Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 4557 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

members will refer to the previous points I have made in regard to the Royal Commissions Bill.

In summary, the Liberal Party will be supporting the Inquiries Amendment Bill 2003 and the Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2003.

MS DUNDAS (10.38): Mr Speaker, the ACT Democrats will not be supporting these bills today. The central reason that we will not be supporting these bills is that we believe that they go in entirely the wrong direction by further removing the Legislative Assembly from the conduct of inquiries and royal commissions. The ACT Democrats fundamentally disagree with the statement made in the Chief Minister's Department's review that inquiries and royal commissions are fundamentally a tool of executive government. Inquiries and royal commissions are the highest form of investigation available in our parliamentary system, and this has important consequences for both the executive and the Assembly.

While instigating an inquiry or royal commission may have a substantial dollar cost that must be taken into account in the preparation of budgets, this is a very weak excuse for placing the province of inquiries and royal commissions in the hands of executive government alone. The involvement of the Assembly has considerable consequences for royal commissions and inquires, particularly in the trust placed in an inquiry by the public, and the authority and legitimacy that it carries in the eyes of the people.

We have seen numerous examples of royal commissions being used in Australia as political tools to attack a particular group or political opponent. The use of a royal commission to inquire into the Penny Eastman affair in Western Australian and the federal appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the construction industry are just two examples that come to mind.

We also saw in the Assembly a consistent refusal by government to appoint a board of inquiry into disability services, despite the fact that an investigation was clearly warranted. The question of political interference by executive government is a far more fundamental concern about the construction of the Royal Commissions Act that the government has completely disregarded in its review.

The abuse of royal commissions in Australia has undermined public confidence in royal commissions and boards of inquiry so that they have begun to be perceived as yet another arm of the executive government. This downgrading of public confidence undercuts the independence of inquiries and may create barriers for members of the public who would otherwise give evidence more freely.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Would members please lobby each other outside of the chamber.

MS DUNDAS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have already seen the unwillingness of some participants to give evidence in recent federal royal commissions as the process has become a political tool rather than an independent search for truth. This is a direct result of executive control of the appointment and terms of reference of inquiries or royal commissions. Whilst I acknowledge that the Gallop inquiry raised significant questions about the protection of witnesses and the legal liability for government, to go down the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .