Some Reflections on the Australian Parliamentary committee system - An address to the seminar on Parliamentary Reform in Malaysia

Mr Speaker, Finance Minister, Excellencies, including the Australian High Commissioner to Malaysia, Members of the Malaysian Parliament, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Thank you for the kind invitation to participate in this important seminar, which comes at a time of significant reform in your nation.

I bring with me the greetings of the Speaker of the Australian Parliament, the Hon Tony Smith MP. I am delighted to be back in Malaysia – the last time I was here was as the Australian Defence Minister during a visit to a number of countries in Asia. Australia enjoys a warm relationship with Malaysia through trade, security arrangements and education. Some 300,000 Malaysians have studied at Australian universities and it was good to join many of them at the Australian alumni dinner and awards last evening.

My remarks today are made in the context of the promise by the Government to restore the dignity of the Parliament, a major component of which involves the creation of a series of Parliamentary Committees. My visit follows a visit by the Speaker and a Parliamentary delegation to Australia in September.

While I will draw on my experience of more than 27 years in the Australian Parliament, there is an important qualification: There is much in common in the background and history of our systems of government, but there are also differences. I do not pretend that our experiences in Australia are universally applicable. Rather, I offer observations by which you may make a comparison about your own circumstances, aspirations and requirements.

Australian Parliamentary Committees

Although the Australian Parliament has existed since the Federation of the states into the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, the committee system is of more recent origin. In 1970, The Senate appointed seven legislative and general purpose standing committees and five estimates committees.

The House of Representatives subsequently established a system of general purpose standing committees in 1987.The new standing committees, together with the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence provided the House with the instruments to inquire into and report on the entire range of government activity.

There are broadly six types of committees in the Australian Parliament.

The first are the General Purpose Committees (in both the House and the Senate). Examples include committees relating to Agriculture and Water; Economics; Social Policy and Legal Affairs; and Health Aged Care and Sport. These committees may also examine Bills referred to them, in a similar manner to the Select Committees recently announced here in Malaysia.

Secondly, there are Domestic Committees which address the procedures, processes and services of the Parliament, such the Procedures Committee, the Privileges and Members Interests Committee and the Library Committee. These are similar to your Selection, Standing Orders, House and Privileges Committees in the Malaysian Parliament.

Thirdly, there are joint House and Senate Statutory Committees which are established by legislation. Examples include the Public Accounts and Audit Committee and the Public Works Committee. I note that the Malaysian Parliament also has a Public Accounts Committee.

Fourthly, there are Joint Standing Committees. These committees are established by the resolution of both chambers. Examples include the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Fifthly, there are Joint Select Committees, established by resolution of both houses that address a short term issue. For example, a committee in the current Australian Parliament has been examining the question of Constitutional recognition for indigenous people. The Committee tabled its final report recently, and has therefore concluded its work.

Finally, the Senate has Estimates Committees that examine the budgets of the various government departments and agencies three times each year.

Having indicated the different types of committees in Australia, I should stress that there is no particular reason why there are different types of committees. The differences are more the result of historic decisions. Combined, the various committees cover all areas of government activity. Let me turn then to the purpose and value of Parliamentary committees before providing a number of examples about the impact of some committees.

The value of Parliamentary Committees

There are many advantages in a vibrant committee system. It allows for the in-depth examination of issues by Members of Parliament, and greater input by the community, scholars, experts and groups representing various interests in the nation.

There is a deep scepticism – in same cases cynicism – about the political process in many countries. The work of committees can help to bridge the divide between the formal institutional structures of the Parliament and the community. Hence, many Australian Parliamentary committees conduct hearings and discussions in many parts of the country, going to the people.

Most people do not join political parties, but many join community and other organisations. By providing a means for discussion with these organisations, Parliamentary committees again help to bridge the formal divide, bringing the work of the legislature closer to the people by listening to their concerns and issues in a format designed to work towards solutions.

This in turn assists Members of Parliament and their parties to maintain a rapport with their constituents. As the Australian scholar, Professor Ian Marsh has written:

“Elections create governments and clothe them with authority, but it is not a durable authority. Particularly in these days, when citizens are much more informed about politics and much more engaged, it is much more important to create that ongoing link between citizens and the community.”

It has also been my experience that committees are more likely to build a consensus about policy solutions to the various challenges facing the country. As the House Procedure Committee observed in a report on the work of committees:

“Historically, House committees have focussed on working cooperatively to formulate constructive solutions to public policy problems.”

Committees can take a longer-term assessment of the issues before them, free from the usual political posturing.

Democracy depends on accountability which is aided by transparency – how and why public funds are expended; how decisions are reached; and so forth. The Public Accounts and Audit Committee, and the Public Works Committee, two of the long-standing committees in the Australian Parliament serve this function, as do the Senate Estimates Committees which examine the budgets of government departments and statutory agencies.

The Committee process has also evolved in recent years to include regular discussions with senior public officials and oversight of significant national agencies. Hence the House Economics Committee has regular public and private hearings with the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Similarly, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Committee, which I chair, regularly questions Ministers, senior officials of the National Disability Insurance Agency and senior public servants responsible for the scheme.

Committees also provide Members of Parliament with many opportunities to receive private briefings. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, for example, has numerous briefings each week from defence and foreign affairs officials, the senior leadership of the Defence Forces, Ambassadors and representatives of foreign governments, visiting delegations, and non-government organisations.

Case Studies

Let me illustrate my observations with a number of case studies. They illustrate how the work of a committee can assist the development of policy, especially about contentious issues.

Child Custody Arrangements

The first involves the troubling issue of divorce and separation which often has a detrimental impact on the former spouses and their children.

Soon after my election to Parliament, I was appointed to a select committee to inquire into the operation of the child support system. Under the court system that had operated in Australia till the end of the 1980s, financial support for children of separated parents had become virtually a voluntary payment.

Faced with a barrage of complaints about child support, the Parliament asked the Committee to examine the operation of the new child support scheme.

The Committee received more than 6,000 submissions, the largest number then for an inquiry ever conducted by the Australian Parliament, and more than 150,000 attempts were made by Australians to contact the Inquiry on a special telephone hotline.

The cross-party committee agreed that there were inequities that should be remedied. Yet within an hour of the release of the report, the then Minister categorically ruled out any substantial change. Apart from the substantive issues involved, the curt response was unproductive. It was part of the reason, I believe, why child support remained a political issue for so long.

The issues had not been resolved when the Howard government was elected in 1996. On regular occasions, government MPs would raise the issue. As a consequence, further inquiries were established, including another that I chaired in 1998, and a break through report in 2003 entitled Every Picture Tells a Story. The committee heard from thousands of Australians before drafting a report. The recommendations from the Report were adopted by the Government and became the basis for a new Family Dispute Resolution program and changes to child support. The fact that the Committee members had been able to agree on changes in a very contentious area of social policy enabled the Parliament to make significant changes to the system that had been operating.

Moreover, these changes resolved many of the problems that separating parents and their children had experienced, and largely remain in place today.

Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research

The advent of research into human cloning in the 1990s was a matter of considerable controversy. There was very little regulation and great contention about the ethics of various practices. As a consequence, the Parliament asked the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I then chaired, to examine the issue.

It was unsurprising that the diversity of opinion in the community over the use of embryos in cloning research for the derivation of embryonic stem cells or any other purpose was reflected amongst Committee members. While all members agreed that embryos should not be created for research, the question of whether existing embryonic stem cells could be used for therapeutic use divided the Committee. The challenge was how to civilly reflect these differences and yet agree on a regulatory scheme. This we did by recording the different opinions on this issue in an otherwise unanimous report. As a consequence, the regulatory scheme proposed by the committee became the basis of new legislation.

Other examples of Committee reports having a significant impact on government policy and legislation include the Ships of Shame report on maritime safety; and The Blame Game report on health funding.

Constitutional Change

Having illustrated a number of examples where the work of a Parliamentary Committee shaped government policy, programs and legislation, let me refer to a case where a failure to adopt the recommendations compounded the problems.

Those who have followed Australian politics in recent years will be aware that the question of whether certain members and senators have been constitutionally eligible to sit in the Parliament has been a controversial issue. A number of members and senators have been ruled ineligible by the High Court, because they were found to have had retained an allegiance to a foreign country. This was because the person concerned, or a parent or grandparent had citizenship of another nation, sometimes unknown to them.

A committee I then chaired recommended in 1998 that the Constitutional provisions in question, having been enacted more than a century earlier, did not accord with the contemporary situation in Australia to which large numbers of people had migrated since World War II, many of whom had dual citizenship. The recommendations were accepted by the then government of Prime Minister Howard, but never implemented. As a consequence, the problem remained unresolved, with a number of Parliamentarians being found ineligible to sit in the Parliament in recent years. Had the recommendation of the Committee been implemented, the recent problems could have been averted.

Some further reflections

The role of the Committee Chair is critical to the success of a Parliamentary Committee. A enthusiastic, committed Chairperson who can work with members from different parties in a cooperative manner, is more likely to succeed. An emphasis on policy, rather than politics, is critical if cross-party committees are to find commonly accepted solutions to the issues before them.

I always strive, as a Committee chair, to reach conclusions and make recommendations that all members of the committee subscribe to. If a committee is divided, the government can simply dismiss any proposals from it. Conversely, a unanimous bi-partisan report carries considerable weight.

In Australia, a Parliamentary Committee is independent of the Executive Government. As a minister, I welcomed the work of Parliamentary Committees. A unanimous report from a committee signalled to me that there was agreement on the policy response to the issues the committee had considered. Accordingly, it was easier for the government to implement the policy and program changes suggested by the committee.

We have been blessed in Australia by having highly competent research staff for our Parliamentary Committees. Their efforts, assisted by the work of the Parliamentary Library research staff, add considerably to the quality of committee reports. Members of Parliament tend to be generalists – we have to know a little about a myriad of subjects. Most of us develop specialist knowledge in a few subjects, but rely on experts in many policy areas. Hence, the research staff of our committees is critical for the quality of our work, as is the ability to second experts to assist our research and inquiries. I

Finally, a periodic review of the work of committees, such as that undertaken by the House Committee on Procedure, is desirable, both to ensure the committee system is operating as effectively as possible, and achieving the aspirations of both Parliament and the people.

The work of committees enhances the purpose of our Parliament to views of all Australians and to best respond to them. This involves a long-term view of how to create, sustain and enhance our institutional arrangements. The enhanced committee system is a nation-building exercise.

Our committee system has and will continue to evolve: public submissions are encouraged; hearings are. Inducted in public; reports are published online; 5e government is required to respond and its response is published; and committee reports are debated in Parliament. These measures enhance a participatory and consultative approach.

I wish you well in your endeavours to best represent the wishes and interests of the people of Malaysia.

Ends.