Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Refining the Roles and Promoting the Strengths of Individual Committees within the System

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Committees of Influence

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the ways in which the functions and powers of particular parliamentary committees could be enhanced or adjusted to support the rights-protecting capacity of the overall committee system. Building on the conclusions and recommendations explored in Chap. 8, this chapter reflects on the particular strengths and weaknesses of the committees studied in this book to propose practical reforms to both how these committees work, and how they interact within the broader system. This chapter reflects upon the past recommendations made by other studies of parliamentary committees, and the interview material obtained from those with direct experience working with the committees studied. While these recommendations focus on the four committees featuring the case study, they have relevance beyond this small sample. This is because they highlight, invest in and build upon features of individual committees that are shared by other committees within the system.

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.

    Further information about the interviews conducted for this research is available at Moulds 2018 Appendix A.

  2. 2.

    See discussion in Chap. 4; see also Interview with a former senior member of an oversight body (telephone, 8 November 2016).

  3. 3.

    For example, this review recommended that the PJCIS be empowered to: review all proposed reforms to counter-terrorism and national security legislation and review all such expiring legislation (recommendation 23(b)); initiate its own inquiries into proposed or existing counter-terrorism and national security laws (recommendation 23(c); request briefings from the INSLM and ask the INSLM to provide the PJCIS with a report on matters referred by the PJCIS and to coordinate reports on national security legislation (recommendation 23(d)).

  4. 4.

    This is supported by evidence from public servants and parliamentary counsel about the utility of previous SSCSB guidance materials, and the documentary evidence showing how these notes were used in Drafting Directions and policy guidance materials for the AGD. These matters were discussed in detail in Chap. 7.

  5. 5.

    These issues arise regularly in SSCSB reports, but also in inquiry-based committee reports on counter-terrorism laws. For examples, see Chaps. 3 and 5.

  6. 6.

    As noted in Chap. 3, since 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’). Similar language could be adopted by the PJCHR.

  7. 7.

    The commitment of committee Chairs, members and staff to the preservation of this dialogue – which hinges on the proponent Minister having the opportunity to provide further written information to the PJCHR –appears to have thwarted efforts to ensure speedy tabling of PJCHR reports in the past.

References

Standing Orders

Parliamentary Committee Reports

Books/Articles/Reports/Speeches

  • Australian Government, (2010). Budget measures: Budget paper no 2: 2010–11: Attorney-General’s portfolio.. 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.

  • Bergin, A., & Trood, R. (2015). Creative tension: Parliament and National Security. Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute., (6 August 2015). Retrieved from https://www.aspi.org.au/report/creative-tension-parliament-and-national-security. Accessed 17 Jan 2020.

  • 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 

  • Chordia, S. (2016, November 30). The problem of balancing: Structured proportionality and tiered scrutiny (Harvard law school visiting scholar colloquium series). Harvard Law School, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, D. (2017, February 28). Malcolm Turnbull urged to overhaul HRC as review splits on 18C. The Australian (online), 28 February 2017. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/malcolm-turnbull-urged-to-overhaul-hrc-as-review-recommends-no-changes-to-18c/news-story/e8fbbcd2f0163f4a3dfbc7cd6770066d.

  • 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 

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

  • 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 

  • 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

  • Faulkner, J. (2014). Surveillance, intelligence and accountability: An Australia story. Senate Occasional Paper, Parliamentary Library, Canberra: Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from https://apo.org.au/node/41934. Accessed 17 Jan 2020.

  • 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 

  • Grenfell, L. (2015). An Australian spectrum of political rights scrutiny: Continuing to lead by example? Public Law Review, 26(1), 19–32.

    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 

  • Inglis, R. (2017, February 28). Parliamentary joint committee on human rights releases freedom of speech report, The Examiner (Hobart), 28 February 2017 http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4498392/free-speech-report-tabled/.

  • Jennett, G. (2016, August 2016). Record crossbench a headache for stressed senate budget, workload. ABC Online, 22 August 2016 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-22/jennett-senate-committee-inquiries/7765838.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Sibraa, K. (1990). Session one: The revolutionary proposals of the 1970s. Keynote address at conference to mark the twentieth anniversary of Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees and Senate Estimates Committees, Canberra, Parliament of Australia, 3 October 1990. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/pubs/pops/pop12/s01.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2020.

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

    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 

  • Weston, E. (2015). The Human Rights Act 1998 and the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. King’s Law Journal, 26(2), 266–284.

    Article  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). Refining the Roles and Promoting the Strengths of Individual Committees within the System. In: Committees of Influence. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4350-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4350-0_9

  • 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