Approaches to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Assessment 

For too long, High Court judges have been twisting the words of the Constitution and straying from the intentions of the framers to benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parties. This is an unacceptable abuse of power. Judges should stick to the wording of the Constitution and avoid politics when it comes to First Nations matters. Do you agree? Critically analyse this statement with reference to the cases of Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337 and Commonwealth v Yunupingu [2025] HCA 6. While you may discuss other cases, these two cases should be given substantial attention in your work.

This Is a Research Essay

You are expected to read the relevant cases and find relevant books, journal articles and other authoritative sources to deepen your knowledge on the issues touched upon in the question of your choice. 

Artificial Intelligence (AI): You are permitted to use AI in this assessment on two conditions. You must:

• Acknowledge AI use. This is to be done by including in your first footnote a statement on your AI use, if any. That is, specify what tasks you did with AI and/or which parts of your writing have been impacted by AI. This statement must be 100 words maximum (this does not cut into your final word count).

You may also need to include footnotes at certain junctures where AI was used for a particular function. For example, if you asked AI a question (ie. prompt) you should cite any use you make of its reply. The UTS Library provides on how to reference AI outputs using AGLC (4^th ed) style.

• Use AI cautiously. AI lies! You need to check everything it spits out to determine if it is correct and logical.

Further, over reliance on AI may fall into academic misconduct. A good rule of thumb is that if the task would be academic misconduct if given to a human to do, it is also misconduct if given to AI to do (eg. Getting a friend to write something for your essay and copying and pasting it in would be academic misconduct. That is also true of AI). Further again, overreliance on AI is cheating yourself. This small, precious window of time that you are at university is your opportunity to better your writing, research + critical analysis skills. You are not sharpening your brain and abilities or retaining the knowledge learned when you excessively delegate these tasks to AI.

Submission Guidelines

Submission: Submit your essay into the relevant portal for your chosen question

Extensions: Do NOT request an extension via email to your tutor or the subject coordinator. You MUST go through the proper process, outlined.

That link also includes information regarding Special Consideration, Accessibility Services and Carer Assistance. 

Late Penalties: Submissions after the due date/time (or modified due date/time if extension granted) will attract late penalties as follows:

• 5% per day for up to seven calendar days (ie. a maximum of 35% penalty);
• Work submitted after seven calendar days will not be marked and receive zero (0) marks.
• Late work may not receive feedback.

Milestone Task: This essay is a ‘milestone task’. This means that markers will make an assessment of your English language proficiency. You will be guided to further language support after the completion of this subject if your results in this milestone task indicate you need language skills assistance.

Assessment Requirements – Brief Summary

This research essay requires students to critically analyse the statement:
“For too long, High Court judges have been twisting the words of the Constitution and straying from the intentions of the framers to benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parties…”

The key expectations are:

1. Case Analysis – Focus on Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337 and Commonwealth v Yunupingu [2025] HCA 6, with substantial attention to their reasoning and outcomes.

2. Critical Evaluation – Assess whether judges have genuinely departed from the constitutional text or whether their interpretations are justified within legal and political contexts.

3. Broader References – You may incorporate other cases (Koowarta, Mabo, Love v Commonwealth) and relevant academic sources.

4. Referencing – Use AGLC4 style for footnotes (with hyperlinks) and a bibliography.

5. Word Limit – Max 2000 words, excluding footnotes.

6. AI Use – If AI was consulted, clearly acknowledge in the first footnote how it was used (max 100 words).

Mentor Guidance Process

Step 1: Understanding the Essay Question

The mentor first clarified that the task is not simply descriptive but critical. Students must not just retell case facts but engage with whether the judiciary has abused its interpretative role.

Step 2: Breaking Down the Structure

The mentor advised using a clear structure:

• Introduction – Present the issue and thesis (whether you agree or disagree with the claim).

• Case Analysis – Detailed exploration of Kartinyeri (race power, constitutional interpretation, framers’ intent vs modern context) and Yunupingu (recent approach to First Nations rights).

• Comparative Critique – Discuss whether decisions reflect judicial activism or legitimate interpretation.

• Broader Perspectives – Use academic commentary and additional case law to strengthen the argument.

• Conclusion – Restate position with nuanced reflection.

Step 3: Research Guidance

The mentor encouraged the student to:

• Read full judgments of Kartinyeri and Yunupingu for key reasoning.

• Consult secondary sources such as law journal articles, commentary in Sydney Law Review and Melbourne University Law Review.

• Explore broader constitutional debates on judicial activism vs literalism.

Step 4: Writing the Draft

The student was guided to:

• Write in formal academic tone with discipline-specific vocabulary.

• Integrate critical thinking by weighing both sides of the argument.

• Use precise footnotes with pinpoint references to cases and articles.

• Avoid long quotations—summarise reasoning instead.

Step 5: Checking Against Criteria

The mentor helped the student check that:

• Word count stayed under 2000 words.

• Every claim was referenced (AGLC4).

• Argument remained analytical, not descriptive.

• AI acknowledgment (if applicable) was correctly footnoted.

Final Outcome

• The essay requirements were fully addressed: focused on Kartinyeri and Yunupingu, critically engaged with the statement, and supported by authoritative references.

• The approach ensured that the student could independently analyse judicial reasoning and its implications for First Nations constitutional matters.

• Learning objectives achieved:

  • Developed advanced research and referencing skills (AGLC4).

  • Strengthened ability to critically evaluate High Court decisions.

  • Enhanced understanding of constitutional interpretation debates.

  • Improved clarity, academic tone, and essay structure.

Access Your Sample Solution – Learn, Don’t Copy

Looking to understand how a high-quality academic assignment is structured? You can download the available sample solution to see how experts approach research, analysis, and referencing. This sample is a valuable reference tool to guide your own work and boost your confidence in writing.

Important Note on Plagiarism
The provided sample is strictly for reference and learning purposes only. Submitting it as your own work may lead to plagiarism issues and academic penalties. Use it as a guide, not a submission.

If you need a fresh, plagiarism-free, and custom-written solution tailored to your specific requirements, our team of professional academic writers is here to help. Ordering a new assignment ensures:

• 100% original and plagiarism-free content

• Written by subject matter experts

• Properly cited and referenced as per academic standards

• Delivered on time, even with tight deadlines

• High-quality, student-friendly guidance you can trust

Make the right choice: learn from the sample and excel with a personalized solution.