Tasmania voted against Labor in the federal elections of 1983 while the rest of Australia swung towards Labor. One of the reasons for this difference in voting was support for, or opposition to, the Labor Party's promise to stop the dam. What voice did Tasmanians have once the issue was taken up by the political parties at the national level? Think about their representation in the Commonwealth Parliament (use the Parliament@Work
website [http://www.parliament.curriculum.edu.au] and Parliament at Work CD ROM).
7d Individually write two paragraphs, the first giving reasons for Tasmanian state governments supporting the dam and federal governments opposing the dam, the second giving your view about whether Tasmanians had a strong enough voice in deciding their future.
Activity 8: Popular opinion and government action
Read Sources 18-21.
8a On the basis of the Age Poll, what advice would you give the three Federal parties listed in the table about whether to pass a law to stop the building of the dam?
Source 18 Attitude to Flooding of Franklin and Lower Gordon River*
| The Federal Government: |
Total (2000)
% |
Men (989)
% |
Women (1011)
% |
Liberal Voters (668)
% |
Labor Voters (910)
% |
Australian Democrat Voters (166)
% |
| should try to stop the Tasmanian Government from flooding the Lower Gordon and Franklin Rivers to generate electricity |
49 |
47 |
50 |
45 |
53 |
64 |
| should not try to stop the Tasmanian Government from flooding the Lower Gordon and Franklin Rivers to generate electricity |
37 |
41 |
33 |
41 |
34 |
25 |
| Don't know |
14 |
12 |
17 |
13 |
14 |
11 |
*Second of two polls
Age Poll, Age, 4/10/1982. Reproduced with permission of Irving Saulwick and Associates/The Age.
For Source 19 refer to page 187 of Commonwealth of Australia 1998, Discovering Democracy Middle Secondary Units, Curriculum Corporation, Melbourne.
8b If the Liberal Party is in favour of State rights, why do you think Prime Minister Fraser nominated the South-west of Tasmania for the World Heritage list?
Source 20
There is no doubting the seriousness of Mr Fraser's offer to stop the dam. He put $500 million of our money on the line to neutralise the dam as a political issue.
The offer although rejected is of political value both in Tasmania and on the mainland.
It shows that Mr Fraser cares about the wilderness, that he is still the 'greenie' he became when he stopped the Fraser Island sand mining.
That's for mainland no-dammers.
In Tasmania he has shown that he will not rise over States' rights - a 'dangerous course indeed', he said in yesterday's statement.
The offer and the way it was made was a piece of pure Malcolm Fraser politics ... as Mr Fraser knows well enough politics is 90 per cent timing and presentation. There was little point in announcing the offer and the rejection in one sterile press release in Canberra ...
It was important that it [the announcement] be done in Tasmania. Despite the nation-wide outcry against the dam, the Liberal Party's analysis indicates that it is by no means certain that sufficient mainlanders will ... vote ... on the dam issue. They may be satisfied with writing 'No dams' on their ballot paper.
But Tasmanian seats are much more volatile ... The Government cannot afford to throw away any seats in an election which hinges on only 11 seats.
Barton, Russell 1983, 'Well-staged gesture to greenies', Age, 20 January.
8c Why was the Fraser Government reluctant to intervene to stop the building of the dam? Think also about the Liberal Party's fundamental beliefs within Activity 1.
8d How did the Liberal Government's judgement about the likely support to be gained from mainland voters and the importance of winning Tasmanian seats differ from the judgement of the Labor Party as outlined in 'National Governments - Liberal and Labor' within Activity 5.
Source 21
The Australian Labor Party's National Conference adopted yesterday a policy of total opposition to a dam in ... Tasmania's south-west.
The new policy was greeted angrily by a number of Tasmanian delegates, who saw the move as politically disastrous at both Federal and State levels in their State.
'ALP National Conference - Labour policy opposes dam in Tasmania', Canberra Times, 9/7/1982.
8e As a Tasmanian delegate at the Labor Party conference, what would you say to the conference?
It is 1982. The class is to play out the debates held at the national Labor Party conference and in the parliamentary Liberal Party room as to whether each party will pass a law to stop the building of the dam in Tasmania.
Your teacher will allocate Liberal roles to half the class and Labor roles to the other half. In each party some people will be Tasmanians and some will be mainlanders.
There should be more mainlanders than Tasmanians.
Write the speech you will make to your party colleagues about whether the dam should be built. Remember to construct your argument according to the role you have been assigned. Support your argument with evidence drawn from what you have learnt within this section of the unit. The following are some of the issues you will need to consider:
- the views of the party about Commonwealth Governments interfering in issues over which States have powers
- what the public in Australia as a whole wants and what Tasmanians want
- whether the views of mainlanders or Tasmanians are more important on this issue and why
- what effect your recommendation is likely to have on gaining or losing votes in the mainland and Tasmania.
Hold the two meetings and present your speech.
Your work will be assessed on:
- accurately explaining the party's views of whether it should interfere in a Tasmanian issue
- providing a clear argument for or against a federal law to stop the dam
- supporting your argument with evidence from the information provided in this section of the unit
- covering the major issues that parties need to consider in forming policies (such as fundamental beliefs, winning votes)
- using evidence to support a Tasmanian or mainlander perspective.
9a Undertake the interactive on the Parliament at Work CD ROM. Your teacher will decide whether you should complete the task as individuals or as a class. If you are completing the task as a class, your teacher will divide the class into five groups, each of which will take on a role in a simulated parliamentary hearing into how land from a former quarantine station should be used after its sale.
- One group will become a parliamentary committee.
- The other groups will be assigned roles in gathering information to support one of the four options for the use of the land.
Use the information gained from the CD ROM to support one of the four levels of land use. In class, argue the case in favour of the position assigned to your group.
The committee must make a decision on the land use on the basis of the arguments presented.
ESL activities
Back to 'Getting Things Done - At a glance'
|
