How would these be as a premise using current examples.
2022: Due to global trends towards renewable energy and transportation, critical minerals are growing in demand. Due to our developed mining sector and resource abundance, the Australian economy will likely shift towards such critical minerals to create a global comparative advantage. E.g. 'Future Made in Australia Policy'
2022: AUSFTA. US is our second biggest two way trade partner. Also, our highest two-way investment flows are with the US. This free trade agreement and long-term relationship also catalysed the recent Critical Minerals Investment Flow.
2023: The Albanese Government's 'Fee Free TAFE' policy aims to promote 'upskilling' and 'retraining' into industries with a current supply shortage (e.g. care and construction). Therefore, as well as boosting aggregate supply across the economy, this microeconomic policy will also help reduce structural unemployment though retraining individuals with a 'mismatched' skillset. Due to the long time lag on education and microeconomic structural reform, the current pass rate of entered programs is only about 30%, far below the national average for TAFE of about 80%, although after a period of time this should increase.
2024: The Gillard Government introduced a carbon pricing scheme where firms were discouraged from producing carbon (a greenhouse gas) emissions through taxation - a market based approach. Although the implementation time lag was short due to being a simple tax, the policy was highly criticised and became ineffective when abolished by the Abbot govt.
Sorry they got a bit long at the end
2022 – Structure of Industry
Top-band criterion: Provides a comprehensive explanation of how current trends in the global economy may change the structure of industry in Australia.
Your response identifies a clear global trend -the shift toward renewable energy and transportation (probably could've said electrification of transportation though) - and correctly links it to Australia’s comparative advantage in critical minerals through the
Future Made in Australia Policy. This shows solid understanding of contemporary drivers of industrial change. However, it lacks explicit reference to the term
structure of industry (e.g. shifts between the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors), overlooks other global trends such as digitalisation and near-shoring, and omits supporting data that would demonstrate the magnitude of this transition. It partially meets the criterion but needs a broader and more evidence-based explanation to be comprehensive.
2020 – Bilateral Trade Agreement
Top-band criterion: Provides detailed points for and/or against Australia’s involvement in one bilateral trade agreement.
Your answer accurately identifies AUSFTA and recognises the strength of Australia’s trade and investment ties with the US, capturing the ongoing relevance of the relationship. The reference to critical-minerals investment shows awareness of how older trade agreements evolve in current contexts. Yet, the response lacks detailed arguments
for or against Australia’s involvement and omits key features of the agreement (e.g. tariff reductions). It also needs quantitative support (e.g. trade volumes or growth figures) to reach the “detailed” level expected. Overall, it demonstrates sound understanding but falls short of the depth and evaluative balance required for the top band.
2023 – Microeconomic Policies and Unemployment
Top-band criterion: Makes a comprehensive judgement regarding the effectiveness of microeconomic policies on unemployment.
Your response shows clear understanding of the
Fee-Free TAFE initiative, explaining its aim to reduce structural unemployment through reskilling and upskilling, and includes insightful evaluation about low completion rates and implementation lags. These points demonstrate knowledge of both policy mechanism and limitation. However, it doesn’t make a strong or explicit
judgement about the overall effectiveness of such policies, and it leans slightly toward macro-economic language (aggregate supply) rather than micro outcomes like productivity or labour mobility. With clearer evaluative phrasing (e.g. “moderately effective in the long term”) and tighter micro focus, it would meet the comprehensive-judgement standard.
2024 – Market-Based Environmental Policy
Top-band criterion: Makes a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of one market-based policy to manage environmental issues in Australia.
Your answer demonstrates understanding of a legitimate market-based policy (the carbon pricing scheme) and notes its quick implementation and eventual political failure, which indicates evaluative thinking. However, it falls short of the “comprehensive” standard because it lacks reference to the economic mechanism of market-based instruments (price signals, internalising externalities), and omits quantitative or contemporary evidence (e.g. emissions reductions or Safeguard Mechanism data). It provides some relevant evaluation but would need a current example and clearer discussion of how pricing carbon affects firm behaviour to satisfy the top-band criterion.
