Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Committees of Influence

  • 297 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter sets out the unique methodology employed in this research, which seeks to measure three ‘tiers’ of impact: legislative (whether the content of proposed laws changes as a result of parliamentary committee activity); public (whether the public or parliamentary debate on proposed laws is influenced by the work of parliamentary committees); and hidden (whether the work of parliamentary committees has an impact on how proposed laws are developed prior to introduction into Parliament). This chapter also includes an overview of past evaluations of parliamentary committees and describes how the assessment framework used this research is designed to overcome weaknesses and challenges previously encountered.

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.

    Details about the process for selecting interviewees and how interviews were conducted is available in Moulds 2018 Appendix A.

References

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 

  • 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 

  • Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Book  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A. (2002). Political legitimacy and democracy. Ethics, 112(4), 689–719.

    Article  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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, D. (2015). Democracy, law and human rights: Politics as challenge and opportunity. In Hunt, M. Hooper, H. J & Yowell, P. (Eds.), Parliaments and human rights: Redressing the democratic deficit (pp. 95–117). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, A. (2017, November 1). Human rights scrutiny in the Australian parliament. Paper presented at ‘Evaluating inquests, commissions and inquiries’ symposium, La Trobe University, Melbourne.

    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 (pp. 31–63). Sydney: Thompson Reuters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, G. (2005). Parliament and accountability: The role of parliamentary oversight committees (Briefing paper no 12/05). Sydney: Parliamentary Library Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawes, D. (1992). Parliamentary select committees: Some case studies in contingent influence. Policy & Politics, 20, 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J. L. (2002). Charter conflicts: What is parliament’s role? Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J. L. (2015). Legislative rights review: Addressing the gap between ideals and constraints. In Hunt, M. Hooper, H. J & Yowell, P. (Eds.), Parliaments and human rights: Redressing the democratic deficit (pp. 39–52). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, J. (2010, August 25). A chance to end the mindless allegiance of party discipline. The Sydney Morning Herald (online) https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-chance-to-end-the-mindless-allegiance-of-party-discipline-20100824-13q9b.html. Accessed 8 Jan 2020.

  • 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.

  • Hunt, M. (2010). The impact of the human rights act on the legislature: A diminution of democracy or a new voice for parliament? European Human Rights Law Review, 6, 601–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, A. (2015). In M. Hunt, H. J. Hooper, & P. Yowell (Eds.), Parliaments and human rights: Redressing the democratic deficit (pp. 111–134). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    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 

  • Larkin, P., Hindmoor, A., & Kenyon, A. (2009). Assessing the influence of select committees in the UK: The education and skills committee 1997–2005. Journal of Legislative Studies, 15, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572330802666844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, G. (2005, August). How (and whether?) to evaluate parliamentary committees – From a Lawyer’s perspective. About the House (pp. 55–58).

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin, B. (1987). On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory, 15, 338–368.

    Article  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.

  • 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

  • Pettit, P. (2001). Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues, 11, 268–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (2007). Lectures on the history of political philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    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 

  • Ripstein, A. (2004). Authority and coercion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32(1), 2–35.

    Article  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.

  • Shaw, M. (1998). Parliamentary committees: A global perspective. Journal of Legislative Studies, 4(1), 225–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572339808420547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, B. (1998). Size and executive-legislative relations in Australian parliaments. Australian Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolley, M. C. (2009). Parliamentary scrutiny of rights in the United Kingdom: Assessing the work of the joint committee on human rights. Australian Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140802656922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhr, J. (2006). The role of Australian legislatures in protecting rights. In T. Campbell, J. Goldsworthy, & A. Stone (Eds.), Protecting rights without a bill of rights (pp. 41–62). London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ham, C., & Chappell. (2017). L. Democracy and human rights: A tripartite conceptual framework. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 23(2), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2017.1371927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Weber, M. (1918). Politics as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. London: Routledge. 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willams, 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 

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). Methodology. In: Committees of Influence. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4350-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4350-0_2

  • 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