Assessment Task
Assessed Subject Learning Outcomes
- Demonstrate advanced and integrated understanding of the legal topics within administrative law.
- Demonstrate competency in exercising the following skill at an intermediate level, with creativity, initiative and autonomy: legal writing and drafting.
- Adhere to the highest standards of professionalism, including a commitment to: learning and working autonomously, accountably and reflectively; behaving ethically and responsibly; and managing time effectively and meeting deadlines.
Task Description
Students must select one institution from the following list:
- The Commonwealth Ombudsman, focusing on its report relevant to Robodebt;
- The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), focusing on its statements, commentary, or investigations related to Robodebt;
- The then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), focusing on decisions made in relation to Robodebt matters.
Students are required to conduct legal research to locate primary source material from their chosen institution and at least two credible secondary sources on the topic.
Part 1: Analysis of Institutional Role
Students are required to describe and critically analyse the role played by their chosen institution in the Robodebt scheme. To be clear this means analysing the institution’s role in providing accountability/oversight or delivering on administrative law principles in the context of Robodebt (and not generic descriptions of its role generally). This includes identifying the institution’s legal mandate, its actions or inactions, and its effectiveness in promoting administrative justice, accountability, and fairness.
Postgraduate students (AQF Level 9) are expected to engage in a deeper legal critique. They should analyse the institution’s jurisdictional scope, procedural conduct, and legal reasoning. Their analysis should reflect advanced understanding of administrative law principles and institutional accountability.
Part 2: Evaluation of Royal Commission Recommendations and Government Response
Students must compare how their chosen institution was treated in the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme Final Report’s Recommendations and in the Australian Government’s formal response to that report.
- Postgraduate students should conduct a detailed legal and policy comparison, evaluating the sufficiency of the Government’s response using administrative law values.
Part 3: Evaluate gaps
Students should identify any gaps between the Royal Commission’s recommendations and the Government’s response, and assess whether further reforms or actions are needed to strengthen the institution’s role I preventing failures.
- Postgraduate students should undertake a critical and analytical evaluation of the findings and recommendations made by the Royal Commission in relation to their chosen institution. They are expected to assess the extent to which the Australian Government’s formal response substantively addresses the Commission’s concerns, and to interrogate any legal, structural, or policy gaps that remain. This analysis should be grounded in advanced legal reasoning and demonstrate an ability to synthesise complex administrative law principles with institutional reform discourse.
Part 4: Propose Reforms
Following the identification of any gaps between the Royal Commission’s recommendations and the Government’s response, students should assess what further reforms are needed and formulate these. Any reforms proposed must be achievable and meaningful, not aspirational or goals. Students must consider how the reform would be implemented in reality. The reform may relate specifically to Robodebt and/or social security, or more generally to government decision-making and/or Administrative Law and its institutions.
- Postgraduate students should formulate and justify targeted legal or institutional reforms that directly address the deficiencies identified in their earlier analysis. These proposals must be grounded in advanced legal reasoning, informed by relevant administrative law scholarship, and demonstrate a capacity to integrate theoretical insight with practical feasibility. Students are expected to critically assess the likely impact, implementation challenges, and normative implications of their proposed reforms within the broader context of institutional accountability and governmental integrity.
Brief Summary of Assessment Requirements
Core task: Select one institution from the list (Commonwealth Ombudsman, NACC, or AAT) and produce a sustained, research-led critique of that institution’s role in the Robodebt scheme. Use primary source material from the chosen institution plus at least two credible secondary sources.
Required parts:
- Analysis of Institutional Role : describe and critically analyse how the chosen institution acted (or failed to act) in Robodebt, focusing on its legal mandate, actions/inactions, procedures and effectiveness in delivering administrative justice and accountability.
- Compare Royal Commission Recommendations & Government Response : map how the institution was treated in the Royal Commission Final Report vs the Australian Government’s formal response; evaluate sufficiency using administrative-law values.
- Identify Gaps : pinpoint gaps between recommendations and response; assess remaining legal, structural, or policy weaknesses that undermine prevention of future failures.
- Propose Achievable Reforms : recommend implementable legal/institutional reforms (specific, realistic, and justified), discuss how they would be implemented and their likely impacts and challenges.
Postgraduate expectation: deeper critique: jurisdictional scope, procedural conduct, legal reasoning, synthesis of administrative-law theory and institutional reform discourse. Use advanced legal reasoning and clear, well-drafted arguments. Support claims with primary materials and secondary scholarship; reference accurately.
Key pointers (what your submission must cover)
- Clear statement of chosen institution and its legal mandate.
- Evidence-based description of the institution’s actions/omissions during Robodebt (citations to primary sources).
- Critical evaluation of procedural fairness, oversight, and accountability (not just descriptive).
- Detailed comparison between Royal Commission recommendations and Government response (identify where responses accept, modify, or reject recommendations).
- Identification of concrete gaps and why they matter in legal/administrative terms.
- Practical, feasible reforms with implementation steps, anticipated obstacles, and normative justification.
- High standard legal writing and drafting: clear structure, persuasive argument, precise legal language, proper citation (follow unit’s required style).
- Evidence of independent research: primary institutional documents + ≥2 secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles, reputable commentary).
How the Academic Mentor guided the student : step-by-step
Step 1: Topic & institution selection
- Mentor helped choose the institution whose public materials offered strong primary sources (e.g., Commonwealth Ombudsman report on Robodebt).
- Discussed scope so the student could focus (e.g., oversight failures, remedial powers, reporting practices).
Step 2: Research plan & source collection
- Mentor mapped a research plan: locate primary documents (institutional reports, transcripts, official statements), Royal Commission Final Report, Government response, and at least two high-quality secondary sources (academic articles, legal commentaries).
- Taught efficient legal-research techniques: database searches, FOI/public reports, and citation tracking.
Step 3: Analytical framework
- Mentor introduced a structure for critical analysis: (a) legal mandate and statutory powers; (b) procedural practice and evidence of action/inaction; (c) outcomes for administrative justice; (d) normative evaluation against administrative-law values (legality, reasonableness, transparency, accountability).
- Suggested questions to interrogate each element (e.g., Were powers used? Were recommendations enforced? Did procedures protect affected persons?)
Step 4: Comparative analysis (Royal Commission vs Government response)
- Mentor advised creating a comparison matrix: recommendation → Commission rationale → Government’s response → legal/policy effect → remaining deficiency.
- Encouraged using direct quotes and precise references to both documents.
Step 5: Gap identification & prioritisation
- Mentor coached the student to prioritise gaps by legal significance and feasibility of reform (e.g., statutory gaps vs administrative practice).
- Showed how to link identified gaps to concrete examples from Robodebt.
Step 6: Formulating reforms
- Mentor emphasised reforms must be implementable: propose specific legislative amendments, changes to procedures, new oversight mechanisms, reporting requirements, or resourcing changes.
- Advised including implementation steps, responsible actors, timelines, and foreseeable challenges.
Step 7: Drafting & legal writing
- Mentor reviewed drafts for clarity, legal reasoning, and flow. Focus areas: topic sentences, signposting, precise legal terms, and integration of authority.
- Emphasised intermediate-level drafting skills: concise statutory citation, careful paraphrase of source material, and original argumentative contribution.
Step 8: Verification & finalisation
- Final checks: ensure primary and secondary sources cited; argument consistent; reforms feasible; word/format limits met.
- Mentor ran a final critique on persuasiveness and suggested minor re-drafts to strengthen reasoning.
How the Outcome was Achieved
Deliverable produced: A structured, research-based paper with four parts (analysis, comparison, gaps, reforms), supported by primary institutional documents and at least two scholarly secondary sources.
- Quality features: Advanced legal critique of institutional mandate and conduct; side-by-side comparison of Royal Commission recommendations and Government response; prioritized, realistic reform proposals with implementation notes; professional legal drafting and clear referencing.
- Evidence of rigor: Direct citations to institutional reports and Commission material; use of administrative-law principles to evaluate responses; practical feasibility analysis for each proposed reform.
Learning objectives covered
- Advanced integrated understanding of administrative law: Demonstrated via critical analysis of institutional roles, jurisdictional limits, procedural conduct, and accountability mechanisms.
- Legal writing and drafting competency (intermediate/advanced): Clear structure, persuasive legal argumentation, precise drafting of reform proposals, and professional presentation.
- Professionalism and autonomous learning: Managed research plan, met deadlines, worked reflectively on mentor feedback, and presented implementable reforms grounded in scholarship and practice.
- Policy and institutional reform skills: Ability to translate critique into realistic legal and administrative reform options with implementation considerations.
- Synthesis of primary and secondary sources: Effective integration of primary institutional documents with academic commentary to support nuanced conclusions.