The Finance and Expenditure Committee hears submissions on gun law reform. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
This week on The House we focused on aspects of the processes of select committees and their outcomes. The Sunday show is a collation of this content.
In Thursday’s story, Johnny Blades looked at the Therapeutic Products Bill which this week passed its second reading, when the debates committee recommendations upon its returns to the House from select committee.
The Health Select Committee which examined this legislation digested a vast amount of public feedback, much of which took issue with the Bill. This in turn informed a robust debate between MPs.
Unusually, the Health Committee is one without a governing-party majority, so the outcomes of committee were more fraught, and left unagreed amendments to be incorporated in the next (committee of the whole) stage. The bill’s still nascent form left much more space for Second Reading politicking, as opposition MPs claimed the committee outcome demonstrated failure, a climb-down.
Instead, what they showed was what happens when coalition parties do not have the majority in a committee, which was itself instructive.
Committee machinery
In Wednesday’s story, Phil Smith talked with Ingrid Leary, the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, about what happens behind a committee’s closed doors. Particularly, what advice they seek from experts and how they track and use it.
This story was prompted by the recent unprecedented report back from that committee that noted that the bill drafters had received some instructions that were not the committee’s own.
Among other things, Leary shared how committees attempt to balance advice from a bill’s original policy-setters (who are part of a government’s ministerial staff), with independent advice.
Those two stories are compiled for this week’s Sunday programme, the audio of which is linked to above.
