The Three Committee Systems of the Australian Parliament —A developmental overview?

Parliamentary institutions have undergone a revival internationally during the last twenty years. As a starting point for our inquiry i nto parliamentary change, we have focused on the one dimension that has been universa lly acknowledged as having had transformative effects on world parliaments (Lo ngley and Davidson 1998). The Australian Parliament during the past two decades h as already changed to the point where almost all non-executive members (that is, ex cluding the Ministry and shadow cabinet) are preoccupied for much of their t ime with parliamentary committees. Those who are most attentive to committee work (one quarter of the members) are now devoting at least a quarter of the ir time to this work. In equivalent full-time terms, this means that at leas t ten per cent of the time (a conservative estimate) of the members of the Parlia ment is now committed to committee work. The number of parliamentary committee reports produced annually in the recent past has ranged between 100 and 200. The Commonwealth Parliament is distinguished internationally by having three committee systems, one located within each house, t he third set operating at the interface between the two and composed of members from both. Three questions are relevant: Why have three committee systems emerged? Why have they developed in different ways and at different times? Do the three systems specialise in differing types of committee work? This article addresses these questions by concentrating on the different pathways and roles o f the three systems.