Australia’s parliamentary model of rights protection depends in large part on the capacity of the federal Parliament to scrutinise the law-making activities of the Executive government. Emergency law-making undertaken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the Australian Parliament’s capacity to provide meaningful scrutiny of proposed laws, particularly identifying and addressing the impact of emergency powers on the rights of individuals. In this context, the work of parliamentary committees has become increasingly important. Special committees, such as the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, have been set up to provide oversight and review of Australia’s response to the pandemic. This article gives an early glimpse into the key features of the COVID-19 Committee and the way it may interact with other committees within the federal system to scrutinise the government's legislative response to the pandemic. It also offers some preliminary thoughts on the capacity of these committees to deliver meaningful rights scrutiny.
Algorithms, data, and AI (ADA) technologies permeate most societies worldwide because of their proven benefits in different areas of life. Governments are the entities in charge of harnessing the benefits of ADA technologies above and beyond providing government services digitally. ADA technologies have the potential to transform the way governments develop and deliver services to citizens, and the way citizens engage with their governments. Conventional public engagement strategies employed by governments have limited both the quality and diversity of deliberation between the citizen and their governments, and the potential for ADA technologies to be employed to improve the experience for both governments and the citizens they serve. In this article we argue that ADA technologies can improve the quality, scope, and reach of public engagement by governments, particularly when coupled with other strategies to ensure legitimacy and accessibility among a broad range of communities and other stakeholders. In particular, we explore the role “narrative building” (NB) can play in facilitating public engagement through the use of ADA technologies. We describe a theoretical implementation of NB enhanced by adding natural language processing, expert knowledge elicitation, and semantic differential rating scales capabilities to increase gains in scale and reach. The theoretical implementation focuses on the public’s opinion on ADA-related technologies, and it derives implications for ethical governance.
This paper evaluates the impact of pre and post-enactment scrutiny of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws enacted from 2001 until 2018. Parliamentary scrutiny of rights-engaging laws is particularly critical in the Australian content, as Australia relies on a parliamentary model of rights protection at the federal level. The evaluation framework employed in this Paper considers a range of evidence to provide a holistic account of the impact of legislative scrutiny on the content, development and implementation of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws. This includes consideration of the legislative impact of scrutiny on the content of the law, the role scrutiny plays in the public and parliamentary debate on the law, as well as the hidden impact scrutiny, may be having on policy development and legislative drafting. The results are surprising. This study finds that parliamentary rights scrutiny, particularly by parliamentary committees, has had a rights-enhancing (although rarely rights-remedying) impact on the counter-terrorism laws. Further, this research finds that the hidden or behind-the-scenes impact of parliamentary scrutiny provides a particularly fertile ground for improving the rights-protecting capacity of the Australian legislative scrutiny system. These findings and the evaluation framework employed in this Paper have application and benefits for other jurisdictions seeking to understand and improve the quality of their legislative scrutiny regimes.
This article offers a snapshot of how Australian parliamentary committees scrutinise Bills for their rights-compliance in circumstances where the political stakes are high and the rights impacts strong. It tests the assumption that parliamentary models of rights protection are inherently flawed when it comes to Bills directed at electorally unpopular groups such as bikies and terrorists by analysing how parliamentary committees have scrutinised rights-limiting anti-bikie Bills and counter-terrorism Bills. Through these case studies a more nuanced picture emerges, with evidence that, in the right circumstances, parliamentary scrutiny of ‘law and order’ can have a discernible rights-enhancing impact. The article argues that when parliamentary committees engage external stakeholders they can contribute to the development of an emerging culture of rights-scrutiny. While this emerging culture may not yet work to prevent serious intrusions into individual rights, at the federal level there are signs it may at least be capable of moderating these intrusions.
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.