nenycenreall.tk/844.php Tina Whatley rated it liked it Jan 03, Jackie rated it it was amazing Feb 19, Diana Kaulinske marked it as to-read Jan 16, Lemniskate67 added it Jun 20, Becky Southwell is currently reading it Mar 03, Daralyn Wallace is currently reading it Apr 13, Wendi Ware marked it as to-read Aug 24, Jerry marked it as to-read Feb 29, Russ Hilton added it Aug 03, Shannon Fifield marked it as to-read Jan 19, Ashley added it May 21, Terry hamilton is currently reading it May 28, Manish added it Aug 11, Lauren Barbian marked it as to-read Dec 13, Chef Brandy added it Nov 08, ABC News has expanded a little on the 7.
ABC News has played a little more of the 7. But he does say that he had a confidential conversations with Guthrie — as you would expect. It might be worth reminding you that Senate estimates is scheduled from 22 October. After discussions with the board, Mr Milne came to the conclusion that this outcome would enable the corporation to move forward, free from the distraction of the last few days surrounding the managing director.
The board thanks Mr Milne for navigating the ABC through challenging circumstances and is grateful for his willingness to put the ABC first in coming to his decision to resign. This is the statement which has been put out to staff:.
It has been and it always will be. Our staff should feel confident they can do their job without interference and Australians can continue to trust their national broadcaster as they always have. The role of the managing director and the leadership team is to implement those policies and processes. I understand the upset and disquiet caused to many of our people through these events and want to offer you my support and that of the ABC leadership team in every way.
I want to assure you that the leadership team is focused on getting on with the job we do best: Days like these are not easy, but you should all be proud of what you do. We are here to serve the Australian people and I want to thank you for your continued dedication and professionalism during this time. Still waiting on the board to break from its meeting.
This is the real issue. There will obviously be more on this tonight, but for anyone who wants the visual of what Justin Milne has said so far:. In the case of counter-terrorism law, this environment includes ensuring access to relevant and often classified information, and providing the opportunity to test certain proposals or options against the views of those tasked with implementing the changed laws.
This combines to increase the chance of a consensus report and lowers the political risks associated with recommending legislative change to a popular legislative proposal. In turn, this also helps to attract submissions from high quality, high-profile submission-makers, and can provide fertile ground for the reports of other less popular, less visible committees to be considered in new forums.
In such an environment, committee members may be prepared to raise rights concerns expressed by respected submission-makers or test alternative options for implementing government policy outside of the public glare of the parliamentary chamber. On the other hand, this committee environment, which depends heavily on establishing relationships of trust with key government departments and agencies, can threaten the deliberative impact of the parliamentary committee if it gives rise to questions about the independence of the committee from the executive branch of government.
If this occurs, a narrower range of submission-makers may seek to engage with the committee, and thus the quality and diversity of the debate and deliberation on the proposed law may fail, with flow-on effects for the rights-enhancing potential of the scrutiny. Among the state scrutiny committees, the Queensland portfolio committees come closest to the PJCIS in their role of scrutinising both the policy content and technical aspects of Bills.
This is bolstered by their ability to be briefed by departmental officers and their capacity and willingness to engage with external stakeholders. The attributes of these portfolio committees position them well to develop strength in performing formal rights scrutiny, but they face many challenges as a result of the fast-tracking of Bills, the imposition of inadequate scrutiny timeframes and the absence of an Upper House to potentially champion their recommendations.
It is a joint house committee almost only in name, with six of its seven members being chosen from the Lower House.
The Resurrection of Sarah Finfield [Ms. Sharon Brock Heldman] on linawycatuzy.gq *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Blocking out every memory of the horrid. Editorial Reviews. About the Author. Sharon Diane Brock was born and raised on the northwest The Resurrection of Sarah Finfield by [Heldman, Sharon].
In this sense, it is out of step with its model, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, whose powers have, over time, been enlarged in this regard. Dalla-Pozza argues that facilitating public and expert input through committee processes has flow-on implications for the quality and length of parliamentary debate on a Bill, which in turn improves the deliberative capacity of the Parliament. This deliberative impact correlates with the power and ability of parliamentary committees to facilitate public input.
The multi-committee system at the federal level means that it is not detrimental for the quality of formal scrutiny if individual committees such as the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and PJCHR do not activate this power.
At the state level, the failure to activate or hold this power has more serious consequences for the deliberative impact of formal rights scrutiny and for the parliamentary model of rights protection. While facilitating public input is not feasible for all Bills, it should be set as a priority for those Bills that clearly restrict rights and freedoms given the fact that most Australian jurisdictions have an exclusive system of parliamentary rights protection.
The process of engaging with the public has the potential to considerably enhance the legitimacy of the scrutiny process and to boost the role of all parliamentary committees in assisting parliament to keep the executive accountable. Providing meaningful opportunities for public participation also helps to develop and entrench a broader culture of respect for the formal scrutiny process — submission-makers who begin to see their concerns or suggestions reflected in committee reports and recommendations, the media who may be motivated to follow the key points put forward by high-profile submission makers, and parliamentarians themselves who can begin to see a political as well as a principled reason to take formal parliamentary scrutiny seriously.
The more sophisticated parliamentary scrutiny systems, such as that at the Commonwealth level, facilitate public participation in parliamentary committees alongside technical scrutiny processes that rarely involve public submissions. However, even within the Commonwealth system, there is scope for enhancing public input, particularly with respect to the PJCHR, whose mandate and purpose straddles both technical scrutiny and dialogue creation and includes a specific function to conduct inquiries where appropriate.
This enhancement is dependent on Parliament setting adequate timeframes for scrutiny. Unlike in Queensland, short timeframes have not been the stumbling block for SARC; rather, it appears to be the willingness of SARC to activate its powers to their full extent. At the federal level, a culture of respect for the value of formal parliamentary scrutiny is emerging. In the Citizenship Bill debates, the full political spectrum of politicians who spoke to the Bill acknowledged the need for robust scrutiny of the Bill, many of whom referred to the PJCIS and its inquiry in detail in their second reading speeches.
In contrast, in the state parliamentary debates surveyed in this article, politicians from the major parties were reluctant to engage with the scrutiny process. The exception was the Queensland Parliament, where the scrutiny process was used by both sides of politics for strategic gain but not to directly influence the content of the Bill.
In Queensland, formal parliamentary scrutiny is particularly pertinent given the absence of an Upper House. The strategic bypassing of formal parliamentary scrutiny by the LNP in its first tranche of anti-bikie Bills in can be read as one of the catalysts for the renewed call for a state Bill of Rights. In the Commonwealth debates, formal parliamentary scrutiny became particularly important for the Labor Opposition which desired to emphasise that its support for the Citizenship Bill was carefully measured. It may suggest that within the Commonwealth Parliament there is a level of ingrained respect for the legitimate role of rights scrutiny even in the context of a Bill that enjoys bipartisan support for its primary objects.
Another means of gauging respect for formal scrutiny is whether there is a robust human rights dialogue taking place within parliament and between the government and the parliament. This is but a hiccup on the path to developing a culture of respect for the value of formal parliamentary scrutiny. In the Commonwealth and Victorian Parliaments it is possible to discern a small but steady increase in the familiarity of parliamentarians with international human rights law concepts used primarily by the PJCHR and SARC.
This convergence is arguably developing from the growing interaction between the PJCHR and other federal parliamentary committees. At the Commonwealth level, the Hansard indicates that a particular rights discourse is developing. This is apparent in the speeches of members with respect to the Citizenship Bill and the other major counter-terrorism Bills enacted in the —16 tranche. This discourse permeates beyond political lines, and it is heavily influenced by the mandate and language of the more traditional parliamentary scrutiny committees, particularly the Scrutiny of Bills Committee but also the PJCIS.
In some respects, this discourse shares many similarities with the speeches of the Queensland LNP in opposing the anti-bikie Bill even though the very short-lived nature of this LNP strategy undermines its genuine force. Overall, it is difficult to say that this discourse aims for the type of legislative change that would remedy the most serious intrusions into individual rights. This feature of the rights-scrutiny culture at the Commonwealth level requires testing beyond the particular experience of the Citizenship Bill and its unique capacity to invoke the type of patriotic rhetoric that may give rise to a higher than usual reference to rights and freedoms.
However, it is hard to dismiss the suggestion that a systematic rights-scrutiny culture is emerging at the Commonwealth level, even if it remains open to strategic manipulation by both sides of politics to further various political imperatives. It is possible that it is generating a narrow and distinctly Australian rights discourse, based on rule of law values and, in particular, parliamentary oversight of executive power, which needs further examination through a broader set of case studies.
These case studies are not chosen because they are representative of the work of parliamentary committees in Australia, but rather to highlight the points at which parliamentary scrutiny might matter most.
By looking across jurisdictions, the case studies allow us to examine different systems of committees, each grappling with somewhat similar rights issues in the context of politically popular legislative proposals. From these case studies, we can see signs of what works when it comes to parliamentary rights protection. Overall, the federal case study indicates that there is some cause for slight and cautious optimism in regard to the parliamentary model of rights protection in Australia.
A culture of rights scrutiny is developing at the Commonwealth level, and over time it is possible that this culture may spill over into state Parliaments which generally show interest in adopting federal practices. Currently, this culture does not appear to be capable of preventing the most serious intrusions into individual rights, but it may at least be capable of moderating these intrusions, particularly where public input is encouraged and where, at the federal level, individual committees have regard to the work of other committees within the scrutiny system.
By understanding how each committee fits within the broader formal parliamentary scrutiny landscape, it is possible to identify opportunities for structural and cultural change, whilst at the same time being realistic about the outcomes this system can deliver in terms of rights protection. Deliberately creating a committee culture where members feel comfortable raising rights issues and negotiating compromised legislative changes, such as in the case of the PJCIS, may be a valuable lesson to consider in other jurisdictions where the legislative impact of parliamentary committees remains low.
The Citizenship Bill case study suggests this may lead to stronger rights outcomes, even in the context of politically popular legislative proposals. For state governments who may be sceptical of the value of parliamentary committees, the federal experience demonstrates that formal parliamentary scrutiny can achieve important legislative improvements, including rights-enhancing improvements, without undermining the core policy goal of a Bill. The case studies in this article suggest that even in highly controversial areas, state parliaments could benefit from allowing scrutiny committees to engage with external stakeholders and to recommend amendments which transparently seek to balance individual rights protection with security.
Unfortunately, the reluctance shown by state governments to allow proper scrutiny to take place in the post-introduction phase threatens to undermine the legitimacy of the Westminster parliamentary process as one that is capable of protecting rights in state parliaments.
With the exception of the first set of debates, anti-bikie debates in Queensland generally show that members have a relatively keen interest in the work of the parliamentary committee system and stakeholder contributions. Citing a bikie brawl that took place at Sydney Airport roughly a week earlier in March , the Labor Government suspended standing orders so that the Bill could be introduced and debated in both Houses and enacted in the same day. Although SARC is a joint committee with a government chair and a government majority four out of seven members are government members ,  the use of SARC reports by Greens members suggest that the Greens do not characterise the scrutiny committee as a rubber stamp. Among the state scrutiny committees, the Queensland portfolio committees come closest to the PJCIS in their role of scrutinising both the policy content and technical aspects of Bills. The Legal Affairs Committee made no recommendations for amendments to the Bill. An Agenda for the Decade Longman Chesire,
This research formed the basis of the discussion in this article relating to the experience of Commonwealth parliamentary committees. Sceptical Essays Oxford University Press, 40, Redressing the Democratic Deficit Hart Publishing, 39, 52; ibid 60—1. Executive control extends into parliamentary committees, particularly where they are joint committees dominated by the Lower House, chaired by government members and where, at the state level, members of the executive such as parliamentary secretaries can be members.
These broader structural dynamics of our system are compounded by the fact that Australian political parties have some of the strongest party discipline among their Westminster cousins in the UK, Canada and New Zealand.
Care must be taken not to overstate the impact of this legislative success rate. All of the Committee recommendations were accepted: The government responded to the PJCIS report by saying that it accepted all of its recommendations and that they were reflected in the Bill: As many previous attempts have found, it is difficult to develop a methodology that successfully counters all of these risks, however certain safeguards can be used to improve the quality of the analysis. An Agenda for the Decade Longman Chesire, Internal stakeholders include the government, comprising both ministers and the bureaucracy the latter of which is difficult to trace , the parliament, and the political parties themselves including backbenchers all of which overlap with the parliament.
The external stakeholders predominantly encompass public submission-makers and inquiry participants. It is important to acknowledge the complex interplay between all the various internal and external stakeholders much of which is impossible to trace. How Deliberative Has Parliament Been? Uhr, Deliberative Democracy , above n The proposed new citizenship laws would become part of the final raft of policy changes pursued by Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, who was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull on 15 September As noted below, this particular political context may have had some bearing on the timing and nature of the parliamentary debates on the proposed laws.
These are where the person acts inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by either: These Orders, when combined with: Orders governing the commencement and resumption of debate on Bills in the Senate such as Senate, Parliament of Australia, Standing Orders and Other Orders of the Senate , August , O 3 ; and the priority given to Business of Senate over Government Business provided for in Senate, Parliament of Australia, Standing Orders and Other Orders of the Senate , August , O 58 , invest the Senate with the power to require that any relevant Senate Standing Committee report with respect to a Bill be tabled prior to the conclusion of debate on the Bill.
This has been the general practice with respect to most Government Bills, however, it is noted that Senate, Parliament of Australia, Standing Orders and Other Orders of the Senate , August , O , sets out a procedure for the consideration of urgent Government business or Bills that departs from the procedures outlined in the above Standing Orders.
Since its establishment in , the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has been adamant that its role does not include an evaluation of the policy intent of the proposed law: Whether this claim rings true in practice is contested, but the fact that it is repeatedly made is an important and distinguishing attribute of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee within the broader federal parliamentary committee system.
This claim has been contested. For these reasons, it is possible to view the PJCHR as deeply engaged in policy evaluation, regardless of structural similarities to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.