Summary and Recommendations
The present committee system of the House of Representatives
has now been in operation for over a decade. In the 38th Parliament,
Members of the House of Representatives can serve on nine general purpose
standing committees, eleven joint statutory and joint standing committees
and eight domestic committees. The existing committees enable scrutiny
of all areas of government. The committees review indicates that the
current system has served the House well. However, with the passage of
time and experience generally, together with the evolving political dynamics,
the committee system, even though generally acknowledged as a good one,
can be even better with some rationalisation and modification.
The committee finds that even though the House has a
system of broad based committees, single or narrow issue committees remain.
The committee accepts that a case can be made for the existence of these
committees on the grounds that they address issues of special importance
or address issues that require an expertise which might not exist in the
general purpose standing committees. However, all the matters covered
by these single issue committees can adequately be accommodated within
the scope of the general purpose standing committees and the broader interest
joint committees.
The committee accepts the views of those who argued for
a reduction in the number of committees, particularly joint committees.
It is hard to justify the re-establishment of the Joint Standing Committees
on Electoral Matters, Migration and the National Capital and External
Territories. In addition, the committee questions the success of the statutory
committees relating to corporations and securities matters, the National
Crime Authority, native title matters, or the Australian Security Intelligence
Organizationthe watchdog committees. The committee does not support
their re-appointment in the 39th Parliament.
The expansion of the committee system has placed increased
demands on Members time. Many Members find they are unable to allocate
the time to participate in all the activities of a particular inquiry.
Shadow ministers are required to fill committee positions and the demands
of their shadow responsibilities have been such that only limited time
can be devoted to committee duties. It is not unusual for only three or
so members out of a membership of fourteen to attend public hearings.
The committee believes that the number of positions on
general purpose standing committees should be reduced to ten and that
the membership of the Procedure Committee should be reduced to seven.
The committee received a number of submissions relating
to the adequacy of staff and financial resources provided to committees.
The committee considers the question of resources to be outside its terms
of reference but notes that if the number of committees were reduced,
additional resources would be available to the remaining committees.
All general purpose standing committees traditionally
have conducted general inquiries into subject matter referred to them
by the Minister. The Ministers referral is usually at the request of
the committee. The fact that annual reports stand referred also provides
a vehicle for these general inquiries. This, in effect, allows the committee
to undertake any inquiry it chooses without the need for referral by a
Minister. There appears to be little justification to deny committees
the right to initiate their own inquiries.
As with annual reports, the committee considers that
reports of the Auditor-General and petitions should stand referred to
committees for any inquiry they may wish to make.
Since 1994 (to the end of the 1998 Autumn sittings),
only ten bills have been referred to the House general purpose standing
committees and 18 to joint statutory committees. If related bills referred
to the committees as a package are considered as a single reference, the
numbers are even less encouraging. The committee is disappointed that
more bills have not been referred to committees. The committee however,
does not support the automatic referral of bills at the second reading
stage. Rather, it encourages the Government to consider referring a higher
proportion of its legislation to House of Representatives standing committees.
As a matter of principle, the committee considers that
bills should only be referred to joint committees in exceptional circumstances
and that Senators should not be involved in what is, in effect, House
business. If necessary, the House may refer a bill specifically to a committee
consisting of House members of a joint committee, rather than to the joint
committee as a whole.
There is almost universal criticism of the small amount
of time allocated to debating reports. The time taken for discussing committee
matters in the Chamber comprised only 2 percent of Chamber time. Committee
matters were discussed in the Main Committee for only 12 percent of Main
Committee time in 1997. This is despite the perception by many Members
that the Main Committee provides a significant amount of its time for
the discussion of committee matters.
It is also frustrating and disappointing that governments
do not respond to reports in a proper and timely manner. Often the delays
in responding to committees may relate to the nature of the recommendations
rather than a lack of commitment by the Government. However as a minimum
requirement, the Government should provide an interim response within
three months.
A greater priority should be given to debating committee
reports. More flexibility should be given to the Selection Committee to
program statements on the tabling of reports. In addition, time should
be allocated for debate in the Main Committee that same week. The committee
also believes that the process of presenting government responses to committee
reports should be formalised in the standing orders and that time be allocated
for debate on the response.
There are varying means through which Members of the
House are appointed to serve on committees. For those internal committees
for which there is no nomination process stipulated in the standing orders,
the practice has been that the House appoints Members by resolution. For
some other committees the standing orders include a nomination process
and Members are deemed to be officially appointed on receipt by the Speaker
of appropriate letters of nomination, with the House being advised subsequently
by the Speaker of the nominations. Statutory committee membership is effected
by resolution of the House. The committee believes that the standing orders
be amended to provide for appointment by resolution of the House in all
cases.
Some submissions and some committee chairs are critical
of Members who do not regularly attend meetings. The committee notes these
views but does not support amendments to the standing orders to discourage
committee membership of shadow ministers, restrict Members to a specific
number of committees or require the resignation of Members who do not
attend regularly. The committee believes that more informal processes
would achieve the desired results. The proposed reduction in the number
of members on each committee (and the reduction in the number of committees)
should relieve the pressure on the time of members. It believes that Members
would have extreme difficulty in effectively serving on more than three
committees. The committee considers, however, that the number of committees
on which each Member is allowed serve is a matter for each party to decide.
Joint standing and select committees are established
by resolution agreed to by both Houses. The standing orders are largely
silent on the procedures to be followed by joint committees. It has become
the established practice for such committees to follow Senate select committee
procedures when such procedures differ from those of the House. As joint
committees are creatures of both Houses the committee considers that it
is important that the two Houses agree to arrangements, such as quorums,
for the operation of joint committees which meet the needs of both Houses
and the committees themselves.
Increasingly, committees have adopted less formal and
more flexible approaches to the gathering of information and providing
public input to committee activities. These approaches were developing
well before the establishment of the current committee system. These processes
can take the form of informal discussions, public meetings, seminars or
workshops. There has been some doubt in the past as to whether these informal
proceedings attract parliamentary privilege. The experience of a decade
of operations of the House general purpose standing committees indicates
that to a large extent the question of privilege does not arise. However,
the Parliamentary Privileges Act provides that:
"proceedings in Parliament" means all words
spoken and acts done in the course of, or for the purposes of or
incidental to, the transacting of the business of the House or of
a committee (emphasis added).
The committee believes that, with the recognition of
informal committee proceedings in the standing orders of the House, it
would be difficult to argue that parliamentary privilege did not apply
to any proceedings properly conducted by a parliamentary committee. The
committee considers that committees should freely be able to use in reports
material gathered by informal processes, provided that the type of process
used is acknowledged and the person providing the information is aware
that it may be used in this way. The committee also believes that the
standing orders should be amended to recognise the less formal procedures,
which have become an accepted part of modern committees operations.
The House has authorised the use of electronic communication
devices to conduct committee hearings. In addition, documentary evidence
can be received by electronic means, ie electronic mail, facsimile, telex,
computer disc and video. The committee strongly supports the formal recognition
of the use of modern technology as part of the inquiry process.
It is clear that guidelines for dealing with witnesses
need to be adopted as a matter of some priority, not only to ensure that
witnesses are treated in a suitably respectful manner when they appear
before a committee, but also to ensure that that they are in a position
to provide the committee with the required information. Committees of
the House use the procedures laid down in the Procedure Committees 1989
report on procedures for dealing with witnesses as current reference points
and non-binding guidelines. However, these procedures have no formal status
until adopted by the House in a resolution of continuing effect. The committee
supports the recommendations of its predecessor and recommends their adoption
by the House with some minor modifications.
The confidentiality of evidence taken by committees is
provided for in standing orders, resolutions of appointment and, for committees
established by statute, enabling legislation. The Parliamentary Privileges
Act 1987 makes it an offence for a person to disclose or publish a
document or evidence taken in camera without the authority
of the House or a committee.
The Procedure Committee reviewed the question of disclosure
of in camera evidence in 1991 and concluded that a rigorous mechanism
should be put in place to ensure that in camera evidence could
only be disclosed in the most extraordinary circumstances. That committee
recommended severe penalties for Members who disclosed in camera
evidence, including exclusion from committees and suspension from the
House. The committee agrees with the recommendations of its 1991 predecessor,
with the exception of penalties. The committee considers that the House
should decide penalties for unauthorised disclosure on a case by case
basis following investigation and recommendation by the Privileges Committee.
The standing orders, as presently constructed, have application
to committees in several distinct and seemingly unrelated chapters. The
standing orders also contain provisions that no longer apply and some
of the language is dated and unclear.
The committee has proposed changes to the standing orders
which:
- Implement the recommendations contained in this report;
- Restructure the standing orders relating to committees into a more
logical format;
- Make the powers and procedures more consistent across all committees
of the Housewith a few minor exceptions, all committees, including
the domestic committees are given the same powers; and
- Update archaic language and remove references to obsolete practices.
Where the recommendations propose amendments to the standing
orders, the proposed standing orders are set out in appendix 4 of this
report.
The committee recommends that:
-
The total number of committees on which Members of the House serve
be reduced.
The reduction in the number of committees be achieved by not reappointing
the following committees in the 39th Parliament
The Joint Standing Committees on Electoral Matters, Migration and
the National Capital and External Territories. (recommendation 1)
-
The following committees not be reappointed in the 39th
Parliament
The Joint Parliamentary Committees on the Australian Security Intelligence
Organization, Corporations and Securities, the National Crime Authority
and Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land
Fund. (recommendation 2)
-
The standing orders be amended to provide
-
That general purpose standing committees consist of ten Members,
six government and four non-government Members. (recommendation 3)
-
For the appointment of up to two additional Members for a particular
inquiry. (recommendation 4)
-
The membership of the Procedure Committee be reduced to seven. (recommendation 5)
-
Standing orders be amended to enable committees to determine their
own references. (recommendation 6)
-
Standing orders be amended to provide for reports of the Auditor-General
to stand referred to general purpose standing committees for any inquiry
they wish to make. Each committee shall notify the Joint Committee
of Public Accounts and Audit in writing when it intends to examine
a report. (recommendation 7)
-
The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit develop procedures
to ensure that the views of general purpose standing committees are
sought prior to the determination of Parliaments audit priorities.
(recommendation 8)
-
As a general rule, bills should only be referred to House committees
or, if necessary, the House may refer a bill specifically to a committee
consisting of House members of a joint committee, rather than to the
joint committee as a whole. (recommendation 9)
-
Standing orders be amended to provide for petitions to stand referred
to general purpose standing committees for any inquiry the committee
may wish to make. (recommendation 10)
-
Standing orders be amended to enable the Selection Committee to determine
the balance between committee and delegation business and private
Members business within an overall allocation of time each Monday.
(recommendation 11)
-
The order of business and the times of sitting be reviewed to enable
debate on committee reports, in the Main Committee, to commence during
the same week as tabling. (recommendation 12)
-
The standing orders be amended to
-
Require the Government to respond to committee reports within three
months of tabling. (recommendation 13)
-
Enable a Member to request the Speaker to write to the Minister
if, after three months, a response has not been made. (recommendation 14)
-
Require the Speaker to table in the House, at six monthly intervals,
a schedule of government responses to the reports of House of Representatives
and joint committees, and reports presented to which responses are
outstanding. (recommendation 15)
-
The standing orders be amended to provide for
-
A specified time (eg immediately prior to the presentation of committee
and delegation reports on Mondays) for the presentation of government
responses to committee reports. (recommendation 16)
-
Automatic placement on the Notice Paper of government responses
to committee reports when presented. (recommendation 17)
-
The order of business and times of sitting be reviewed to enable
government responses to committee reports to be debated, either in
the House or the Main Committee. (recommendation 18)
-
The standing orders governing the appointment of members to serve
on committees be amended to provide for appointment by resolution
of the House in all cases. (recommendation 19)
-
The Speaker and the President of the Senate confer on the development
of suitable joint standing orders concerning the operation of joint
committees which should then be agreed to by both Houses. (recommendation 20)
-
The standing orders be amended to recognise as appropriate inquiry
procedure, the less formal processes used by committees in the gathering
of information. (recommendation 21)
-
The existing procedures relating to the use of electronic communication
devices by committees be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure
prior to the end of the 39th Parliament with a view to
their incorporation in the standing orders. (recommendation 22)
-
The standing orders be amended to recognise, as evidence, documents
received by committees by electronic means. (recommendation 23)
-
The House agree to a resolution providing procedures for dealing
with witnesses in the terms set out in appendix 2 to this report.
(recommendation 24)
-
The House adopt the 1991 recommendations of the Standing Committee
on Procedure relating to the disclosure of in camera evidence,
except for that recommendation relating to penalties. (recommendation 25)
-
Penalties for unauthorised disclosure be decided by the House on
a case by case basis following investigation and report by the Privileges
Committee. The terms of the proposed resolution are set out in appendix
3 to this report. (recommendation 26)
-
The standing orders be amended as set out in appendix 4 of this report
to implement the recommendations and make other related changes. (recommendation 27)
|
