Page 567 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: Quite properly, I have heard nothing from the Opposition to suggest that he is not a person of high repute or that his inquiry will not be a fully independent process. I hear some muttering over there. You seem to be claiming credit for achieving an inquiry. You seem to think that is some sort of feather in your cap. Now, in a cavalier manner, you are saying, "Well, an inquiry has been set up, but do not worry about that. We want you today to pass judgment on the state of facts surrounding Mr Berry's knowledge at the time". It is a matter of whether Independent members believe your version of the facts or, the Government would say, the correct version of the facts that will be given by Mr Berry. It all comes down to members having to make decisions about what the facts were at various times in relation to this very long and convoluted process. Obviously the fact that it is a long and convoluted process is common ground, because you are waving around 600 pages of documents there which you say make your case.
What is the practice in relation to royal commissions and commissions of inquiry? Madam Speaker, I will argue - and I urge members to have a look at this - that it is clear parliamentary practice that, where a commission of inquiry has been appointed to inquire into facts and an individual's conduct, parliaments should refrain from passing judgment on that individual's conduct and those facts. What is regarded as the authoritative book on parliamentary practice in Australia, the second edition of House of Representatives Practice, says at page 491, in relation to the sub judice convention:
The practice of the House of Representatives is as follows:
... ... ...
It draws a distinction. It gives two examples. Our argument will be that this clearly falls on one side of the line. Again, at the end of the day it will be a matter for Independent members to make their decision on what is the proper practice, but I say that this is a very important point. The precedent that we are establishing is something that we should not lightly blunder into. Browning says at page 491 in the final dot point:
Proceedings before a royal commission or judicial inquiry shall not be referred to in motions, debate or questions where the matter inquired into concerns issues of fact or findings relating to the propriety of the actions of specific persons.
On the other hand, he says:
Proceedings before a royal commission, where the matter inquired into is intended to produce advice as to future policy or legislation, may be referred to unless such references would constitute a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings.
So Browning draws a distinction and says that, where there is an inquiry on foot into specific matters of fact and the conduct of specifically named individuals, parliament should not pass judgment while that inquiry is on foot. I would say that, when you look at the allegation and the terms of the motion before you - that Mr Berry has quite
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .