1. Tasmanian Debating Union
  2. Information
  3. Policies
  4. Adjudication policy

Adjudication policy

Eligibility

  1. Any person may become a TDU adjudicator, provided that they:
    1. satisfy the welfare requirements of the TDU; and
    2. are not a student at school or, if they are in school, are in Grade 10 or above; and
    3. have not been excluded from adjudicating; and
    4. complete the accreditation requirements.

Accreditation

  1. A Level 1 Adjudicator:
    1. is a person who satisfies the requirements of section 7;
    2. cannot adjudicate any debate without supervision other than in exceptional circumstances with the approval of the Chief Adjudicator; and
    3. is not paid an honorarium for their activities.
  2. A Level 2 Adjudicator:
    1. is a person who satisfies the requirements of section 10;
    2. may adjudicate any Novice class, Class 8 or Class 9 debate unsupervised; and
    3. receives an honorarium for each debate they adjudicate in accordance with Part 6 of this policy
  3. A Level 3 Adjudicator:
    1. is a person who satisfies the requirements of section 13;
    2. may adjudicate any Novice class, Class 8, Class 9 or Class 10 debate unsupervised; and
    3. may, if the Chief Adjudicator is satisfied they are capable, adjudicate a Parliamentary Shield debate unsupervised; and
    4. receives an honorarium for each debate they adjudicate in accordance with Part 6 of this policy
  4. A Level 4 Adjudicator (Full):
    1. is a person who satisfies the requirements of section 16;
    2. may adjudicate any debate unsupervised;
    3. may act as a supervising adjudicator; and
    4. receives an honorarium for each debate they adjudicate or supervise in accordance with Part 6 of this policy
  5. A Level 5 Adjudicator (ADC):
    1. is a person who satisfies the requirements of section 17;
    2. may adjudicate any debate unsupervised;
    3. may act as a supervising adjudicator; and
    4. may adjudicate at the National Schools Debating Championships;
    5. receives an honorarium for each debate they adjudicate or supervise in accordance with Part 6 of this policy
  6. A person satisfies the requirements of this section if they:
    1. express an interest in adjudicating to the Chief Adjudicator; and
    2. pass a written adjudication test set by the Chief Adjudicator from time to time; and
    3. the Chief Adjudicator is satisfied they meet the requirements set out in sections 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c).
  7. A person satisfies the requirements of this section if:
    1. they have shadow adjudicated at least four debates in the Novice Class, Class 8 or Class 9 (or any combination of those classes); and
    2. the Chief Adjudicator, with the advice of the supervising adjudicator(s), is satisfied that they are competent for the purposes of this section.
  8. Only a person who satisfies the requirements of section 8 may trial adjudicate debates in the Novice Class, Class 8 or Class 9.
  9. A person satisfies the requirements of this section if:
    1. they satisfy the requirements of section 7; and
    2. they have trial adjudicated at least two debates in the Novice Class, Class 8 or Class 9 (or any combination of those classes); and
    3. the Chief Adjudicator, with the advice of the supervising adjudicator(s), is satisfied that they are competent for the purposes of this section.
  10. A person satisfies the requirements of this section if:
    1. they have shadow adjudicated at least two debates in Class 10 or Class 12; and
    2. the Chief Adjudicator, with the advice of the supervising adjudicator(s), is satisfied that they are competent for the purposes of this section.
  11. Only a person who satisfies the requirements of section 11 may trial adjudicate debates in Class 10.
  12. A person satisfies the requirements of this section if:
    1. they satisfy the requirements of section 10; and
    2. they have trial adjudicated at least one debate in Class 10; and
    3. the Chief Adjudicator, with the advice of the supervising adjudicator(s), is satisfied that they are competent for the purposes of this section.
  13. A person satisfies the requirements of this section if:
    1. they have shadow adjudicated at least two debates in Class 10 or Class 12; and
    2. at least one of the debates they have shadowed is in Class 12; and
    3. the Chief Adjudicator, with the advice of the supervising adjudicator(s), is satisfied that they are competent for the purposes of this section.
  14. Only a person who satisfies the requirements of section 14 may trial adjudicate debates in Class 12.
  15. A person satisfies the requirements of this section if:
    1. they satisfy the requirements of section 10; and
    2. they have trial adjudicated at least one debate in Class 12; and
    3. the Chief Adjudicator, with the advice of the supervising adjudicator(s), is satisfied that they are competent for the purposes of this section.
  16. A person satisfies the requirements of this section if:
    1. they satisfy the requirements of section 16; and
    2. they are accredited by the Australian Debating Federation under the National Adjudicator Accreditation scheme.
  17. The Chief Adjudicator may waive some or all of the requirement to shadow adjudicate under sections 8, 11 or 14, or some or all of the requirement to trial adjudicate under sections 10, 13, or 16 where:
    1. the person has adjudicated before (whether in that class or not and with the TDU or not); and
    2. the Chief Adjudicator is reasonably satisfied that the person's previous experience warrants the waiver of those requirements.

Shadow adjudicating

  1. Shadowing a debate consists of a trainee adjudicator sitting with a supervising adjudicator for that debate.
  2. The trainee adjudicator should score the debate as though they were adjudicating it. The trainee and supervising adjudicators should discuss the results of the debate, including the reasons for their decisions.
  3. The trainee adjudicator must not give the oral adjudication, nor attempt to influence the decision of the supervising adjudicator.
  4. Only the decision and scoring of the supervising adjudicator determines the result of the debate.
  5. The supervising adjudicator should complete a trainee adjudicator evaluation form and return it to the Chief Adjudicator.

Trial adjudicating

  1. Trial adjudicating a debate consists of a trainee adjudicator sitting with a supervising adjudicator for that debate.
  2. The trainee adjudicator should adjudicate the debate, including providing scores, the oral adjudication and feedback to the teams. The trainee and supervising adjudicators should discuss the results of the debate, including the reasons for their decisions.
  3. The supervising adjudicator must not give the oral adjudication, nor attempt to influence the decision of the trainee adjudicator.
  4. Only the decision and scoring of the trainee adjudicator determines the result of the debate.
  5. The supervising adjudicator should complete a trainee adjudicator evaluation form and return it to the Chief Adjudicator.

Conflicts of interest

  1. Where an adjudicator is a debater, they must not adjudicate or shadow in their own Class or any higher Class.
  2. An adjudicator must not adjudicate, trial adjudicate, shadow adjudicate or supervise a trainee adjudicator for a debate where they have an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Without limiting the meaning of conflict of interest, a conflict of interest occurs where:
    1. the adjudicator currently attends or is employed by the school of a team in the debate;
    2. the adjudicator currently coaches a team in the debate;
    3. the adjudicator has a close familial relationship with a member of a team in the debate (whether or not that member is participating in this debate);
    4. the adjudicator has a romantic relationship with a member of a team in the debate (whether or not that member is participating in this debate);
    5. a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that the adjudicator might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the debate;
    6. where the adjudicator otherwise recuses themselves from adjudicating;
    7. where the Chief Adjudicator determines on reasonable grounds that there is a conflict of interest or that a conflict of interest may be reasonably perceived to exist;
    8. the debate is a finals-round debate and the adjudicator has a conflict of interest with a team whose participation in a later round of finals depends on the outcome of the debate in question.
  3. An adjudicator may recuse themselves for reasons of conflict of interest without disclosing the nature of the conflict of interest. Adjudicators must recuse themselves as early as possible.
  4. If an adjudicator is not aware of a conflict of interest and has not recused themselves from a debate which has started, they must not recuse themselves part-way through the debate.
  5. The result of a debate adjudicated by a conflicted adjudicator is not necessarily invalid.
  6. The Chief Adjudicator may exempt an adjudicator from section 30 for a particular debate where:
    1. the Chief Adjudicator is aware of the nature of the conflict of interest; and
    2. the Chief Adjudicator reasonably believes the conflict of interest will not prejudice the outcome of the debate; and
    3. the debate is not a finals-round debate, or where the debate is a finals-round debate the only conflict is of the type identified in section 30(g); and
    4. both teams consent.
  7. An adjudicator who knowingly contravenes section 30 without an exemption under section 34 will not receive an honorarium for that debate.

Honoraria

  1. Adjudicators are volunteers. Adjudicators are paid honoraria paid in a lump sum at the conclusion of the debating season to make allowances for costs incurred in the process of adjudicating and as thanks for the work voluntarily done.
  2. Honoraria are paid only for debates organised by the TDU.
  3. Adjudicators receive an honorarium for each debate they adjudicate or supervise. In circumstances where an adjudicator is in attendance but one team forfeits late, that adjudicator will still receive an honorarium for that debate.
  4. In recognition of the additional commitment involved in becoming nationally accredited and the value those adjudicators add to the TDU, Level 5 adjudicators receive an additional honorarium of $100 for each calendar year in which they adjudicate or supervise at least six debates while nationally accredited.
  5. Honoraria are calculated as amounts per debate adjudicated or supervised. The honorarium is $14.00 per debate for debates in novice class, class 8 and class 9; and $21.00 per debate for debates in class 10, class 11, class 12 or an open class. No honorarium is payable for adjudicating parliamentary shield, the national schools debating championships or any debates outside the schools compeition, unless approved in advance by the Executive.

Exclusion

  1. A person may be excluded from adjudicating by a resolution of the TDU Executive if:
    1. they consistently fail to progress beyond Level 1 accreditation; or
    2. they consistently give poor adjudications or results; or
    3. they wilfully adjudicate despite a conflict of interest on more than one occasion, such that it constitutes a course of conduct; or
    4. they wilfully adjudicate or give results contrary to the rules on more than one occasion, such that it constitutes a course of conduct; or
    5. they wilfully encourage, countenance, aid or ignore cheating by a debater or team; or
    6. they pose a risk to the welfare or safety of any participants, or are perceived to pose such a risk; or
    7. they pose a risk to the image of the TDU, or are perceived to pose such a risk; or
    8. the Executive is otherwise reasonably satisfied that it is appropriate.

Demotion

  1. An adjudicator may be demoted by the Chief Adjudicator (that is, re-classified to a level below their current level) if:
    1. they have been observed to give a poor adjudication by the Chief Adjudicator (or their delegate); or
    2. at the end of a season they have not adjudicated at all in that season; or
    3. their National Adjudicator Accreditation expires; or
    4. the Chief Adjudicator is otherwise reasonably satisfied that it is appropriate.
  2. A Level 5 Adjudicator is automatically demoted to Level 4 at the end of the season in which their National Adjudicator Accreditation expires, unless it is renewed.

Appeals

  1. The Chief Adjudicator will monitor complaints about decisions made by adjudicators, including adjudicator feedback forms, with a view to ensuring consistent high-quality adjudications. This may include requesting information from adjudicators about their decisions. Adjudicators must be prepared to justify their decision to the Chief Adjudicator on request.
  2. The Chief Adjudicator may, in their discretion, declare that a debate was incorrectly decided, but only in circumstances where there is a demonstrated clear failure of the adjudicator to act in accordance with the rules of debating and that failure is demonstrated to have affected the result of the debate.
  3. If the Chief Adjudicator declares that a debate was incorrectly decided then the Chief Adjudicator may either require the debate to be held again (as though postponed) or, if there are exceptional circumstances which warrant it, declare a different result.
  4. The Chief Adjudicator must not declare that a debate was incorrectly decided if:
    1. the decision was reached by a panel of adjudicators; or
    2. the debate was a finals-round debate.

Miscellaneous

  1. The Chief Adjudicator has absolute discretion in the scheduling of adjudicators for debates.
  2. Where there is a debate scheduled and it is not reasonably practicable to have an appropriately accredited adjudicator, the Chief Adjudicator or their delegated authority may authorise a person who has not achieved the relevant accreditation level to adjudicate that debate, provided:
    1. the debate is not a finals round debate; and
    2. the Chief Adjudicator is reasonably satisfied that the person is sufficiently competent to adjudicate the debate; and
    3. both teams consent.