Page 266 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a non-statutory instrument. A royal commission is called a royal commission because the Sovereign would personally commission a person to conduct an inquiry. At page 16 Hallett says:
Royal Commissions have a long history, extending back to the Domesday Book of 1086. The Domesday Book was the result of an inquiry appointed by William the Conqueror.
We have this tradition of the Sovereign commissioning an individual to conduct an inquiry and that individual conducting the inquiry with the authority of the Sovereign; hence royal commission. I raised with the Attorney a week ago a query as to the appropriateness of using the term "royal commission" in the ACT because we have a different structure of government from any other place in the Commonwealth of Australia.
We were referring yesterday in the debate on self-government to the question of an administrator, which had been raised by Mr Humphries. On this side we were discussing the possibility of the Minister for Urban Services perhaps assuming that high office of administrator or vice-regal representative at some stage. The point is that in every other State or Territory there is an administrator who represents the Crown, and a royal commission, established by prerogative or statute in any other place in this Commonwealth, follows that traditional method of a commission from the administrator, from the vice-regal representative, to the person charged with the conduct of an inquiry.
That, of course, is very different from the position here where, under the Royal Commissions Bill, it is proposed in clause 5 that the commission will be appointed by the Executive, by instrument in writing published in the Gazette. That is a very different form of instrument of appointment from that applying anywhere else in Australia. I queried the Attorney as to the appropriateness of using the term "royal commission" in those circumstances. The Attorney and his Law Office were able to give a very helpful response very quickly.
The advice is that the term "royal commission of inquiry" has come to refer to an ad hoc advisory body appointed by a government and having wide and coercive powers to provide information. That is the Hallett definition, which is broadly accepted. The advice notes that a royal commission of inquiry can be of two different kinds.
I am referring to a Victorian Supreme Court authority, Johns and Waygood Ltd v Utah Australia Ltd in 1963. It is noted that there are the two forms of appointment of royal commission - by statute or by prerogative. There is reference again to old English authority for the view that it is appropriate for a royal commission to be appointed pursuant to statutory authority. The advice goes on to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .