Reading Response 9:
Parliament in the Twenty – first Century
Institutional Reform and Emerging Roles - John Halligan, Robin Miller and John Power
Parliament has been changing and adapting with the passage of time, particularly over the past forty years. As these changes have taken place formal education in Australia has increased, including the broadening of the curriculum at both Primary and Secondary levels to include studies in government and the parliamentary processes of decision making. These factors have caused people to become more interested and more aware of the wider world and other systems of government. “By the end of the 1960,s, parliaments had been largely confined to the institutional dustbin, except as a vehicle for the executive to formalise decisions made elsewhere. Over the past forty years, however, parliamentary institutions internationally have undergone a revival. This resurgence has occurred on the back of extensive institutional change and adaption.”
As technology advances and society has progressed in other areas of life, parliament has also adapted to accommodate the rapidly changing world in which we live. Some would say that although in Australia much change has taken place, many of our systems and laws require further modification.
These days’ politicians are pressured to vote “with the party”. Halligan, Miller and Power are correct when they state “It (parliament) is no longer a forum for individuals to support concerns of their constituents ...... the proceedings have generated into a continuous and elementary election campaign.” “Crossing the floor” is akin to desertion. In the rare instances where a member has voted against the party line the politician involved is usually condemned by the party faithful or applauded by the opposition. Generally the vote will receive wide media coverage. Voting with one’s conscious or reflecting the voice of the electorate is rare.
Major reforms have occurred within the parliamentary process to cope with the ever workloads as our country has moved from a small self sufficient insular nation to that of a modern Australia, a full participant in the international arena. To cope with these changes and ever increasing workloads Parliament has adapted and appointed committees to deal with these extra demands. “The common response of parliaments internationally to modern demands and public expectations has been to develop their internal structures. Generally this has involved much of the business of the chamber being transferred to small groups of members meeting as committees.
A committee system can be seen to have distinctive advantages through reducing overload on the chambers; allowing for a different operating style and less partisan discussion; offering scope for members to make concrete contributions and facilitating communication with citizens.” Without these committees it would be impossible for parliament to meet its current workload and cope with the pace of life outside its walls. Indeed even the processes and systems under which these committees operate, has also been subject to change.
Halligan, Miller and Power state “It would be no exaggeration to say that the whole parliamentary reform movement was a movement for parliamentary committees ....The general growth in committee systems over the last two decades is well documented, and the contribution of specific committee inquiries and the impact of reports on public debate and government action is substantial.” It is heartening that some of the work of these committees is subject to public scrutiny. We have the media to thank for this. Coverage is sometimes uneven. It would appear that it often depends on what story will most benefit the media, rate the highest or sell the most papers.
Attitudes toward government accountability and transparency are at the forefront of much government debate today. Often the “story” where this has occurred indeed deflects from the real issue. Whilst it is essential government decision making processes are monitored, governments must be free to get on with the process of governing. “The fundamental tenet of Westminster is that government ministers are members of Parliament and in a formal sense parliament is said to be responsible for making the government and then holding it to account.”
Halligan, Miller and Powerare indeed correct when they state “The tension between the needs of responsible government centred on governing and that of parliamentary government focussed on accountability remain fundamental.” It is essential that governments are allowed to complete the tasks they were elected to undertake. However a system of accountability is critical and must be inherent in all parliamentary processes. Indeed the functions of parliament have moved and involved as has the nation it represents. It is crucial that the process of evolution continues as the people, society, customs, values and other essential components that contribute to making Australia the nation it is are allowed to be the gears that drive the development of parliament in the twenty – first century.
No comments:
Post a Comment