Page 284 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Once again, Mr Berry has completely failed to make any useful contribution to the debate. I note with interest that at no stage in his argument did he say that these Bills were not necessary. He just used it as a bit of a political forum in the hope that he could curry a bit of favour with the people that he perceives to be his electorate out there. I believe that he is totally wrong in that.
I support the legislation. I believe that it is legislation that is necessary - absolutely necessary. There is a distinction between royal commissions and other forms of inquiry. This legislation makes that distinction. It is not only the public perception of the difference between a royal commission and other forms of inquiry either; it is the processes and the protection that is given to people conducting an inquiry under the auspices of a royal commission - and the evidence that is presented, as compared to the protection that is given in other forms of inquiry.
I am sure, despite Mr Berry's uninformed debate, that Mr Connolly is well aware of the differences. I know that he is. He has an in-principle objection to the term "royal" because of his politics. I can understand that. In today's age, of course, a royal commission is in no way linked to the monarchy. It is simply a title that has been used as a matter of custom and will continue to be used for a long time to come because of its special significance. I would ask members of the Assembly to use their rationality and their reason - rather than the emotive issues that Mr Berry attempted to introduce into the debate - and support the legislation.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (11.57), in reply: I wonder what Mr Berry would think if we did away with the royal prerogative of mercy, because he might need it. I thank members for their constructive comments in relation to the two Bills being discussed cognately today. There is a consequential provisions Bill as well. That takes into effect the fact that we overlooked some matters relating to the Freedom of Information Act when we brought the two Bills forward.
I think the differences between the two pieces of legislation have been adequately pointed out by my colleagues; and, in effect, conceded by Mr Connolly. The differences, of course, were conceded by him when he remarked upon the different structures of the Bills. Mr Moore put his finger on a profound difference between the two, and that is that the stature of a royal commission is different; its inquisitorial role is far broader; and, because those very wide powers are given in that piece of legislation, the Bill demands that the royal commissioner be an eminent lawyer.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .