|
(L-R: Professor Patrick Keyzer (Professor of Law - Bond University, member of CEFA Steering Committee and Competition Grand Final Assessor), Mr Phuong Van (CEFA Administrator), The Hon Justice Michael Kirby (High Court of Australia, Competition Grand Final Assessor), Mr Robert Hoyles (CEFA 2006 Scholar and member of CEFA Steering Committee), Professor George Winterton (Professor of Law - Sydney University, CEFA Trustee, Competition Grand Final Assessor) Every university in Australia had undergraduate students enter the 2007 competition, which offered nine questions covering a broad range of constitutional and political issues. A panel comprising Dr Andrew Lynch (UNSW Law School), Robert Hoyles (Research Associate, NSW Supreme Court) and Adam Johnston (solicitor) read the essays, producing a short-list of nine (involving five of the questions) for final judging. This was conducted by telephone interview on 17 December 2007 in the High Court chambers of Justice Michael Kirby, who chaired the panel which also comprised Professors George Winterton (University of Sydney) and Patrick Keyzer (Bond University). The panel was assisted by Robert Hoyles and Phuong Van (Constitution Education Fund-Australia).
The finalists were students from all States except Tasmania: three from Victoria (two from Monash, one from La Trobe), two from NSW (University of Sydney and UNE), and one each from Queensland (Bond), Western Australia (UWA), South Australia (Adelaide) and the ACT (ANU). Only one was not studying Law (Hayden Stringer, an Engineering, Computer and Mathematics student from the University of Adelaide). All contestants performed well, and those ranked 4-9 were commended for their essays and oral expression.
First Prize was awarded to Scott Crawford (La Trobe) for an outstanding essay and oral presentation on the subject of whether some Pacific nations should join the Australian Commonwealth as States or, perhaps, some lesser alternative analogous to Puerto Rico. Scott generally thought not; unlike Puerto Rico, Pacific nations, “having tasted independence, would be required to take a step backwards and trade away some of their power” if they became constitutionally joined with Australia. In any event, he noted, these nations’ problems were “not about governmental structures”, but about how they are governed; their problems are “social and economic”. Scott urged Australia to adopt “more of a ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ approach to the provision of aid”; it should “adopt a ‘hand up’, not a ‘hand out’ mentality”.
Second Prize was awarded to Braeden Donnelly (UNE) for an excellent essay and oral presentation on the lessons of Australian and Canadian federalism for other nations, such as Iraq. He considered that “the comparative experiences of both Canada and Australia provide distinct lessons for nations … such as Iraq”. Among those lessons were (a) that, generally, “culturally diverse federations tend to decentralise, whilst culturally homogenous federations tend to centralise”; (b) that “clear allocation of sovereignty and legislative powers within the federation must be spelled out within the Constitution” and (c) that “the more ‘reliant’ a State or province is on federal revenue, the more centralised a federation is likely to be”. Third Prize was awarded to Jay Tilley (Monash) for an excellent essay and oral presentation on the Pacific nations topic. Jay adopted a rather different perspective from that of Scott, arguing passionately that “Australia has not ventured far enough down the path of decolonisation, nor has it substantially moved away from its monocultural exercise of power for Australia’s structures of governance to competently fulfil the aspirations of Pacific Island nations”. If they “were incorporated into Australian federalism under s. 121 [of the Constitution], Pacific Islander culture would be subsumed beneath the 106 year empire of Anglo-Australian federal constitutionalism”. The other finalists were (in alphabetical order): David Ananian-Cooper (Adelaide), Susan Cirillo (Sydney), Sarah Kavanagh (UWA), (Ms) Madhavi Ligam (Monash), Hayden Stringer (Adelaide) and Garrett Williams (Bond). All in all, the judges (whose decision was unanimous) found the interviews to be interesting and stimulating, and hope the contestants enjoyed their participation in this very worthy prize. George Winterton
23 January 2008 Governor-General's Undergraduate Essay Competition Report by Mr Robert Hoyles, CEFA 2006 Scholar and member of CEFA Steering Committee CEF-A’s Governor-General’s Prize is a competition that allows Australia’s best and brightest students to engage concepts of constitutional law and civic participation and have their views questioned and rigorously tested by some of Australia’s finest academics. Nine essay questions were presented to the nation’s students, ranging from issues of religion, federation, creation of new states, the right to vote and historiography. Each question required eager participants to discuss intricate challenges, emerging perspectives or new difficulties confronted by Australia as it moves deeper into the 21st century. Participants chose their topics wisely and set out to write papers that were innovative, original and sound. The finalists were a true cross-section of the nation’s students, ranging from various states and universities and even from faculties outside of law. True to past success of this competition, students adopted different topics and approaching them with different essay styles. The real success of the competition is in its capacity to encourage young people to have original ideas, to be creative, and to place more emphasis on substance and less on form. It was a bright December afternoon when I was invited to attend the Grand Final of the competition, where the words leap off the page as students are forced to defend their views following a neat and calculated dissection of their paper from three of the country’s most brilliant constitutional minds. Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, a Judge of the High Court of Australia led the inquisition, supported by the thoughts of renowned academics, Professor George Winterton and Professor Patrick Keyzer. The event was held at the invitation of Justice Michael Kirby in his Sydney chambers. The opportunity to engage via phone interview with such a panel is a rare pleasure indeed and soon the competition got into full swing, with the judges asking carefully considered questions of the contestant’s paper and often the competitors given carefully worded replies. It is usually the case that putting High Court judges and university professors up against students is an unfairly weighted intellectual contest, but armed with their own papers and the conviction of their ideas, each and every student performed exceptionally well. It was a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon and even as a spectator, one left thrilled to know that the bright ideas of a new generation will hold the country in good stead in generations to come. Robert Hoyles is a member of CEFA’s Steering Committee and a former CEFA Research Scholar. He is currently a Researcher of the NSW Supreme Court. |
Home 
