Social SciencesFreePrintable

Law Reform Evaluation Organiser

A free social sciences worksheet ready for your classroom. Open in Kuraplan to grab the print-ready PDF, customize it for your students, or generate a fresh version in seconds.

Download now

Name:Date:

Law Reform Evaluation Organiser

Read the case summary and fictional proposal below. Then assess the proposal using evidence, competing rights and likely consequences. The proposal is fictional; the case summary describes a real Australian case. Suggested answers are provided for discussion—well-supported alternative conclusions are valid.

Case file: Eatock v Bolt

In 2011, the Federal Court decided Eatock v Bolt. Aboriginal people brought a complaint about two newspaper articles written by Andrew Bolt. The Court found that the articles breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), which makes certain public acts unlawful when they are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or group because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. Section 18D provides exemptions for certain acts done reasonably and in good faith, including some artistic works, academic or scientific work, fair comment and reporting. The decision concerned the articles and the law as applied to them; it did not make all discussion of race unlawful.

Fictional proposal: clearer public-interest defence

A parliamentary committee is considering a fictional amendment to section 18D. It would clarify that public-interest discussion—including political debate and journalism—can qualify for an exemption when it is based on reasonable grounds, presented fairly, and not intended to promote racial hatred. The proposal would leave section 18C in place and would not create an automatic exemption for every political or journalistic statement. Supporters say clearer guidance could protect legitimate debate and reduce uncertainty. Critics worry that the change could make it harder for people targeted by racist public commentary to obtain protection, and that terms such as “fairly” may still be disputed.

Part 1 — Understand the proposal

Use the case file and proposal to identify what would change and why it matters.

1.In one or two sentences, state the main change proposed to section 18D. What would remain unchanged?

2.Which statement best describes the finding in Eatock v Bolt?

The Court found that the particular articles breached section 18C; it did not rule that all discussion of race is unlawful.
The Court removed section 18C from the Racial Discrimination Act.
The Court ruled that journalists are always exempt from racial discrimination law.
The Court found that any statement that offends anyone is unlawful.

3.Select three requirements the fictional proposal would attach to the public-interest defence.

The discussion must be based on reasonable grounds.
The discussion must be presented fairly.
The discussion must not be intended to promote racial hatred.
The speaker must be a member of Parliament.
The statement must be published outside Australia.

4.Identify one right or public value the proposal may strengthen, and one right or interest it may put under pressure. Explain each connection.

Part 2 — Weigh the impacts

Consider who may benefit, who may face risks, and how the law might work in practice.

Possible benefits

Possible risks

People or groups affected

Evidence or safeguard to investigate

5.Complete the Impact organiser. Give at least one specific point in each box, using information from the proposal rather than relying only on personal opinion.

6.True or false: Because the proposal mentions journalism and political debate, every statement made by a journalist or politician would automatically be exempt.

TrueFalse

7.A community group says the word “fairly” is too unclear. Suggest one practical change or safeguard that could make the proposal more certain without removing the public-interest defence.

Part 3 — Reach a reasoned judgement

A strong evaluation recognises competing considerations and supports its conclusion with details from the case file and proposal.

8.Which is the strongest evidence-based reason to evaluate the proposal cautiously?

The proposal changes no part of the law, so its effects cannot be considered.
The exemption could support legitimate debate, but unclear terms may make protection against racial discrimination less predictable.
Eatock v Bolt established that freedom of expression has no value in Australia.
Any law reform is automatically harmful to human rights.

9.Give your provisional judgement: support, oppose or support with changes. Use one benefit and one risk to explain your position.

10.Write a short recommendation to the parliamentary committee. State your position, refer to Eatock v Bolt or a detail from the proposal, and suggest one safeguard or next step.