Associate Professor Laura Grenfell and Dr Sarah Moulds have analysed effectiveness in terms of: • improving the scope of Statements of Compatibility • the adequacy of time to conduct formal parliamentary scrutiny • improving the quality of Statements of Compatibility • the attributes of particular committees that lead to greater legislative influence • coordination of the work of scrutiny committees. • the power and willingness of committees to facilitate public input (d) Improving effectiveness • a culture of respect for the value of formal parliamentary scrutiny including rights scrutiny (i) Timeliness of the scrutiny process • the generation of a rights discourse in parliamentary debates.23 Measuring effectiveness in terms of legislative impact may provide only a limited indicator for assessment. The ALRC for example, stated that: [D]etermining the efficacy of scrutiny Committees solely, or even primarily, by reference to the number of amendments resulting from consideration of Committee reports is not necessarily appropriate. As noted by political scientists Meghan Benton and Meg Russell, ‘take-up by government of recommendations is only one form of Committee influence and arguably not even the most important’. Influencing policy debate, improving transparency within the bureaucracy, holding the government to account by scrutiny and questioning, and creating incentives to draft or amend legislation to avoid negative comments from the Committee, are all examples of other important functions of scrutiny Committees.24 Such aspects of influence may be considered part of the ‘iceberg phenomenon’ referred to by Webb and Roberts.25 Academic commentators and submissions to the Commission have identified a range of areas for improvement in the processes that provide checks on legislative encroachment on human rights: • timeliness of the scrutiny process • improved capacity to undertake thematic inquiries 104 Recommendation 5A: The Commission recommends amendments to House and Senate Standing Orders requiring that bills may not be passed until a final report of the PJCHR has been tabled in Parliament, with limited exceptions for urgent matters. In the event that a Bill proceeds to enactment by exception, provision should be included for a later review of the legislation if the Bill relevantly engaged human rights.26 The need for adequate time for deliberation and reporting has been a common theme among commentators and in submissions. The timely delivery and consideration of reports is a function of several elements: • the volume of the matters for scrutiny and the time allowed in the parliamentary process • the width of the scrutiny task • the working methods of the committee. As the PJCHR itself observed in its Annual Report 2020, the committee’s ability to inform the legislative deliberations of the Parliament is ‘dependent on Parliament’s legislative program and the timeliness of responses to the committee’s inquiries’.27 The volume of bills and legislative instruments has an impact on the adequacy of time to conduct formal parliamentary scrutiny. A number of suggestions have been made to address concerns about the passage of bills before proper consideration of the PJCHR’s scrutiny of them. A common suggestion for reform was to amend the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) FREE & EQUAL: Revitalising Australia’s Commitment to Human Rights