Introduction

Committees are an under-studied aspect of parliamentary life and the policy process. There has been no comprehensive review of the Australian system since 2007 (Halligan et al, 2007). Yet, as registered in activity and output, committees occupy a significant proportion of the time of Members of the House of Representatives and Senators. For example, in the 43rd Parliament (2010–13), there were 15 House committees, 24 joint committees and 20 Senate committees. Twenty were single-subject select committees but most were standing committees with ongoing oversight and investigatory roles. These committees together issued 712 reports, averaging about 237 each year. These ranged from short statements to quite lengthy reviews.

This chapter offers a preliminary appraisal of committee activity – in particular, their actual and potential significance in the political and policy development process. For evidence, the chapter draws on recent academic analyses of committee work, including public engagement and outreach, and on a sketch of reports issued during the 2010–13 Parliament. It concludes that the present system is much weaker than that in several other contemporary Westminster parliaments (Britain, New Zealand and Scotland). In these other parliaments, there has been more attention to the role of committees and to the development of a rationale for independent committees (on Britain, see Kelso, 2009; Brazier and Fox, 2011; House of Commons Liaison Committee, 2012; on Scotland, see Cairney, forthcoming; on New Zealand, see Miller, forthcoming), and the entrenched resistance of the executive in Britain to augmenting committee roles has been documented (Russell, 2011). Parallel efforts are conspicuously absent in Australia – indeed, the largely consensual character of committee reports over past decades has now been displaced by partisanship (Halligan et al, 2007, pp 228–33).

There are, however, sufficient examples of successful inquiries to indicate the positive contributions that committees can make: first, the committee system can create a transparent arena for interaction between interests and the state in key policy domains; second, it sometimes provides a platform through which emerging issues and grievances can be constructively aired; and, third, such quantitative evidence as is available suggests the committees have made a positive contribution to legislative amendment.