Activity 10k

1. The task word ‘discuss’ require students to consider both sides of something. In this case, ‘discussing’ the ability of either one parliamentary committee or one royal commission to influence law reformrequires students to write about factors related to how effective or ineffective the parliamentary committee or royal commission was. Responses will vary according to the arguments selected.

Students should ensure that examples are recent – within the last four years. The Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications inquiry into Waste and Recycling could be used as an example of a parliamentary committee; the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse could be used as an example of a royal commission.

Strengths of parliamentary committees:

• Committees have wide-ranging powers including calling experts, conducting hearings and receiving privatesubmissions.
• Committees encourage members of different parties to work together for a common goal.
• Reports are tabled in parliament, and the relevant minister is frequently compelled to issue a response.
• Each house is able to give punishments for actions that interfere with the work of its committees, for example, refusal to attend a hearing can be punishedas contempt.
• Members of the public have the opportunity to make formal submissions and to give evidence – they can contribute their opinionsand ideas to the investigative process and validate the recommendations as democratic and representative.
• Committees are more accessible than parliament on the whole is, and go to special lengths to hear the views of stakeholders– especially stakeholders with any disadvantage or disability… this gives individuals and organisations with less power moreopportunities to meaningfully contribute.

Weaknesses of parliamentary committees:

• Research can be compromised by party politics.
• Committees are expected to cover too much ground to do proper research on everything in their field.
• Committees sometimes conclude an inquiry with the recommendation that the Government launch a royal commission – this can be seenas handballing the issue and delaying resolution.
• Many committee reports are tabled in parliament, and it is impractical to expect each of them to carry significant weight.
• Most committee reports are tabled when the house is not sitting – this allows the report to be made publicly available, but it loses the impact ofbeing presented to the members of parliament while they are present in the house.
• Committees do not have control over their own powers: they are limited in their investigations to the powers that have been delegatedthem, and the scope of their terms of reference.
• Committees can only investigate what is referred to them, and they cannot implement their own recommendations.
• The government has the power to avoid committee scrutiny.
• The powers of committees to make meaningful recommendations can be compromised by politics and power-games.
• Committees only have the power to make recommendations: they cannot make changes to laws themselves.
• Many people are not aware of the work of parliamentary committees, so do not send in submissions to contribute to the investigationand recommendations.

Strengths of royal commissions:

• Commissions have wide-ranging powers including calling experts, conducting hearings and receiving privatesubmissions.
• Commissions can compel participation and have the flexibility to engage with stakeholders and experts in person, in writing, over thetelephone or online; in private or in public.
• Penalties can be given for an individual refusing the order of a commission, for example, penalties include fines and up to two yearsimprisonment.
• Commissions can take broad, systemic approaches to issues, and look into matters of huge public importance.
• Commission reports can be highly influential – for instance, numerous statutory bodies have been established as a result of the work of commissions.
• Even though the executive established commissions and sets their terms of reference, history has shown us that they cannot controlthe findings.
• Commissions have the power to hold some of their hearings in private, to protect witnesses.
• Members of the public have the opportunity to make formal submissions and to give evidence – they can contribute their opinionsand ideas to the investigative process and validate the recommendations as democratic and representative.
• Commissions are more accessible than parliament on the whole is, and go to special lengths to hear the views of stakeholders– especially stakeholders with any disadvantage or disability… this gives individuals and organisations with less power moreopportunities to meaningfully contribute.
• Commissions usually operate entirely out in the public realm, and their reports are public – this gives them greater transparency, andincreases the perceived integrity and accountability of the commission.

Weaknesses of royal commissions:

• The quality of research conducted by commissions is at the cost of time and money, and extensions of both midway through the inquiry are common.
• Commissions must be appointed on advice of the Government, the terms of reference are written up by the executive, and commissioners are selected bythe executive – this gives the Government considerable power over what a commission investigates.
• The results of commissions are published in enormous, multi-volume reports – these are difficult to find online, and must often be purchasedin hardback print copy.
• The reporting of some commissions has been almost completely ignored by the government of the day – this can be a particular problem ifthe report takes years to produce, and the governing party has changed in the meantime.
• Commissions do not have control over their own powers: they are limited in their investigations to the powers that have been delegatedthem, and the scope of their terms of reference.
• Commissions only have the power to make recommendations: they cannot make changes to laws themselves.
• There are concerns about the powers of royal commissions, and the lack of review of their processes.
• A commission’s report is public, but there is no statutory requirement that it be tabled in parliament.

2. The task word ‘evaluate’ require students to consider both sides of something, as well as express an opinion judging the relative strengths of the arguments. For example, a student might argue, based on evidence, that while some features of parliamentary committees and/or royal commissionsmight result in them only having a minimal impact on influencing law reform, theyare largely effective in influencing law reform. In this case, ‘evaluating’ parliamentary committees and/or royal commissionsas government inquiries for influencing law reform requires students to write about points related to effectiveness and points related to ineffectiveness.

3. The task word ‘evaluate’ require students to consider both sides of something, as well as express an opinion judging the relative strengths of the arguments. For example, a student might argue, based on evidence, that while some features of parliamentary committeesor royal commissions might result in them having minimal ability to influence law reform, they are largely effective in influencing law reform. In this case, ‘evaluating’ the ability of parliamentary committeesor royal commissions to influence law reform requires students to write about points related to strengths and weaknesses.

This specific question requires students to evaluate strengths, meaning they must commence with a stated strength, giving reasons for why it is an advantage/benefit, then move on to provide reasons against that in the form of weaknesses that counterbalance the strength. Students should then finish with a concluding opinion on how ‘good’ the strength is overall.

For example, in relation to parliamentary committees, one strength of parliamentary committees is that they have wide-ranging powers of research that can include calling experts, conducting hearings and receiving private submissions. Committees frequently spend months scrutinising a bill in detail before reporting back to the house. However, the research of parliamentary committees can be compromised by party politics. Senate references committees, for example, are chaired by non-Government members, but the paired legislation committee is always chaired by a Government member. Giving opposing parties control allows them to influence the work of the committee. Further, parliamentary committees are expected to cover too much ground to do proper research on everything in their field. Overall, while there are some factors can limit the ability of parliamentary committees to influence law reform, they do have wide-ranging powers of research and can spend time researching a field in their area of expertise.

For example, in relation to royal commissions, one strength of royal commissions reports is that they can be highly influential and carry the weight of independent commissioners. Further, even though the executive establishes commissions and sets their terms of reference, history has shown us that they cannot control the findings. However, the results of royal commissions are published in enormous, multi-volume reports. These are difficult to find online, and must often be purchased in hardback print copy. They are also frequently known by the surname of the chairperson of the inquiry, so can be confusing to locate. Further, the reporting of some commissions has been almost completely ignored by the government of the day. This can be a particular problem if the report takes years to produce, and the governing party has changed in the meantime. Overall, while there are some factors can limit the ability of royal commissions to influence law reform, they do have great influence, are independent and carry the weight of commissioners.