Page 285 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
No such preserve is created for lawyers in relation to the Inquiries Bill. I even heard noises on our back bench applauding that. Accepting that lawyers are not always popular in this community, the Inquiries Bill enables our Government to appoint eminent persons to chair ad hoc inquiries. Clearly, as my colleague Mr Humphries pointed out, with the nature of any inquiry that we may wish to set up on an ad hoc basis in this Territory, it is necessary to give it privilege and, particularly, the immunities that apply to its functions, above those of the normal type of community advisory council that many governments in this country appoint.
The term "royal commission", on the other hand, puts a message to the populace that there is, by command of the commissioner, a requirement to assist and a requirement to attend to a matter of grave public interest. To date, with some exceptions, governments generally, in the Australian system, use royal commissions only in matters of grave and profound public interest. Ironically, of course, there is no greater user of royal commissions at the moment than either Labor governments, as they ride out the rest of their term on the back of the Titanic in several States in this country, or people who have inherited from Labor governments.
I accept that the Labor Party should have a very deep and profound interest in the subject matter before us today. It is an entire quantum leap to suggest that we have brought this matter forward for some short-term temporal gain to do with the building industry, or any other issue that may entertain the population. I do feel that the prime function of inquiries and commissions is to inform a government. It is an aspect of our democracy, inherited naturally from our Westminster traditions and, earlier than that, Norman days, whereby inquiries can be put about on an independent basis to determine the facts and to reach conclusions thereon.
It is strength to a democracy that we have this type of legislation. I am indebted to the Government Law Office for the very wide review it conducted of legislation throughout Australia and abroad in relation to these forms of structures. I would like to think that the legislation before the house represents the latest in the style and form of inquiry and royal commission-type statutory empowerments that we have in this country.
No doubt improvements will be made to the legislation in time. No doubt other States, or the Northern Territory, may produce something better, but on my advice we have put together the best of what exists to date. We have applied some newer concepts in terms of procedural fairness because we all recall what happened to Captain Robertson in the Voyager inquiry. We are aware that in these times there should be an enjoiner on any chair of either of these types of inquiries or commissions to act with procedural fairness.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .