Page 265 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is significant that this applies only to ACT prosecutions. There is something of a problem in that self-incriminatory evidence given before an ACT commission or inquiry could perhaps be used in a prosecution in another State. Of course, with the position of the ACT as an island in New South Wales, that may need to be looked at. I know that this is a problem that has arisen before. I think that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is trying to address it.
There have been undertakings given in relation to other ACT inquiries that evidence given that may be self-incriminatory will not be tendered in a New South Wales prosecution. In due course that is a matter that probably needs to be addressed by the State and Territory Attorneys and, indeed, the Federal Attorney, with a view to incorporation in legislation.
The Opposition has looked in vain, in the introductory remarks by the Attorney-General, the explanatory memorandum and the Bills, for a rationale for having a Royal Commissions Bill and an Inquiries Bill. We see that that is probably unnecessary. We ask: What is the difference between a royal commission and an inquiry? We find in our researches that there is probably none. The leading authority on the law of royal commissions in Australia is a text by Hallett - a barrister of the Supreme Court of Victoria - published in 1982, entitled Royal Commissions and Boards of Inquiry: Some Legal and Procedural Aspects. Hallett is directing his attention principally to Victorian royal commissions. I see that the ACT does possess two copies of this book. The Attorney and I were concerned this morning that there may be only one copy and that I had it, but fortunately we have two copies.
Hallett was writing principally about Victorian law, but his remarks are more broad-ranging. It is interesting that Hallett was writing about Victorian law, because Victoria is somewhat unique in Australia in that it has had, in long practice, both royal commissions and boards of inquiry as alternative methods of conducting these major public inquiries. At page 10 Hallett says:
Royal Commissions are one of the oldest institutions of government. They have attained an aura of importance in the public mind because they are generally reserved for particularly important inquiries. As will be seen, Boards are very closely related to commissions and there does not appear to be any significant difference between the two. The differences which do exist are in the method of appointment and the statutory provisions which apply once appointed.
The difference in relation to method of appointment is of particular importance, in that a board has often been seen as a statutory creature, although it can be appointed under prerogative, but a royal commission traditionally has been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .