Royal Commissions of Inquiry
| Author | George Gilligan |
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1375/acri.35.3.289 |
289
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
VOLUME 35 NUMBER 3 2002 PP.289–307
Address for correspondence: George Gilligan, Ph.D., Logan Research Fellow, Department
of Business Law and Taxation, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia.
Royal Commissions of Inquiry
George Gilligan
Monash University, Australia
This article first examines the historical conditions surrounding the
evolution of royal commissions of inquiry, and the political and
ideological functions that they may serve. The royal commissions of
inquiry established in Australia during the 1970s and 1980s to inquire
into organised crime are discussed in order to explore possibilities for a
general explanation of royal commissions.The conclusion reached is that
royal commissions of inquiry are an important component of official
discourse and may perform a legitimation function for apparatuses of the
state. However, royal commissions of inquiry are too diverse in their
effects to be tied down to a uniform explanatory model, whether based
upon notions of crisis motivation or legitimation deficit.
Royal commissions of inquiry1are a regular occurrence in contemporary Australia.
For example, as I write, there is widespread media coverage of the recent decisions
of the Commonwealth Government to establish two more royal commissions. The
Owen Commission, to be headed by Justice Neville Owen, “…will inquire into the
reasons for, and the circumstances surrounding, the failure of HIH [an insurance
company]…” (Prime Minister of Australia, 2001a, p. 2); the Cole Commission,
under Justice Terry Cole will inquire into, “…unlawful or otherwise inappropriate
industrial or workplace practice or conduct [within the construction industry in
Australia]…(Prime Minister of Australia, 2001b, p. 2). Are royal commissions
necessarily the right response to these issues, because history demonstrates that
royal commissions of inquiry can be deeply ambiguous, both in their process and in
their effects? Also, how does one know if a royal commission has been successful
and what should be the criteria for evaluating their success? Do they justify their
cost and would we in fact be better off without them?
These are important questions and this article considers some of the major
issues that they raise by focusing on two key themes: (i) the evolution of royal
commissions of inquiry in Australia and Great Britain, and (ii) the role of such
inquiries within the realm of official discourse. The core position of this analysis is
that it is unhelpful to classify royal commissions as a unitary phenomenon. Rather,
it is more fruitful to consider the discursive frameworks, and other social and politi-
cal structures and processes within which such inquiries function. This notion of
function is analysed in two ways. First, the legal or pragmatic function of a royal
commission to investigate an issue for a government, collect information, submit
a report and make recommendations. Second, the broader political, or ideological,
function as a management strategy, in particular that of crisis management, which
royal commissions may serve for centralised authority.
The analysis below first provides a brief history of the development of royal
commissions, then considers how apposite is Burton and Carlen’s assertion (1979,
p. 48), that the purpose of such inquiries is to “… to represent failure as temporary,
or no failure at all, and to re-establish the image of administrative and legal coher-
ence and rationality”. This hypothesis is considered within an Australian context
by examining royal commissions of inquiry established in Australia during the
1970s and 1980s to inquire into organised crime. The analysis concludes by
discussing the political character of royal commissions and their likely future role in
Australia, where such inquiries occupy a more prominent position than in their
country of origin — Great Britain.
The Evolution of Royal Commissions of Inquiry
The first recorded royal commission in England is better known as the Domesday
Book, ordered by the Norman Conqueror William I and compiled between 1080
and 1086. William sent an array of justices, barons and other notables into every
county to “… ascertain the ownership of each estate of land and its value for
taxation.” (Clokie & Robinson, 1939, p. 28). The Domesday Book Inquiry created
the central features of royal commissions that have survived largely unchanged over
the years. In Britain and in some of its former colonies such as Australia, Canada
and New Zealand, royal commissions remain essentially an ad hoc, flexible,
adaptive and adaptable mode of inquiry established by centralised authority to
investigate nominated issues. These topics are specified within a royal commission’s
terms of reference and approved under the royal prerogative in its letters patent.
The first royal commission was an information gathering exercise for taxation
purposes that also sought to cement the authority of a foreign king over his newly
conquered population. The subsequent history of royal commissions in Britain has
been interwoven with constitutional struggles centred upon the royal prerogative.
By examining the volume and scope of royal commissions in different eras, and in
relation to different types of executive administrations, it is possible to chart the
shifting sites of the power bases of centralised authority. For example, during the
Tudor and early Stuart era (1485–1689), the increased number of royal commis-
sions reflected attempts by the Crown to centralise power under the royal preroga-
tive. In contrast during the 17th and 18th centuries, which was an era of increasing
parliamentary supremacy, the number of royal commissions declined. This decline
was arrested during the mid-19th century when royal commissions increased in
frequency as a system of modern cabinet government developed. In fact the 1850s
mark a high point in the history of royal commissions in Britain, with 75 being
established during that decade (Clokie & Robinson, 1937, p. 26). The resurgence
in their popularity in the Victorian era is explained by their traditional characteris-
tics of flexibility and adaptiveness. Establishing a royal commission allowed greater
autonomy to a minister (through the royal prerogative), to inquire upon an issue
and avoided the parliamentary select committee, a forum that might provide a
platform for opposition.
290
GEORGE GILLIGAN
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
To continue reading
Request your trial