Task

 

Analyse the sources of power for the five members of the House of Representatives who are not part of the three major political parties ( about  half the assignment). 

 

Write one of the following two sets of recommendations (about half the assignment):

 

•  Advise anyone (or more, if you wish) of those Members of Parliament on how to employ his power to achieve his aims ,  or 

 

•  Advise either of the two major party leaders how to negate the power held by these five MPs.

 

Length

 

Students have a range of 1500-2000 words in which to complete the task , which includes any appendices that students may wish to attach (none are required, in case there is concern over this statement).

 

•  The point of this assignment is to look at a real  situation where independent  members  of the House o f Representatives and a member of a minor party in  the House  have an unusual amount  of power within that organisation  and use the theories around power to help understand why it is that  they have this power.  Remember that this is not a political science assignment, so I don’t want people wasting time writing at length on t he Australian Constitution or parliamentary processes; obviously these could be relevant to your analysis, but you should only discuss them as they relate to issues of power.

 

•  That these five independents have  power should be beyond doubt  – look  at the  raft of parliamentary reforms they were able to ‘negotiate ’ with the major parties   for a demonstration of how powerful they have become – so don’t  aim your assignment at debating whether or not they  have power. Focus on the sources of that power and then either the ways in which that power can be used or how it can be reduced. 

 

•  For those who are not sure  who the five Members of Parliament (MPs) in question are, the people you  are to look at are Tony Windsor, Andrew Wilkie, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott  (all independents), and  Adam Brandt (from The Greens Party).   You will find plenty of discussion of each of these individuals and of them as a group in the media.

 

•  This assignment was set with the expectation that events would overtake it and that the independents would choose a major party to form government, as has now  happened . In some respects this makes the task a bit easier as there is now some certainty over the possible ways in which the power held until now can be   challenged and undermined (which opens up areas to explore in the second part of the assignment). 

  

•  Students should remember that this is an assignment based on analysis, not description.This means that I will look for more than just statements of the situation and recitation of the sequence of event s or biographical details. I will expect everything in the assignments to be meaningful and to be  aimed at shedding light on the reasons behind what we have  seen (and what we can expect over the life of this parliament). 

 

•  In  terms of a possible  approach , but certainly not a  mandatory one , students who are unsure how to tackle the task  could address  it  by the following structure: 

 

o  Statement of the purpose of the report , 

 

o  Sources of power in general ,

 

o  How the sources apply to the independents, and 

 

o  Recommendations.

 

•  In 2000  words you will not have sufficient space to discuss every source of  power and every independent in great detail , so concentrate on thos e that are most relevant ( e g those that are going to  allow you to reveal the most about the nature of power). 

 

•  Your recommendations should be based  on the insights derived from the discussion of power and how it applies in the situation under consideration;  don’t discuss one range of  issues and then come up with an unrelated set of recommendations , ie your analysis should identify the issues that  lead to recommendations. 

 

•  The tone of the report  should  be appropriate for the senior levels it is supposedly being written for, that is  MPs up to the level of Prime Minister or  Leader of the Opposition.

This does not mean that you need to write a document full of staid and complicated language, but it does means that you should avoid  writing  in a conversational tone. 

 

•  Given the nature of the task, it is appropriate  for you to write “ I” in terms of what you recommend and  “ you” to the recipient of the  recommendations (assuming you identify them to me  first in the heading or  somewhere else), rather than seeking a convoluted third -person approach to  writing the assignment. 

 

•  A reminder that “s cholarly resources” does not include sites like Wikipedia (where there is no credible quality assurance  process), sites where other people have posted their own essays or presentations , or most informal online sources (eg blogs, low -quality newsletters, etc). If a student is in doubt over the credibility of the source, he or she should contact t he lecturer before incorporating that information . 

o  Your discussion on the issues relating to power should be based on  sources like journal articles and academic  works (for example, Jeffery Pfeffer is  a leading writer on power, so look up some of his  writings as a starting point as you move beyond the textbook).

o  The  current political  situation  will not  yet,  due to its currency, be  discussed in  such sources, so make use of newspapers and other media outlets. Be sure to use multiple sources and to take a critical eye to avoid blindly accepting partisan or otherwise biased views.

o  Students should  search  the library databases for  information on the topic rather  than the internet. Internet sources can be handy to give you a general idea about the topic, but I do not expect to see them listed as sources upon which you   relied in putting together your assignment. Use more credible sources instead. 

  

Submission 

 

•  The assignment is due at 5pm (Darwin time) on  Monday,  27 September .  Students not in Darwin must ensure they know what time this corresponds to in their time zone. 

 

•  Submission is to be via Learn line.

 

 

Reports will be assessed against the following criteria (the assignment will be marked using the same marking guide as for assignment 1, and will be marked out of 50, but is worth 40% of the unit marks):

 

•  Grasp of Concepts and Ideas      (15 marks)

 

•  Level of Critical Thought/Insight   (15 marks) 

 

•  Persuasiveness of Argument     (10 marks) 

 

•  Eloquence of Expression       (10 marks)(

 

 

 

Marks will be deducted for the following (these will be strictly enforced):

 

•  Exceeding the word limit –  I will stop reading at the point at which the word limit is reached. 

 

•  Late submission – 4% of available mark per day (or part thereof); assignments submitted more than two weeks late will not be accepted and the student will receive a mark of zero 

 

•  Inadequate referencing  –  5% of available mark for poor referencing; 10% of available mark for use of the incorrect referencing system or very poor referencing; plagiarism will be referred to the Head of School as per the Student Plagiarism Management Process (students who are unsure what constitutes plagiarism should contact the lecturer before commencing work on the assignment ).