Page 287 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I want to put these two pieces of legislation into context. They are at the top of the pyramid of a consultative inquiring government. Governments need knowledge; they need to test out community opinion. Sometimes people are not willing to come forward with information unless they are given protection. These Bills provide protection to people who may be intimidated from giving evidence, and that is important. At the same time we should record here the great debt of gratitude we have to all the ad hoc committees of inquiry and the advisory committees that are at the base of the development here today. I commend the Bills to the house.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Clause 1
MR CONNOLLY (12.07): The Opposition will persist with its amendments. I heard the remarks of the Chief Minister where he said that there is an important difference between a royal commission and an inquiry. He referred to "protection", "status" and "power". I just again say to the Assembly that the legal statuses of the inquiry and the commission are identical.
If we look at the question of the protection of members of a royal commission, we see in the Royal Commissions Bill that a commissioner, in the performance of his or her functions, has the same protection and immunity as a judge of the Supreme Court in proceedings in that court; and so, no doubt, we have Mr Humphries' remarks that royal commissioners exercise or enjoy judicial-type privileges and immunities, as indeed they do. Then I look at the Inquiries Bill and I see that a member in the performance or exercise of any function or power, has the same protection and immunity as a judge of the Supreme Court in proceedings in that court. So, the status, the protection, and the privileges are the same.
We reiterate our view that it is unnecessary to have two inquiries. It is merely a piece of window-dressing. The more efficient and modern procedure would be to have one Bill called a Commissions of Inquiry Bill. I move:
Page 1, line 5, omit "Royal", substitute "of Inquiry" after "Commissions".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .