Address by Professor Scott Prasser Public Policy Institute – Australian Catholic University

© Professor Scott Prasser

Commonwealth Parliamentary Library

Royal commissions and public inquiries- their place in Australian government

Address by Professor Scott PrasserPublic Policy Institute – Australian Catholic

University13 March 2013


Overview• Defining them

• Classifying them

• History

• What they do?

• Place in government


Defining public inquiries• Appointed only by executive government• Non permanent ad hoc temporary bodies• Discrete units – not part of any existing body• Members external to govt and public service• Clear terms of reference, publicly announced • Seek public and interest group participation • Produce a public report • Advisory only – only make recommendationsNOT• judicial inquiries (no such thing!)/parl cmttees/perm

advisory bodies/consultancies/ or eg Henry Tax Review


Types of public inquiries• Policy advisory – provide expert advice on

some public policy issue/problem (usually non-statutory, no powers)

• Inquisitorial – investigate corruption, maladministration or to identify causes and allocate responsibility for catastrophic event – may make policy recommendations (usually a statutory inquiry eg royal commission with coercive powers)




Inquiries appointed by Commonwealth govts 1949-2013

Government RoyalCommissions

Otherinquiries

Total

Menzies Govts (Coalition)1949 -1966

5 30 35

Holt / Gorton / McMahon Govts (Coalition)1966 -1972

2 27 29

Whitlam Govt (Labor)1972 – 1975

13 73 86

Fraser Govt (Coalition)1975 -1983

8 84 92

1-4th Hawke Govts (Labor)1983 - 1991

9 138 147

Keating Govts (Labor)1991-1996

3 51 54

Sub-total for Hawke / Keating Govts (Labor)1983-1996

12 189 201

Howard Govt (Coalition)1996 -2007

4 77 81

Rudd - Gillard Govts (Labor) 2007-2013

1 60+ (approx) 61

Total 57 540 597



What do they do? – policy inquiries

Policy inquiries – appointed when govt faced with contentious policy issue to:

• Provide expert advice• Identify the facts• Promote participation• Seek information/views• Test opinions• Clarify the issues and promote agreement• Develop a solution • Value: independence, openness, expertness


Important policy public inquiries

• Committee of Inquiry into Universities (Murray 1956) and Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia (Martin 1961)

• Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System (Campbell 1979)

• Review of Social Security System (Cass 1985)• Welfare Reference Group (McClure 1999)• Review of Funding for Schooling (Gonski 2010)And:• Decimal Currency C’tee (Scott 1959)• C’mth Admin Review C’tee (Kerr 1968)• Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Aust (Andersen

1986)


Inquisitorial inquiries (eg royal commissions)

Coercive investigatory powers to check allegations of wrongdoing, maladministration and disasters to:

• Identify facts• Probe • Find ‘hidden truths’ existing agencies can’t• Find causes• Allocate responsibility• AND: suggest ameliorative actions (new

policies) for futureValue: independence, powers, openness


Important inquisitorial inquiries

COMMONWEALTH• Royal Commission on Espionage (Petrov) (1954)• Royal Commission on the Loss of the HMAS Voyager (1964) and subsequent 1967

royal commission• Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters’ and Dockers’

Union (1980) (Costigan Royal Commission)• Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry (1981)• Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1987)• Royal Commission into HIH (2001)• Royal Commission into Child Abuse (2012)

STATE• Royal Commission into Organised Crime in Clubs in NSW (Moffitt 1973) • Commission of Inquiry into Police Misconduct (Fitzgerald 1987) • Qld Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry (Morris + Davies 2005)• Vic Royal Commission into Bushfires (2009)


Politically expedient (covert) • Control the policy and political agenda:

– delay decisions– smother criticism (recruitment and activity)

• Kite flying – try an idea out• Promote support for policy idea• Justify policy choice already made• Pseudo consultation• Co-opt opposition & interests• Provide position for partisan appointee• Fishing expeditions


Inquiries as fishing expeditions: Marks Royal

Commission


Inquiries – giving the answer wanted?


Attacks on inquiries/RCs• Politics: “conceived as an act of political malevolence by

the Court Government…the basic principles of natural justice were ignored.” PM Keating on the Marks Royal Commission

• Utility: “a waste private time and public money” Ross Gittins, SMH

• Obfuscation: “not so much used for digging up the truth but for digging it in” (Herbert)

• Delay: “I’ve been around long enough to know that the prime function of politics is to win elections, and the function of commissions of inquiry is to throw enough dust to cover the facts.” (witness Telecommunications Inquiry 2002)


Big questions – where do they fit?

“Australia … has a closed, non-porous policy making system compared with, for instance, the United States and its use of congressional committees. Congressional committees provide a stage for lobby groups and think tanks to bring their ideas, research and advocacy within the political process. No such formal process exists in Australia at government level for reaching out for new ideas or, at the very least seeking to achieve co-operation between … interest groups.”

Sue Oliver 1993


Range of advisory bodies • Government departments and policy units• Ministerial minders• Consultants• Dep’tal advisory bodies with key sectors

(hearing/representative)• Specialised policy bureaux within government• Statutory advisory bodies located in or near govt –

some with regulatory roles• Intergov’tal bodies – temporary/permanent• Parliamentary committees• Public inquiries


So - where do they fit?• No formal constitutional standing• BUT:

– royal commission type inquiries have considerable legislative standing and powers

– other inquiries almost no formal standing• Part of executive government • Not part of the judiciary • Largely ignored in the academic

literature on Westminster, policy,


ALRC report on C’mth Royal Commissions Act


So-where do they fit-a gap in govt?

• Independence – members/openness• Process – rational decision making steps• Evidence based – research & collection • Transparency – go to whoa• Testing ideas – draft reports• Promote understanding/agreement – synthesis • Inquisitorial inquiries – powers and resources

greater than existing bodies• ‘Institutions of last resort’ – reflect gaps in current

Westminster system


References Borchardt, D.H., 1991, Commissions of Inquiry in Australia Lindell, G., 2002, Tribunals of Inquiry and Royal CommissionsPrasser, S., 2006, Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries in AustraliaRansley, J., 2001, Inquisitorial Royal Commissions and the

Investigation of Political Wrongdoing, PhD Thesis, Griffith UnivWeller, P., (ed), 1994, Royal Commissions and the Making of Public

Policy, Macmillan, MelbourneFor case studies on public inquiries see:

– Frame, T., 1993, Where Fate Falls (on royal commissions into the Voyager disaster)

– Moffitt, A., 1985, Quarter to Midnight: The Australian Crisis-Organised Crime and the Decline of the Institutions of State (on NSW anti-corruption inquiries)

RESEARCH:– ARC Application 2013: Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries – Are they worth

it? (collaboration with ACU, Univ of Qld Law School, Griffith School of Criminology & Crime and Business School)

– Commonwealth Parl Library to develop a project on this area?

Documents

Address by Professor Scott Prasser Public Policy Institute – Australian Catholic University