A Jigsaw of Bureaucracy: Why We Must Scrutinise New Parliamentary Committees

A solution in search of a problem

In my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape. The most effective treatments are those that are targeted, evidence-based, and focused on the actual root cause of the ailment. Recently, the Legislative Assembly proposed a new Joint Standing Committee on the Oversight of Certain Independent Office Holders. On the surface, it sounds like an attempt to streamline accountability. Yet, as I sat in the House, I could not help but feel that this is a classic case of creating a new administrative layer without first diagnosing the health of the existing one.

The proposal threatens to dissolve the current Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People. It moves to fold several vital oversight functions into one massive, potential-heavy committee. This is not just bureaucracy: it is a waiting room where the voices of our most vulnerable might be lost in the noise of a new, sprawling committee structure.

If you enjoy these insights into the inner workings of our democracy, please subscribe to my YouTube channel to stay updated on how I am fighting for transparency and common sense in the House.

The danger of duplication

My colleagues and I on the Standing Committee on Public Administration are already doing this work. We have been conducting robust, inquisitive hearings with the Ombudsman, the Information Commissioner, and the Inspector of Custodial Services. To suggest that these roles require a new, separate committee suggests a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps a disregard—for the work already being performed. When we ignore the efficiency of current systems, we risk duplicating work, muddying the waters of accountability, and losing the deep, focused scrutiny that individual portfolios require.

The forward path

While some in the House seem ready to forge ahead with this jigsaw puzzle, others are rightfully asking for caution. We need to be certain that we are not creating an oversight body that is simply too large to be effective. The evidence must lead the way, not political convenience. By referring this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges, we ensure that the questions regarding workload, potential overlap, and the integrity of our existing committees are answered properly.

We must ensure that our parliamentary structures do not become obstacles to the very transparency they are designed to uphold. You can review the details of the debate for yourself in the original Hansard record. I invite you to join our movement for a more rational, evidence-based future by becoming a member of Legalise Cannabis WA.