New and Notable Titles
A selection of recent publications relating to parliamentary studies prepared with the assistance of the Library of Parliament (March 2025 – May 2025).
“Britain – E-petitions – Protest – Sign of the times.” Economist 454 (9436): 23. February 22, 2025.
- UK Conservatives turn to e-petitions.
Connally, Caitlin. “Protecting Parliamentary Procedure: Bridging the Gap in Institutional Memory with Artificial Intelligence.” Australasian Parliamentary Review 40 (1): 134-52, Autumn/Winter 2025.
- This paper explores the potential of Artificial Intelligence in preserving parliamentary procedural knowledge and addressing the challenge of ‘institutional amnesia’.
de Paiva, David, and Jonathan Malloy. “What Do Senate Committees Tell Us About the Post-2016 Senate?” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 57 (4) : 861-76, December/décembre 2024.
- The rarely examined committees of the Senate of Canada offer interesting insights into the Senate as a whole, particularly following the 2016 reforms to the institution. While discussion of House of Commons committees often emphasizes them as separate and different from the larger chamber, Senate committees mirror the dynamics of the overall Senate; looking at them tells us a lot about the Senate itself. Through qualitative research and in-depth interviews about committees with senators, this article finds both contrast and continuity in the Senate and its committees. Translation below
Dharmananda, Jacinta. “What Parliament Didn’t Say: The Effect of Silence during Legislative Scrutiny on Statutory Interpretation.” Australasian Parliamentary Review 40 (1): 52-69, Autumn/Winter
2025.
- This article demonstrates how silence in legislative scrutiny deliberations can influence statutory meaning in Australia and identifies some implications of that use for both law makers and interpreters.
Fergus, Greg. “Speaker of The House of Commons.” Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law / Revue de droit parlementaire et politique 19 (1) : 9-, March/mars 2025.
- My time as Speaker of the House of Commons has allowed me to reflect on the unique challenge of finding an appropriate balance between free speech and respectful debate for the good of Canada’s democracy. How can Members of Parliament express diverse and often conflicting views while respecting each other and representing their constituents? This question was top of mind of Members of Parliament when I put my name forward to be elected as Speaker in 2023. Many Members from all parties lamented a loss of decorum and respect in the Chamber and called for the new Speaker to preserve dignity and civility in House proceedings. Translation below
Gibbs, Lily, and Natasha Mutebi. “Trust, public engagement and UK Parliament.” POSTbrief – UK Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology 61p., 21 May 2025.
- What is the relationship between public engagement activities and public trust? What makes different types of engagement methods effective, and how can they engage the public and impact trust levels?
Gover, Daniel. “Priorities for the [UK] House of Commons Modernisation Committee: private members’ bills and opposition days.” Constitution Unit 6p., April 1, 2025.
- The House of Commons Modernisation Committee is considering potential reforms to Commons procedures, standards and working practices, and recently ran a consultation exercise to establish its priorities. In this post, the author analyses flaws with the procedures for private members’ bills and opposition days and makes the case for reform.
Johnson, Matthew. “‘Informal Evidence’ in Committee Inquiries: A Case for its Wider Use.” Australasian Parliamentary Review 40 (1): 34-51, Autumn/Winter 2025.
- This article explores the concept of ‘informal evidence’ in parliamentary committee inquiries, and the role it can play supporting more formal and established practices of evidence gathering.
Matthews, Neil, and Sean Haughey. “The security of politicians: towards a research agenda.” Parliamentary Affairs 78 (2): 227-56, April 2025.
- Members of Parliament (MPs) are increasingly experimenting with a variety of measures to protect their personal security. This trend is particularly evident at the local level, with MPs adjusting their constituency service on security grounds in ways that likely affect how they interact with constituents. Despite potentially significant representative implications, these enhanced security measures have yet to be problematized in detail. This article calls for a new research agenda to address this deficit. Exploring some of the anecdotal evidence, the authors highlight potential trade-offs arising from a more securitized constituency service experience, in particular noting costs pertaining to (1) accessibility, (2) symbolism, and (3) resources. The authors conclude by sketching out the broad parameters of a multi-method, multi-level, and multi-disciplinary research agenda on the security of politicians.
Mead, Maria. “Turbocharging Civics Education for Parliamentary Resilience: A Case Study of Queensland Parliament’s 2024 ‘Build Your Parliament in Minecraft’ Competition for Schools.” Australasian Parliamentary Review 40 (1): 230-48, Autumn/Winter 2025.
- This article explores how Queensland’s Parliamentary Education Team leveraged the engagement power of Minecraft Education to transform their education offerings. The 2024 ‘Build Your Parliament in Minecraft Competition’ engaged students from diverse backgrounds, including those in remote locations, in a project- based learning experience by tasking them with the creation of a virtual legislative chamber. Against a backdrop of declining civic engagement, this initiative demonstrates how gamification and virtual reality can foster critical thinking, creativity, and teamwork while deepening students’ understanding of the work of the parliament and avenues for democratic participation. The article outlines the competition project, highlighting its success in increasing student engagement. The project’s outcomes offer insights for educators and policymakers about integrating digital technologies and experiential learning into civics curricula. Such initiatives contribute to parliamentary resilience. By equipping young people with the skills and knowledge needed for active citizenship, we can safeguard our democratic institutions into an uncertain future.
Melhuish, Francesca, and Ben Yong. “Parliamentary questions to the House of Commons Commission: Accountability and parliamentary administration.” Parliamentary Affairs 78 (2): 329-53, April 2025.
- Parliamentary administration is integral to supporting the work of elected politicians. How is it held to account? This article focuses on parliamentary questions—one means of scrutinizing parliamentary administration. The article uses a qualitative analysis of written and oral questions MPs have asked the House of Commons Commission (the body responsible for parliamentary administration). It asks three sub-questions: (1) Who asks the questions?; (2) What questions are asked?; and (3) How are these questions answered? Interrogating these questions also provides a window into the internal governance challenges of the House of Commons.
Woo, Yuen Pau. “At mace value – Not your father’s Senate.” Literary Review of Canada 33 (5): 21-3, June 2025.
- Arguing over the constitutional authority of the Red Chamber.
Yong, Amy. “Psychological Well-being of Parliament staff: What Do We Know and What Can Parliaments Do?” Australasian Parliamentary Review 40 (1): 172-80, Autumn/Winter 2025.
- Workplace culture has been widely discussed in the reviews of Australian and New Zealand Parliaments. One of the main highlights of the reviews is to prioritise policies that improve workplace culture, including the psychological well-being of staff. Using the job demands- resources (JD-R) model, this article discusses how the annual employee engagement survey in the New Zealand Parliament provides insights into factors affecting employees’ psychological well- being. Future initiatives by the New Zealand Parliament, along with insights from the New South Wales Parliament, offer an understanding of well-being initiatives in different Parliaments and highlight gaps in knowledge that future research can address.