Comparison and contract of how the different areas of public policy in Australia are shaped and the role played by the relevant institutions, participants and forces
Order Instructions:
1. Please read the attached stimulus reading.
2. Write a response to the stimulus reading, arguing for or against the points made. (275 words).
3. Ensure that you make reference to any relevant news articles or academic publications to strengthen your argument.
4. All sources must be referenced correctly.
SAMPLE ANSWER
This paper is a response that argues for the essay on the comparison and contract of how the different areas of public policy in Australia are shaped and the role played by the relevant institutions, participants and forces (Jenny, 2007). The areas of policy represented are all in the realms of the actions that the government commits and the intentions that are used to determine the respective actions. In this context, it makes sense to examine the particular languages that politicians use, because this will form the basis of determining the intentions that underlie their political choices. Consider the case study given on Tony Abbott the prime minister; it is easy to determine his innate intents based on his choice of political language (Daniel and Bridie 2014). And from the illustrations from the various speech experts, it is clearly demonstrated that Abbot has a traditional view on the issue of gender roles, especially for the case of women – his speech still betrays him for a traditionalist who has a strong advocacy for traditional male masculinity and the submissive role women are poised to play (Daniel 2014). This clearly coincides with his government’s public policy regarding the various legislations addressing issues of gender. Secondly, this essay points out that racial discrimination is an intent that can be filtered as a public policy following the speech of politicians. True to this assertion, the prime minister is prove to this through the changes that Abbott proposed to the racial discrimination act – the proposal was meant to repeal the “Section 18C, Racial Discrimination Act, that forbids acting in a manner likely to ‘offend, humiliate, insult and intimidate someone because of their race or ethnicity” (Heath, 2014). In his address, he referred to the section as a “hurt feelings’ test”, but the backlash from the public was sufficient evidence that his speech intent was aligned to racial discrimination (Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, 2014).
Reference
Daniel H. (2014), Tony Abbott not keen to revisit racial discrimination law after France attack, The Guardian, 14 January 2015
Daniel H. and Bridie J. (2014), Tony Abbott faces internal backlash over racial discrimination law change. The Guardian 18 March 2014
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, (2014) ‘Legislating Religious Correctness: Religious vilification laws converge with the Islamist vision of a blasphemy-free society’ The Daily Standard 27 October 2014.
Heath A. (2014), Tony Abbott Dumps controversial changes to 18c racial discrimination laws, The Sunday Morning Herald, August 5, 2014
Jenny Stokes, (2007), ‘Religious Vilification complaint – finally resolved’ 10 July 2007
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
