Public Impact

  • Sarah Moulds


This chapter sets out evidence of the public impact of the four parliamentary committees studied on the case study Acts. ‘Public impact’ means evidence that the parliamentary committee influenced or was considered in public or parliamentary debate on the case study Act or during a post-enactment review of the Act. Evidence of public impact includes reference to the findings or recommendations of a committee in Hansard, media reports or academic commentary, or in reports of post-enactment oversight bodies or review mechanisms. As this chapter explores, the public impact of parliamentary committee work on the way counter-terrorism laws are made, and on their content, can be significant particularly when a longer-term perspective is adopted. This chapter identifies the important deliberative role parliamentary committees play in Australian law making and suggests that a rights-scrutiny culture may be beginning to develop at the federal level that could be a relevant factor to consider when identifying options to improve Australia’s parliamentary model of rights protection.



  1. House of Representatives. (2015). Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015 (Cth). Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
  2. House of Representatives. (2015). Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 (Cth). Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
  3. House of Representatives. (2014). Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 2014 (Cth). Canberra: Parliament of Australia.,
  4. House of Representatives. (2010). National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Cth). Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
  5. House of Representatives. (2004). Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005 (Cth). Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
  6. Senate. Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014 (Cth). Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
  7. Senate. (2006). Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 (Cth). Canberra: Parliament of Australia.

Explanatory Memorandum

  1. Senate. Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs1039_ems_3b9b5af2-90d5-44b2-aefe-06ed5ea3392d%22

Standing Orders

  1. Senate, Parliament of Australia, Standing Order, Chapter 5, Order 38 (24 August 1994.);

Parliamentary Committee Reports

  1. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2017). Second Human Rights Scrutiny Report of 2017 (21 March 2017) Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
  2. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2014). Fourteenth Report of 44th Parliament Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
  3. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. (2018). Review of ASIO’s questioning and detention powers (2018). Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
  4. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. (2016). Advisory Report on the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
  5. Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. (2005). Provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
  6. Senate Standing Committee for Scrutiny of Bills. (2016). Report No 4 of 2016. Canberra: Parliament of Australia.


  1. Aldons, M. (2003). Problems with parliamentary Committee evaluation: Light at the end of the tunnel? Australasian Parliamentary Review, 18(1), 79–86.Google Scholar
  2. Appleby, G. (2015). The 2014 counter-terrorism reforms in review. Public Law Review, 26(1), 4–7.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Law Reform Commission. (2006). Fighting Words: A Review of Sedition Laws in Australia. ALRC Report No 104. Retrieved from Accessed 7 Jan 2020.
  4. Banham, C. & O’Malley, N. (2005, September 6). Rights at risk in security crackdown. The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 6 September 2005, 2.Google Scholar
  5. Blackbourn, J. (2018). Accountability, counter-terrorism and civil liberties. Kings Law Journal, 29(2), 297.
  6. Burton, L., & Williams, G. (2013). Australia’s exclusive parliamentary model of rights protection. Statute Law Review, 34, 58–94. Scholar
  7. Byrnes, A. (2020). Economic and social rights in the Australian parliamentary human rights scrutiny process. In J. Debeljak & L. Grenfell (Eds.), Law- making and human rights (pp. 135–171). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.Google Scholar
  8. Carne, G. (2015). Re-orientating human rights meanings and understandings? Reviving and revisiting Australian human rights exceptionalism through a Liberal democratic rights agenda. Flinders Law Review Journal, 17, 1–67.
  9. Chordia, S. (2016). The problem of balancing: Structured proportionality and tiered scrutiny. Harvard Law School Visiting Scholar Colloquium Series, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, 30 November 2016.Google Scholar
  10. Civil Liberties Australia. (2005). Need for Proposed Anti-terror Laws Still Unexplained. Media Release, 28 September 2005; Canberra.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, M. J. (2008) Report of the inquiry into the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef. Canberra: Government of Australia. Retrieved from Accessed 7 Jan 2020.
  12. Council of Australian Governments Counter-Terrorism Review Committee. (2013). Review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation. Retrieved from Accessed 7 Jan 2020.
  13. Courier Mail (Eds). (2002, May 11). Flaws in Terror Laws Exposed. The Courier Mail (Brisbane), 11 May 2002, 22.Google Scholar
  14. Dalla-Pozza, D. (2008). Promoting deliberative debate? The submissions and oral evidence provided to Australian parliamentary committees in the creation of counter-terrorism laws. Australasian Parliamentary Review, 21(1), 39–61.Google Scholar
  15. Dalla-Pozza, D. (2016). Refining the Australian counter-terrorism legislative framework: How deliberative has parliament been? Public Law Review, 27(4), 271.Google Scholar
  16. Dalla-Pozza, D. (2020). A dual scrutiny mechanism for Australia’s counter-terrorism law landscape: The INSLM and the PJCIS. In J. Debeljak & L. Grenfell (Eds.), Law-making and human rights (pp. 673–700). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.Google Scholar
  17. Debeljak, J., & Grenfell, L. (2020). Future directions for engaging with human rights in law- making: Is a culture of justification emerging across Australian jurisdictions? In J. Debeljak & L. Grenfell (Eds.), Law- Making and Human Rights (pp. 789–818). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.Google Scholar
  18. Fletcher, A. (2018). Australia’s human rights scrutiny regime. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fletcher, A. (2020). Human rights scrutiny in the Federal Parliament: Smokescreen or democratic solution? In J. Debeljak & L. Grenfell (Eds.), Law- making and human rights (pp. 31–63). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.Google Scholar
  20. Griffith, G (2005). Parliament and accountability: The role of parliamentary oversight committees. Briefing Paper No 12/05. Parliamentary Library Research Service, New South Wales. Retrieved from Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
  21. Gyles, R. (2016). Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Report on Certain Questioning and Detention Powers in Relation to Terrorism. Canberra. Retrieved from Accessed 16 Jan 2020.
  22. Hammer, C. (2008, May 16). Haneef Case Weak, FOI Papers Show. The Age (online), 16 May 2008,
  23. Kirk, L. (2002, December 23). Balance Terror Fight and Liberties. The Advertiser (Adelaide), 23 December 2002, 18.Google Scholar
  24. Levy, R., & Orr, G. (2016). The law of deliberative democracy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lynch, A. (2006). Legislating with Urgency – the Enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Act (No 1) 2005. Melbourne University Law Review, 30(3), 747–781.Google Scholar
  26. McCulloch, J. (2015). Human rights and terror laws. Precedent, 128, 26–29.Google Scholar
  27. Moulds, S. P. (2018). The rights protecting role of parliamentary committees: The case of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws (Doctoral thesis). University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  28. Moulds, S. P. (2020). Parliamentary committees facilitating parliamentary deliberation: A case study of marriage equality reform. In J. Debeljak & L. Grenfell (Eds.), Law making and human rights (pp. 745–786). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.Google Scholar
  29. Nicholson, B. (2002). Protect Our Values, Georgio Urges. The Sunday Age (Melbourne), 29 September 2002, 6.Google Scholar
  30. Rajanayagam, S. (2015). Does parliament do enough? Evaluating statements of compatibility under the human rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 38(3), 1046–1077.Google Scholar
  31. Rajanayagam, S. (2020). Urgent law-making and the human rights (parliamentary scrutiny) act. In J. Debeljak & L. Grenfell (Eds.), Law-making and human rights (pp. 647–672). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.Google Scholar
  32. Reynolds, D., & Williams, G. (2020). Evaluating the impact of Australia’s Federal human rights scrutiny regime. In J. Debeljak & L. Grenfell (Eds.), Law- Making and human rights (pp. 67–96). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.Google Scholar
  33. Rice, S. (2020). Allowing for dissent: Opening up human rights dialogue in the Australian parliament. In J. Debeljak & L. Grenfell (Eds.), Law- making and human rights (pp. 99–134). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.Google Scholar
  34. Security Legislation Review Committee. (2006). Report of the security legislation review Committee. Canberra: Australian Government (Sheller Review). Retrieved from Accessed 7 Jan 2020.
  35. Shaw, M. (1998). Parliamentary committees: A global perspective. Journal of Legislative Studies, 4(1), 225–251. Scholar
  36. Stephenson, S. (2016). From dialogue to disagreement in comparative rights constitutionalism. Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sydney Morning Herald. (Ed) (2002, November 28). Other Threats to Freedom’, The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 28 November 2002, 12. Sydney: Thompson Reuters.Google Scholar
  38. Uhr, J. (1993). Parliamentary measures: Evaluating Parliament’s policy role. In I. Marsh (Ed.), Governing in the 1990s: An agenda for the decade (p. 347). Sydney: CEDA/Longman.Google Scholar
  39. Uhr, J. (1998). Deliberative democracy in Australia: The changing place of parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. van Ham, C. & Chappell, L. (2017). Democracy and human rights: A tripartite conceptual framework. (2017) Australian Journal of Human Rights 23(2), 143–167.
  41. Walters, P. (2004, September 12). Press lobby wins reforms to National Security Crime Bill. The Australian (National), 12 September 2004, 17.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, G. (2005, September 28). Losing our balance in fortress Australia (p. 23). Canberra: Australian Financial Review.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, G.(2011). A decade of Australian Anti-Terror Laws. Melbourne University Law Review, 35(3), 1136.
  44. Williams, G., & McDonald, E. (2007). Combating terrorism: Australia’s Criminal Code since September 11, 2001. Griffith Law Review, 16, 27–54. Scholar
  45. Willams, G., & Reynolds, D. (2016). The operation and impact of Australia’s parliamentary scrutiny regime for human rights. Monash University Law Review, 41(2), 469–508.Google Scholar
  46. Williams, G., Davis, F., & McGarrity, N. (Eds.). (2014). Surveillance, counter-terrorism and comparative constitutionalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Wroe, D. (2015, June 26). Law council blasts new citizenship terrorism Laws as much too broad. The Sydney Morning Herald (online), 26 June 2015.

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Moulds
    • 1
  1. 1.Justice and SocietyUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations