Andrew Hemming

Online tests and exams: lower standards or improved learning?

This paper considers the introduction of online tests and exams at Charles Darwin University from 2009, and concludes that the improved pass rate is a result of the introduction of improved learning methods and not a lowering of standards. The paper also addresses the nature and timing of the tests and exams, student feedback on the assessment regime, and academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. The analysis is conducted in the context of the arrival of a competitive tertiary education sector in Australia in 2012 in general, and the resources and student cohort of Charles Darwin University in particular.

Northern Territory National Emergency Response Revisited

The Northern Territory of Australia National Emergency Response (“NTER” and sometimes referred to as “the Intervention”) was introduced by the Howard government in 2007. The present Commonwealth government led by Mr Rudd continues to support the response, albeit with some adjustments. The reaction to the response has been mixed. The most prevalent criticisms centre on the partial suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and that the intervention has been ineffective. This article expresses the view that the former is of marginal significance while the latter is plainly wrong. The situation has been thrown into sharper focus by the release of the Productivity Commissions ‘Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage’ report in July 2009 showing that substantiated notifications of abuse inflicted on indigenous children nationwide more than doubled. In line with the trend, Northern Territory figures show notifications of abuse inflicted on indigenous children increased by more than expected (actual 4,415, as opposed to predicted 3,950). The article examines the situation as at November 2009 and suggests a way forward to address a problem that the Prime Minister described as “devastating” when responding to the findings in the Productivity Commission report.

Resolving the application of the Christie discretion in the uniform evidence legislation

The application of s 137 of the uniform evidence legislation, which essentially restates the Christie discretion, has been thrown into confusion with the Supreme Courts of New South Wales and Victoria taking a restrictive and expansive interpretation respectively of the meaning of ‘probative value’ for the purpose of the weighting exercise between probative value and unfair prejudice. Definitive clarification of such an important and well known evidential principle, which could reasonably have been previously regarded as settled law, will most likely be postponed until a suitable case is heard by the High Court. This article seeks to anticipate such a judicial resolution of the application of s 137, by applying well-understood principles of statutory interpretation, to argue in favour of the Victorian expansive approach to the meaning of ‘probative value’ in the uniform evidence legislation.