chose any one topic from 4 topics as follows.>>>1. Pill testing/drug checking (that is, allowing people to test the contents of their ecstasy pills). 2.
Soft drink tax. 3. Indigenous school attendance/school completion. 4. Renewable ene

Order Description
Scenario: For this assessment, imagine that there is currently a parliamentary inquiry into each of the four issues below. You, as an engaged citizen and someone
knowledgeable about health, have decided to make a submission.

Task: Choose one of the health issues below and write an evidence-based parliamentary submission. Your submission should be making a clear link to relevant social
determinants of health (that is, you’re arguing for a position and linking it to the SDOH). From there, you should provide a policy recommendation(s) – what is it that
should be done to make the policy healthier?

Length: Your submission work is to be approximately 2000-2500 words [+/- 10%; references are not included in the word count]).

The following health topics are those the government is having an ‘inquiry’ into::

1. Pill testing/drug checking (that is, allowing people to test the contents of their ecstasy pills).

2. Soft drink tax.

3. Indigenous school attendance/school completion.

4. Renewable energy.

Layout: There is no set layout for a parliamentary submission. I have provided three examples from a quick online search, and you’re welcome to follow one of those or
find your own. You want it to look professional, however, so keep that in mind. You also want it to be evidence-based, so referencing is important.>>>>
This assessment task requires you to consider how we can make policies‘healthier’. You will choose one topic listed on CloudDeakin and write aparliamentary submission,
putting forth an evidence-based argumenton how current policy should be made healthier (linking to relevant socialdeterminants of health).More information about this
assessment will be provided on the CloudDeakinsite for this unit
Instructions In Week 3 we will be looking at the concept of Health in All Policies (HiAP). Scenario: For this assessment, imagine that there is currently a
parliamentary inquiry into each of the four issues below. You, as an engaged citizen and someone knowledgeable about health, have decided to make a submission. Task:
Choose one of the health issues below and write an evidence-based parliamentary submission. Your submission should be making a clear link to relevant social
determinants of health (that is, you’re arguing for a position and linking it to the SDOH). From there, you should provide a policy recommendation(s) – what is it that
should be done to make the policy healthier? Length: Your submission work is to be approximately 2000-2500 words [+/- 10%; references are not included in the word
count]). The following health topics are those the government is having an ‘inquiry’ into:: 1. Pill testing/drug checking (that is, allowing people to test the
contents of their ecstasy pills). 2. Soft drink tax. 3. Indigenous school attendance/school completion. 4. Renewable energy. Layout: There is no set layout for a
parliamentary submission. I have provided three examples from a quick online search, and you’re welcome to follow one of those or find your own. You want it to look
professional, however, so keep that in mind. You also want it to be evidence-based, so referencing is important. Due Date and Submission Process

pleas choose only 1 topic from 4 topics.i already send you all the documents.references are 24 required in Harvard style.please msks s good one.i already fail this
unit.have a look on the marking rubric and examples of parliamentary submissions.thanks.please choose only one topic and let me know thanks.these are the 4 topics as
follows.please choose one thanks.lease needs no plagirism at all.thanks 1. Pill testing/drug checking (that is, allowing people to test the contents of their ecstasy
pills). 2. Soft drink tax. 3. Indigenous school attendance/school completion. 4. Renewable energy.
leace choose 1 topic.not all. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (TOTAL MARKS 50) High distinction Distinction Credit Pass Not satisfactory Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) (15)
Relevant social determinants of health should be discussed with relation to the topic you have chosen. The SDOH should be appropriate for the chosen topic. A clear
link should be made between the topic and the SDOH determinants. The determinants should be logical and justified. The reader should be able to see the link between
the topic, the determinants, and health. The discussion is evidence-based. An excellent evidence-based explanation, discussion, and justification of the chosen SDOH.
The SDOH are clearly appropriate for the policy scenario. There is an excellent, clear link between the SDOH, the policy, and health. A good evidence-based
explanation, discussion, and justification of the chosen SDOH. The SDOH are appropriate for the policy scenario. There is a good, clear link between the SDOH, the
policy, and health. A good explanation, discussion, and justification of the chosen SDOH, though a weak evidence-base is drawn upon. The SDOH are mostly appropriate
for the policy scenario. There is a link between the SDOH, the policy, and health. SDOH are chosen, though there is questionability of their appropriateness for the
policy scenario. The evidence base is absent or lower quality evidence is used. There is some confusion between the SDOH, the policy, and health. The basic
requirements of this element have not been met. High distinction Distinction Credit Pass Not satisfactory Policy recommendations (20) A clear set of policy
recommendations are provided. They are fully-formed, explained, justified, and flow logically from the links made between the scenario and the SDOH discussed. The
audience should be able to see the links between the scenario, the SDOH, and how these policy recommendations will make the scenario a ‘healthier’ policy. An excellent
set of recommendations are provided. They are fully-formed, justified, flow logically, and there is an excellent link to the SDOH and the policy. The recommendations
make the policy healthier. A good set of recommendations are provided. They are well-formed, the majority are justified, they flow logically, and there is a good link
to the SDOH and the policy. The recommendations mostly make the policy healthier. A fair set of recommendations are provided. They are generally well-formed, with some
justification. There is some confusion with the flow of logic. There is some link to the SDOH and the policy. Some recommendations make the policy healthier. A set of
recommendations are provided, though there is some confusion with their explanation, discussion, or justification. There is some confusion with the link to the SDOH
and the policy. Not all recommendations make the policy healthier. Basic requirements of the assessment have not been met. High distinction Distinction Credit Pass Not
satisfactory Professionalism of writing and presentation (10) The assignment should be carefully edited, with no mistakes in your spelling, punctuation, syntax or
grammar. Careful presentation of your wok is important to ensure accurate communication with the reader. Individual statements should be clearly articulated and
sentences well-constructed and unambiguous. This allows the reader to focus on the meaning and the key messages of your arguments. The style of writing should be
appropriate for an academic audience. Excellent standard of presentation; no mistakes in spelling, punctuation, syntax or grammar; language clearly and effectively
communicates ideas; professional academic style and tone. Work is coherent, engaging and thoughtful. Generally very good standard of presentation; very occasional,
minor errors that do not detract from meaning; language generally communicates ideas; an academic tone and level of argument is generally used. Generally good standard
of presentation; minor, infrequent errors; communication faults which cause minor confusion or lack of clarity although the overall meaning remains fairly clear. A
fair attempt at academic writing but some problems with the standard of presentation (spelling, punctuation, syntax, grammar or style); multiple errors, some of which
distract from the communication of meaning; insufficient proof reading and editing. Work contains frequent, serious errors in spelling, punctuation, syntax or grammar;
style is inconsistent or inappropriate. High distinction Distinction Credit Pass Not satisfactory Referencing (5) Referencing of source material allows the reader to
assess how persuasive and credible your arguments are and builds the reader’s confidence that your arguments are based on evidence and not just anecdote or your own
assumptions. Citations should be appropriately located in the text and fully detailed in a reference list, in a consistent and correct format (Harvard or APA).
Excellent use of quality sources, integrated in the argument to develop ideas; no errors in referencing conventions. Good use of appropriate referenced materials to
support key ideas; a good standard of referencing with few or minor errors in referencing conventions. A fair attempt at referencing, with few errors in referencing
conventions; may use lower quality sources, or may under-reference ideas. Insufficient or inaccurate referencing. Severe or extensive under-referencing.