Abstract
Chapter 8 marks the beginning of Part III of this book, and reflects on the evidence presented in Part II. Chapter 8 argues that only by considering parliamentary committees working together as a system can we propose realistic substantive improvements in the parliamentary model of rights protection. It demonstrates that making changes to the processes, mandates or powers of individual committees provides only limited scope to improve Parliament’s rights-protecting capacity. Instead, it is the way different committees in the system work together that provides the most realistic and practical options for meaningful, short-term reform. Chapter 8 begins by explaining why a diversity of attributes with the parliamentary committee system is key to improving rights impacts, before identifying particular opportunities for investing in the existing parliamentary committee system at the federal level in Australia. These include strategies to address high workloads and ensure timely tabling of reports and improve communication and collaboration between individual committees. Chapter 8 also explores reforms designed to acknowledge and document parliamentary committees’ contribution to establishing a common rights-scrutiny culture within the Australian Parliament.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As noted in Chap. 3, in 2017, the SSCSB began publishing its scrutiny comments on recently introduced Bills (including responses received on matters previously considered by the committee) in one report, the Scrutiny Digest. However, the Scrutiny Digest continues to be divided into initial reports on the Bill (previously called ‘Alert Digests’, now called ‘Initial Scrutiny’) and concluded reports on the Bill (previously called ‘Reports’ now called ‘Commentary on Ministerial Responses’).
- 2.
For example, Williams and Burton (2015) advocate changes to the PJCHR that would see the committee more actively engage with submission makers as part of its Bills scrutiny work, including by calling for submissions and holding public inquiries. Similarly, some submission makers to the Future Directions of the SSCSB inquiry called for the SSCSB to take a more active inquiry role as part of its Bills scrutiny process (SSCSB 2012).
- 3.
This recommendation is consistent with that made in the 2010 ‘Agreement for a Better Parliament’ made between the Australian Labor Party and the independent members Mr. Tony Windsor and Mr. Rob Oakeshott on 7 September 2010 (Windsor and Oakshott 2010 para [5]). The proposals in the agreement, together with some proposals from the Greens and Mr. Wilkie, formed the basis of the procedural changes in the House of Representatives in the 43rd Parliament. Most of these changes were implemented via amendments to the Standing Orders on 29 September 2010 (the second sitting day of the 43rd Parliament) and on 19 and 20 October 2010.
References
Standing Orders
House of Representatives, Parliament of Australia, Standing Order, Chapter 16, Order 222. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/House_of_Representatives_Standing_Orders
Senate, Parliament of Australia, Standing Order, Chapter 5, Order 25. (2000a). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/standingorders/b00/b05
Senate, Parliament of Australia, Standing Order, Chapter 5, Order 25A (2000b). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/standingorders/b00/b05
Parliamentary Committee Reports
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure. (2010). Building a modern committee system: An inquiry into the effectiveness of the house committee system. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=proc/committees2/report/fullreport.pdf
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. (2015). Advisory report on the provisions of the Australian citizenship amendment (allegiance to Australia) bill 2015. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/24%20Committees/244%20Joint%20Committees/PJCIS/Citizenship/FullReport.pdf?la=en.
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. (2002). Inquiry into the security legislation amendment (terrorism) bill 2002 [no 2] and related bills. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2002-04/terrorism/index.
Senate Standing Committee for Scrutiny of Bills. (2012). Inquiry into the future direction and role of the scrutiny of bills committee. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Scrutiny_of_Bills/Completed_inquiries/futuredirection2011/index.
Books/Articles/Reports/Speeches
Argument, S. (2011, July 21–22). Of parliament, pigs and lipstick (Slight Return): A defence of the work of legislative scrutiny committees in human rights protection. Paper presented at the Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum, Canberra.
Australian Government. (2010). National consultation on human rights. Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Human Rights Framework (2010) https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Publicsubmissionsonthedraftbaselinestudy/AustraliasHumanRightsFramework.pdf
Bergin, A., & Trood, R. (2015). Creative tension: Parliament and national security. Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute (online). Retrieved from https://www.aspi.org.au/report/creative-tension-parliament-and-national-security. Accessed 17 Jan 2020.
Bull, T. & Cameron, I. (2015) Legislative review for human rights compatibility: A view from Sweden. In Hunt, M. Hooper, H.J & Yowell, P. (Eds.), Parliaments and human rights: Redressing the democratic deficit (p. 279). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
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.
Campbell, T. (2006). Human rights strategies: An Australian alternative. In T. Campbell, J. Goldsworthy, & A. Stone (Eds.), Protecting rights without a bill of rights (pp. 319–334). London: Ashgate.
Childs, B. (1992). The truth about parliamentary committees (Parl Paper No 18). Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/~/~/~/~/link.aspx?_id=DD64348A4FEC4F94A3332033C6003F64. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
Civil Liberties Australia. (2015). Blue paper for police and spooks. CLArion No 1511 (online), 1 November 2015 http://www.cla.asn.au/clarion/1511CLArion(1col).pdf.
Crossin, P., Milne, C., & Humphries, G. (2010). The future of senate committees: Challenges and opportunities’ in commonwealth. Senate committees and government accountability (Parl Paper No 54 of 2010). Canberra: Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/~/link.aspx?_id=E0F46C0A16C743148BA988A0B316DDD9&_z=z. Accessed 17 Jan 2020.
Dalla-Pozza, D. (2006). The conscience of democracy? The role of Australian parliamentary committees in enacting counter-terrorism laws. Paper presented at the Australasian law and society conference. Retrieved from http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:8439/SOURCE02. Accesssed 6 Jan 2020.
Dalla-Pozza, D. (2016). Refining the Australian counter-terrorism legislative framework: How deliberative has parliament been? Public Law Review, 27(4), 271.
De Vrieze, F., & Hasson, V. (2018). Post legislative scrutiny: Comparative practices of post-legislative scrutiny in selected parliaments and the rationale for its place in democracy assistance. London: Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
Department of the House of Representatives. (2014). Annual report 2013–14. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Department_of_the_House_of_Representatives/Annual_Reports/2013-14_Annual_Report
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2017). Legislation handbook. Canberra: Government of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.dpmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/legislation-handbook. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.
Department of the Senate. (2014). Annual report 2013–14. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Department_of_the_Senate/Annual_Reports/Annual_Report_2013-2014
Department of the Senate. (2015). Annual report 2014–15. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Department_of_the_Senate/Annual_Reports/Annual_Report_2014-2015
Department of the Senate. (2016). Annual report 2015–16. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Department_of_the_Senate/Annual_Reports/Annual_Report_2015-2016
Evans, H. (1993). Parliamentary committees and the public interest. Legislative Studies, 1, 15–23.
Evans, C., & Evans, S. (2006a). Australian parliaments and the protection of human rights. Paper presented in the Department of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series, Canberra, 8 December 2006.
Evans, C., & Evans, S. (2006b). Evaluating the human rights performance of legislatures. Human Rights Law Review, 6, 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngl012.
Evans, C., & Evans, S. (2006c). Legislative scrutiny committees and parliamentary conceptions of human rights. In Public Law (Vol. 785). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Evans, C., & Evans, S. (2007). Australian parliaments and the protection of human rights (Parl Paper No 47). Canberra: Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/~/link.aspx?_id=8B6C280930C4453C92CA146B82B01CE6&_z=z
Fletcher, A. (2018). Australia’s human rights scrutiny regime. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Foley, E. P. (2012). Judicial engagement, written constitutions, and the value of preservation: The case of individual rights. George Mason Law Review, 19(4), 909. http://georgemasonlawreview.org/archives/vol-19-no-4-special-issue/.
Goldblatt, G. (2017). Social (in) security and inequality in Australia: The limited role of human rights in the policy debate. In A. Durbach & B. Edgeworth (Eds.), Law and poverty in Australia: 40 years after the poverty commission (pp. 183–198). Sydney: Federation Press.
Gray, A. (2016). Criminal due process and chapter III of the Australian constitution. Sydney: Federation Press.
Halligan, J. (2008). Parliamentary committee roles in facilitating public policy at the commonwealth level. Australasian Parliamentary Review, 23(2), 135–156.
Hiebert, J. L. (2015). Legislative rights review: Addressing the gap between ideals and constraints. In M. Hunt, H. J. Hooper, & P. Yowell (Eds.), Parliaments and human rights: Redressing the democratic deficit (pp. 39–56). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Hunt, M., Hooper, H. J., & Yowell, P. (Eds.). Parliaments and human rights: Redressing the democratic deficit (p. 295). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Kuijer, M. (2015). Guaranteeing international human rights standards in the Netherlands: Parliamentary dimensions.
Larkin, P. (2009). Transcript of evidence, 22 October 2009 as cited in house of representatives standing committee on procedure. In Building a modern committee system: An inquiry into the effectiveness of the House committee system (2010). Canberra: Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=proc/committees2/report/fullreport.pdf
Levy, R., & Orr, G. (2016). The law of deliberative democracy. London: Routledge.
Marinac, A. (2003). The usual suspects? Civil society and senate committees. Paper submitted for the senate baker prize. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/~/link.aspx?_id=1AF5557C98A84D45A0ACCB0E6C36945D&_z=z. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
Marsh, I. (2004, November 26). Australia’s representation gap: A role for parliamentary committees?. In Speech delivered at the Department of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series. Canberra: Parliament House.
Meagher, D. (2014). The human rights (parliamentary scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) and the courts. Federal Law Review, 42(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.22145/flr.42.1.1.
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. https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/115212
Moulds, S. P. (2019). Parliamentary rights scrutiny and counter-terrorism lawmaking in Australia. Journal of South East Asian Human Rights, 3(2), 185–230. https://doi.org/10.19184/jseahr.v3i2.13461.
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.
Prat, L. (2012). Political protections of fundamental rights. Macquarie Law Journal, 10, 77–96.
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.
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.
Russell, M., & Benton, M. (2009, June 24). Assessing the policy impact of parliament: Methodological challenges and possible future approaches. Paper presented at the Public Service Association Legislative Studies Specialist Group Conference, London. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/2069151/Assessing_the_policy_impact_of_Parliament_Methodological_challenges_and_possible_future_approaches. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.
Thompson, P. (2016, February 7). Department of the Senate dealing with too many inquiries. The Canberra Times (Canberra). http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/department-of-the-senate-dealing-with-too-many-inquiries-20160207-gmo4pj.html
Uhr, J. (1995). Keeping government honest: Preconditions of parliamentary effectiveness (Parl Paper No 29). Canberra: Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/~/link.aspx?_id=54B15879D3FA4BFE84D1A1885AE7950C&_z=z
Uhr, J. (1998). Deliberative democracy in Australia: The changing place of parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Williams, G., & Burton, L. (2015). Australia’s parliamentary scrutiny act: An exclusive parliamentary model of rights protection. In M. Hunt, H. J. Hooper, & P. Yowell (Eds.), Parliaments and human rights: Redressing the democratic deficit (pp. 258–279). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Windsor, T., & Oakshott, R. (2010). Agreement for a better parliament. Made in Canberra on 7 September 2010 exerted in Department of Parliamentary Services (2013) The hung parliament: Procedural changes in the house of representatives. Parliamentary Research Papers 2013–2014 Parliamentary library, Canberra: Parliament of Australia, 2013. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/HungParliament. Accessed on 17 Jan 2020.
Websites
Parliament of Australia. (2016). Commonwealth legislative scrutiny unit. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Legislative_Scrutiny_Unit. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Moulds, S. (2020). Capitalising on the Rights-Protecting Potential of the System of Parliamentary Committees. In: Committees of Influence. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4350-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4350-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-4349-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-4350-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)