Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Committees of Influence

Abstract

This chapter introduces the key themes of the book and underscores its relevance for public law scholars and students, and those engaged in the parliamentary system, for example as public servants or parliamentary counsel. It introduces themes such as the role of parliamentary committees in rights protection in Australia and addresses the conventional scepticism of the parliamentary model of rights protection. It also sets out the structure of the book.

In introducing these key themes, this chapter also foreshadows the key findings arising from this research. This includes the finding that when different parliamentary committees work together, important rights-enhancing results can emerge, even in the context of politically-popular counter-terrorism policies. This suggests that carefully examining the role parliamentary committees play in rights protection should be of interest to all rights scholars, including those considering what reforms could be made to strengthen Australia’s parliamentary model of rights protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Fletcher also considers the ‘behind the scenes’ impact of the work of parliamentary committees, but with an explicit and exclusive focus on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights see Fletcher (2018 particularly pp. 290–291).

References

Legal Materials

    Cases

    Legislation

    • Anti-terrorism Act (No 2) 2005 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Anti-terrorism Act 2004 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2003 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2014 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Act 2016 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • National Security Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    • Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 (Cth).

      Google Scholar 

    International Law Materials

    • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, [1980] ATS 23.

      Google Scholar 

    • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, [1976] ATS 5.

      Google Scholar 

    Books/Articles/Reports/Speeches

    • Aldons, A. (2000). Rating the effectiveness of parliamentary committee reports: The methodology. Legislative Studies, 15(1), 22–32.

      Google Scholar 

    • Aldons, M. (2003). Problems with parliamentary committee evaluation: Light at the end of the tunnel? Australasian Parliamentary Review, 18(1), 79–86.

      Google Scholar 

    • Allan, J. (2002). Oh that I were made judge in the land. Federal Law Review, 30(3), 566.

      Google Scholar 

    • Allan, J. (2003). A defence of the status quo. In T. Campbell, J. Goldsworthy, & A. Stone (Eds.), Protecting human rights: Instruments and institutions (pp. 173–192). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Alston, P. (Ed.). (1994). Towards an Australian bill of rights (pp. 88–93). Canberra: Australian National University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Appleby, G. (2015). The 2014 counter-terrorism reforms in review. Public Law Review, 26(1), 4–7.

      Google Scholar 

    • Appleby, G., Grenfell, L., & Reilly, A. (Eds.). (2014). Australian Public Law (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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.

      Google Scholar 

    • Australian Law Reform Commission. (2016). Traditional rights and freedoms – Encroachments by commonwealth laws. Report No. 129 (2016). Retrieved from https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-129/. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Banfield, A. C., & Knopff, R. (2009). Legislative versus judicial checks and balances: Comparing rights policies across regimes. Australian Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140802654968.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Bateman, W., & Stellios, J. (2012). Chapter III of the constitution, federal jurisdiction and dialogue charters of human rights. Melbourne University Law Review, 36(1), 1–40.

      Google Scholar 

    • Bates, E. (2009). Anti-terrorism control orders: Liberty and security still in the balance 29 Legal Studies 29, 99–130.

      Google Scholar 

    • Benton, M., & Russell, M. (2013). Assessing the impact of parliamentary oversight committees: The select committees in the British House of Commons. Parliamentary Affairs, 66, 772–797.

      Google Scholar 

    • Burdekin, B. (1994). Foreword. In P. Alston (Ed.), Towards an Australian bill of rights (p. a). Canberra: Australian National University Press, v.

      Google Scholar 

    • Burton, L., & Williams, G. (2013a). Australia’s exclusive parliamentary model of rights protection. Statute Law Review, 34, 58–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hms048.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Burton, L., & Williams, G. (2013b). What future for Australia’s control order regime. Public Law Review, 24, 182–208.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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.

      Google Scholar 

    • Campbell, T., & Morris, S. (2015). Human rights for democracies: A provisional assessment of the Australian Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. University of Queensland Law Journal, 34(1), 7–27.

      Google Scholar 

    • Carlile, A. (2006). Final report of the independent reviewer pursuant to Section 14(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (UK). London: Stationary Office.

      Google Scholar 

    • Castan, M., & Galloway, K. (2015). Extending public law: Digital engagement, education and academic identity. Legal Education Review, 25, 331–348.

      Google Scholar 

    • Castan, M., & Gerber, P. (2019). Human rights landscape in Australia. In M. Castan & P. Gerber (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on human rights in Australia (pp. 1–18). Sydney: Lawbook.

      Google Scholar 

    • Chappell, L., Chesterman, J., & Hill, L. (2009). The politics of human rights in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Charlesworth, H. (2002). Writing in rights: Australia and the protection of human rights. Sydney: UNSW Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Charlesworth, H. (2008). Democratic objections to bills of rights. Sydney Papers, 20(3), 124–134.

      Google Scholar 

    • Chesterman, S. (2008). An international rule of law? The American Journal of Comparative Law, 56(2), 331–362.

      Google Scholar 

    • Colmar Brunton Social Research. (2009). Final report, national human rights consultation – community research phase. Retrieved from http://www.jca.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/P01_13_02_28-Brennan-paper.docx.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Commonwealth Department of Parliamentary Services. (2017). Employment: Department of Parliamentary Services. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Employment/Department_of_Parliamentary_Services. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Commonwealth Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2017). Independent intelligence review. Retrieved from https://pmc.gov.au/national-security/2017-independent-intelligence-review. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Council of Australian Governments Counter-Terrorism Review Committee. (2013). Review of counter-terrorism legislation. Retrieved from https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Pages/COAGReviewofCounter-TerrorismLegislation.aspx. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Craven, G. (2004). Conversations with the constitution: Not just a piece of paper. Sydney: Sydney University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Dalla-Pozza, D. (2016). Refining the Australian counter-terrorism legislative framework: How deliberative has parliament been? Public Law Review, 27(4), 271.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • Davis, F. F. (2016). Political rights review and political party cohesion. Parliamentary Affairs, 69, 213–221.

      Google Scholar 

    • Davis, M., & Williams, G. (2002). A statutory bill of rights for Australia? Lessons from the United Kingdom. University of Queensland Law Journal, 22(1), 1–29.

      Google Scholar 

    • Debeljak, J. (2011). Who is sovereign now? The Momcilovic court hands back power over human rights that parliament intended it to have. Public Law Review, 22(1), 15–52.

      Google Scholar 

    • Debeljak, J. (2013). Does Australia need a bill of rights? In M. Castan & P. Gerber (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on human rights in Australia (pp. 37–70). Sydney: Lawbook.

      Google Scholar 

    • Debeljak, J. (2014). Proportionality, rights-consistent interpretation and declarations under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities: The Momcilovic litigation and beyond. Monash University Law Review, 40(2), 340–388.

      Google Scholar 

    • Debeljak, J. (2020). Rights dialogue where there is disagreement under the Victorian Charter. In J. Debeljak & L. Grenfell (Eds.), Law-making and human rights (pp. 267–320). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.

      Google Scholar 

    • Debeljak, J., & Grenfell, L. (2020a). Contextualising law- making and human rights. In J. Debeljak & L. Grenfell (Eds.), Law-making and human rights (pp. 2–28). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.

      Google Scholar 

    • Debeljak, J., & Grenfell, L. (2020b). 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 

    • Dicey, A. V. (1959). Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution (10th ed.). London: Macmillan.

      Google Scholar 

    • Dixon, R. (2012). A new (inter)national human rights experiment for Australia. Public Law Review, 23, 75–80.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Evans, C., & Evans, S. (2006c). Legislative scrutiny committees and parliamentary conceptions of human rights. Public Law, 785.

      Google Scholar 

    • Fallon, R., Jr. (1997). The rule of law as a concept in constitutional discourse. Columbia Law Review, 97, 1–56.

      Google Scholar 

    • Feldman, D. (2004). The impact of human rights on the UK legislative process. Statute Law Review, 25, 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/25.2.91.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Fenwick, H., & Phillipson, G. (2012). UK Counter-terror Law Post-9/11: Initial acceptance of extraordinary measures and the partial return to human rights norms. In V. Ramraj, M. Hor, K. Roach, & G. Williams (Eds.), Global anti-terrorism law and policy (p. 481). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Fletcher, A. (2018). Australia’s human rights scrutiny regime. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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: Executive and parliamentary scrutiny across Australian jurisdictions (pp. 31–66). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.

      Google Scholar 

    • French, R. (2009, September 4). The common law and the protection of human rights. Speech delivered at the Anglo-Australasian Lawyers Society, Sydney, 4 September 2009. Retrieved from https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/frenchcj/frenchcj4sep09.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Galligan, B., & Morton, F. L. (2003). Australian exceptionalism: Rights protection without a bill of rights. In T. Campbell, J. Goldsworthy, & A. Stone (Eds.), Protecting human rights: Instruments and institutions (pp. 19–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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.

      Google Scholar 

    • Golder, B., & Williams, G. (2006). Balancing national security and human rights: Assessing the legal response of common law nations to the threat of terrorism. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 8, 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980500513335.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Goldsworthy, J. (2001). Legislative sovereignty and the rule of law. In T. Campbell, K. Ewing, & A. Tomkins (Eds.), Sceptical essays on human rights (pp. 69–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Goldsworthy, J. (2010). Parliamentary sovereignty: Contemporary debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Griffith, G. (2005). Parliament and accountability: The role of parliamentary oversight committees. Briefing Paper No. 12/05. Parliamentary Library Research Service, New South Wales.

      Google Scholar 

    • Halligan, J. (2008). Parliamentary committee roles in facilitating public policy at the commonwealth level. Australasian Parliamentary Review, 23(2), 135–156.

      Google Scholar 

    • Hiebert, J. L. (2011). Governing like judges? In T. Campbell, K. D. Ewing, & A. Tomkins (Eds.), The legal protection of human rights: Sceptical essays (pp. 40–65). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Hiebert, J. L. (2012). Parliamentary engagement with the charter: Rethinking the idea of legislative rights review. The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference, 58, 87–107. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol58/iss1/3.

      Google Scholar 

    • Hocking, J. (2004). Terror laws: ASIO, counter-terrorism and the threat to democracy. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Holland, I. (2009). Senate committees and the legislative process. (Parliamentary Studies Paper No. 7). Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/52%20Sen/524%20Research%20and%20education/Other%20Publications/PSP07_Holland.ashx. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Horrigan, B. (2012). Reforming rights-based scrutiny and interpretation of legislation. Alternative Law Journal, 37, 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X1203700403.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • Human Rights Consultation Committee (2009) National Human Rights Consultation report. Retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/35853626?selectedversion=NBD44855144. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Hume, D., & Williams, G. (2013). Human rights under the Australian constitution (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Hunt, M., Hooper, H. J., & Yowell, P. (Eds.). (2015). Parliaments and human rights: Redressing the democratic deficit. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

      Google Scholar 

    • Joseph, S. (2004). Australian counter-terrorism legislation and the international human rights framework. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 27, 428–543.

      Google Scholar 

    • Kinley, D. (1999). Parliamentary scrutiny of human rights: A duty neglected. In P. Alston (Ed.), Promoting human rights through bills of rights: Comparative perspectives (pp. 158–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Kinley, D., & Ernst, C. (2012). Exile on main street: Australia’s legislative agenda for human rights. European Human Rights Law Review, 1, 58–70.

      Google Scholar 

    • Levy, R., & Orr, G. (2016). The law of deliberative democracy. London: Routledge.

      Google Scholar 

    • Lim, B. (2013). The normativity of the principle of legality. Melbourne University Law Review, 37, 372–400.

      Google Scholar 

    • Lumina, C. (2007). Counter-terrorism legislation and the protection of human rights: A survey of selected international practice. African Human Rights Law Journal, 7, 35–67.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • Lynch, P. (2010, March 1). Rights bill is long overdue. Sydney Morning Herald (online). https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/rights-bill-is-long-overdue-20100228-pb4s.html. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Lynch, A., & McGarrity, N. (2008). Counter-terrorism laws: How neutral laws create fear and anxiety in Australia’s Muslim communities. Alternative Law Journal, 33(4), 225–228.

      Google Scholar 

    • Lynch, A., McDonald, E., & Williams, G. (Eds.). (2007). Law and liberty in the war on terror. Sydney: Federation Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Mannreitz, H. (2012). Commonwealth statements of compatibility – Small steps, early days. Human Rights Law Centre Bulletin, 71, 8.

      Google Scholar 

    • Marsh, I. (2004, November 26). Australia’s representation gap: A role for parliamentary committees? Speech delivered at the Department of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series, Parliament House, Canberra.

      Google Scholar 

    • Meagher, D., & Groves, M. (Eds.). (2017). The principle of legality in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: Federation Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Michaelsen, C. (2006). Balancing liberties against national security? A critique of counter-terrorism rhetoric. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 29(2), 1–21.

      Google Scholar 

    • Monk, D. (2010). A framework for evaluating the performance of committees in Westminster parliaments. Journal of Legislative Studies, 16, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572330903541904.

      Article  Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • Omand, D. (2010). Securing the state. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

      Google Scholar 

    • Palfrey, M. (2012). A new federal scheme for the protection of human rights. Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum, 69, 13.

      Google Scholar 

    • Peter, F. (2017). Political legitimacy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. (online, last updated 24 April 2017) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legitimacy/.

      Google Scholar 

    • Radin, M. (2017). Reconsidering the rule of law. In R. Bellamy (Ed.), The rule of law and the separation of powers (pp. 37–76). London: Routledge.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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 

    • Reilly, A., & Lynch, A. (2007). The constitutional validity of terrorism orders of control and preventative detention. Flinders Journal of Law Reform, 10, 105–129.

      Google Scholar 

    • Reynolds, D., & Williams, G. (2017). A Charter of rights for Australia. Sydney: NewSouth Books, 4th ed.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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 

    • 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 

    • Roach, K. (2011). The 9/11 effect: Comparative counter-terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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.

    • Santow, E. (2010). The act that dares not speak its name: The National Human Rights Consultation report’s parallel roads to human rights reform. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 33(1), 8–33.

      Google Scholar 

    • Sawer, M., Abjorensen, N., & Larkin, P. (2009). Australia: The state of democracy. Sydney: Federation Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Scheinin, M. (2006). Report of the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Australia: study on human rights compliance while countering terrorism. UN Doc A/HRC/4/26/Add.3 (14 December 2006).

      Google Scholar 

    • Security Legislation Review Committee. (2006). Report of the Security Legislation Review Committee. Retrieved from https://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecurity/Counterterrorismlaw/Documents/Report%20of%20the%20Security%20Legislation%20Review%20Committee.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Smookler, J. (2006). Making a difference? The effectiveness of pre-legislative scrutiny. Parliamentary Affairs, 59, 522–533.

      Google Scholar 

    • Spigelman, J. (2005). The principle of legality and the clear statement principle. Australian Law Journal, 79, 769–775.

      Google Scholar 

    • Spigelman, J. (2008, March 10). The Common Law Bill of Rights. Speech delivered at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, 10 March 2008. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=c190ac6b-aa39-4bab-97a4-c2aab8b899f9. Accessed 8 Jan 2020.

    • Spigelman, J. (2010). Public law and the executive. Australian Bar Review, 34, 10–14.

      Google Scholar 

    • Stellios, J., & Palfrey, M. (2012). A new federal scheme for the protection of human rights. Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum, 69, 13–19.

      Google Scholar 

    • Stephenson, S. (2016). From dialogue to disagreement in comparative rights constitutionalism. Sydney: Federation Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Stone, A. (2001). The Australian free speech experiment and scepticism about the UK Human Rights Act. In T. Campbell, K. Ewing, & A. Tomkins (Eds.), Sceptical essays on human rights (pp. 391–430). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Stone, A. (2003). Australia’s constitutional rights and the problem of interpretative disagreement. In T. Campbell, J. Goldsworthy, & A. Stone (Eds.), Protecting human rights: Instruments and institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Stone, A. (2009). Tom Campbell’s proposal for a democratic bill of rights. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 34. University of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 495. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1669065

    • Tate, P. (2009). Human rights in Australia: What would a federal charter of rights look like? Southern Cross University Law Review, 13, 1–24.

      Google Scholar 

    • Tatz, S. (2015, December 19). Senate estimates: We’re all losers in this game of “gotcha”. The Drum (online). http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-19/tatz-senate-estimates:-were-all-losers-in-this-game-of-gotcha/6860784. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Victorian Government Solicitors Office. (2011, September). Case note: Momcilovic v The Queen. Retrieved from http://vgso.vic.gov.au/news-events/news/case-note-momcilovic-v-queen-2011-hca-34-8-september-2011. Accessed 8 Jan 2020.

    • Walker, B. (2011). Independent national security legislation monitor, annual report. Retrieved from http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/INSLM/index.cfm. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Webb, P., & Roberts, K. (2014). Effective parliamentary oversight of human rights: A framework for designing and determining effectiveness. Paper presented at the Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London, University of London. Retrieved from https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/projects/government/assets/Human-Rights-Policy-DocumentV5.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Webber, J. (2006). A modest (but robust) defence of statutory bills of rights. In T. Campbell, J. Goldsworthy, & A. Stone (Eds.), Protecting human rights: Instruments and institutions (pp. 266–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Westbury, D. (2018). The principle of legality as a reflection of the constitutional relationship between parliament and the courts. AUSPUBLAW Blog. https://auspublaw.org/2018/2/the-principle-of-legality. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Williams, G. (1999). The Federal Parliament and the protection of human rights. Parliamentary Research Paper No. 20 of 1998–99, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 11 May 1999. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp9899/99rp20. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.

    • Williams, G. (2000). A bill of rights for Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Williams, G. (2003). Constructing a community-based bill of rights. In T. Campbell, J. Goldsworthy, & A. Stone (Eds.), Protecting human rights: Instruments and institutions (pp. 247–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Williams, G. (2015). The legal assault on Australian democracy: The annual Blackburn lecture. Ethos, 236, 18–23.

      Google Scholar 

    • 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.

      Google Scholar 

    • Williams, 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 

    • Williams, A., & Williams, G. (2016). The British bill of rights debate: Lessons from Australia. Public Law, 471–490.

      Google Scholar 

    • Zhou, S. (2012). Momcilovic v. the Queen: Implications for a federal human rights charter. Working paper, Social Science Research Network, 2012. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2128005 Accessed. 8 Jan 2020.

    • Zifcak, S. (2013). Counter-terrorism laws and human rights. In P. Gerber & M. Castan (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on human rights in Australia (pp. 418–433). Sydney: Lawbook.

      Google Scholar 

    Download references

    Author information

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Justice and Society, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia

      Sarah Moulds

    Authors
    1. Sarah Moulds
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints 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

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this chapter

    Moulds, S. (2020). Introduction. In: Committees of Influence. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4350-0_1

    Download citation

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4350-0_1

    • 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)

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation