Page 264 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (10.50): It is appropriate, of course, to deal with these matters in a cognate debate because the details of the two Bills are very similar. Indeed, that will be the thrust of much of the Opposition's remarks at the detail stage, where we will, in fact, be introducing some amendments of detail but not of substance. In effect, we will be saying that these two Bills are almost identical and that one Bill would do where we presently have two.
It is clearly an essential function of a self-governing body politic that it have a power to conduct inquiries into matters of public interest. That has been established by the High Court. There is no specific power to be found anywhere in the Australian Constitution for the Commonwealth to hold royal commissions. There was an early High Court challenge to the power of the Commonwealth to conduct royal commissions in which the High Court held that it was a necessary function of government and could be found to reside with the Commonwealth although nowhere present expressly in the Constitution of the Commonwealth.
On being established as a self-governing body politic, the ACT was left with the Enquiry Act 1938 as the only basis for the conduct of inquiries. Although it is possible to conduct a fairly wide-ranging inquiry under that Act - the ordinance becoming an Act pursuant to self-government - the Opposition would endorse the Attorney's views that this is an outdated piece of legislation and that it is appropriate to look again and replace it with a modern form of legislation.
The Government has introduced into this Assembly the Royal Commissions Bill, the Inquiries Bill and the consequential Bill to tidy up necessary changes as a result of the passage into law of those two Bills. The Opposition supports the need for a body to conduct inquiries into matters of public importance in the ACT. The Opposition has no difficulty with the form and legal content of the Bills.
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, of course, had their attention drawn to certain aspects of the legislation which would generally cause it to look askance at the Bill. It is worth noting, of course, that a royal commission or an inquiry may require people to give evidence which could incriminate them. That self-incrimination is a principle in law which parliaments generally shy away from.
However, in the context of a royal commission or inquiry it can clearly be seen to be necessary. There is protection for the individual, in that evidence that is self-incriminatory given in a commission or an inquiry is not admissible in any other criminal proceedings except, of course, in relation to perjury. That is found in clause 24 of the Royal Commissions Bill and clause 19 of the Inquiries Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .