Royal Commission

The Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service (”Wood Royal Commission”) was held in the State of New South Wales, Australia between 1994 and 1997. The Royal Commissioner was Justice James Roland Wood. The terms of reference were to look into systemic and entrenched corruption within the New South Wales Police; towards the end of the Royal Commission it also investigated alleged pedophile activities within the police service. At the time of it being setting up then Police Commissioner Tony Lauer stated that systemic entrenched corruption in the New South Wales Police was a figment of the political imagination. He was to retire soon after and was replaced by Peter James Ryan who was recruited from England. Far and wide ranging reforms have come about as a result of the Royal Commission, including the establishment of a permanent body known as the Police Integrity Commission.

n states that are Commonwealth Realms a Royal Commission is a major government public inquiry into an issue. They have been held in states such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In Hong Kong, Ireland and South Africa, a Commission of Enquiry or Commission of Inquiry is similarly organised.

A Royal Commissioner has considerable powers, generally greater even than those of a judge but restricted to the “Terms of Reference” of the Commission. The Commission is created by the Head of State (Sovereign, Governor-General or Governor) on the advice of the Government and formally appointed by Letters Patent. In practice—unlike lesser forms of inquiry—once a Commission has started the government cannot stop it. Consequently governments are usually very careful about framing the Terms of Reference and generally include in them a date by which the commission must finish.

Royal Commissions are called to look into matters of great importance and usually controversy. These can be matters such as government structure, the treatment of minorities, events of considerable public concern or economic questions. Some critics accuse Royal Commissions of being little more than a way to end public criticism of government inaction without actually doing anything.

Many Royal Commissions last many years and, often, a different government is left to respond to the findings. In Australia—and particularly New South Wales—Royal Commissions have been investigations into police and government corruption and organised crime using the very broad coercive powers of the Royal Commissioner to defeat the protective systems that powerful, but corrupt, public officials had used to shield themselves from conventional investigation.

Royal Commissions are usually chaired by one or more notable figures. Because of their quasi-judicial powers the Commissioners are often retired senior judges.

Royal Commissions usually involve research into an issue, consultations with experts both within and outside of government and public consultations as well. The Warrant may grant immense investigatory powers, including summoning witnesses under oath, offering of indemnities, seizing of documents and other evidence (sometimes including those normally protected, such as classified information), holding hearings in camera if necessary and—in a few cases—compelling all government officials to aid in the execution of the Commission.

The results of Royal Commissions are published in, often, massive reports of findings containing policy recommendations. (Due to the verbose nature of the titles of these formal documents, they are commonly known by the name of the principal Commissioner.) While these reports are often quite influential, with the government enacting some or all recommendations into law, the work of some Commissions have been almost completely ignored by the government. In other cases, where the Commissioner has departed from the Warranted terms, the commission has been dissolved by a superior court.

We thank the Refugee Action Collective for the opportunity to speak on this platform today and commend all the refugee advocates and supporters for the work they have done to defend the right of people to seek a safe home in this country. Many of my countryfolk have sought political asylum in Australia.

May I first acknowledge the traditional custodians of this place where we stand today. We particularly thank the Indigenous peoples of Australia for their hospitality and the solidarity they have demonstrated with our community; our ties as Pacific peoples, through trade and family, go a long way back.

Border protection is not a new policy for Australia.

Today we are gathered at a place where in 1855 Aboriginal people were not allowed to be after dusk because of a curfew. That is the historical significance of Brisbane city’s Boundary Streets. A decade later mounted police rode through Brisbane cracking stockwhips to clear Murries out of the central business district.¹ And in 1888, following the call of Henry Parkes, who was then the Premier of New South Wales, to end forever the entry of Chinese migrants, Brisbane was the scene of a four-hour race riot across the city, Fortitude Valley, and surrounding suburbs, in which thousands of participants attacked every Chinese business and residence in sight.² The scenario of that day of racial vilification and violence was the 5th of May 1888 Queensland General Election.

Historian Raymond Evans writing about this shameful xenophobic episode in 19th century Brisbane, draws a parallel with an event that occurred 113 years later in August 2001 when 433 stranded asylum-seekers aboard the MV Tampa were refused disembarkation inside Australian territorial waters. In October of the same year, 356 asylum-seekers drowned when the SIEV X sank — purportedly “outside Australian waters”. The context of these incidents was the lead up to the Federal Election in November 2001 when John Howard said, “We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come”.

Immediately preceding these events, on July 20, Vivian Alvarez-Solon, an Australian citizen born in the Philippines, was deported because the Department of Immigration could not take the time to thoroughly check the validity of her claim to residential status and Vivian could not produce proof of identity. The Immigration Department was so keen to apply its policy of deterrence and discouragement of illegal immigrants that, in its haste, Vivian was deported while still confined to a wheelchair, too injured to even sign her name, with a few measly possessions and a doctor’s certificate stating that she was fit to travel despite having just suffered a seizure while in detention.

Today, four years later, prompted by her family’s enquiries, a very determined media investigation and community lobbying, the government has been forced to admit its mistakes and lamely try to explain why the Filipino community’s efforts to delay her deportation in 2001 were ignored and why later in 2003 the Department of Immigration failed to act upon a positive identification of the deported Filipina as being the same Australian woman registered as a missing person.

Vivian Alvarez-Solon is still in Manila awaiting an acceptable offer of compensation from the Australian government. So far, all she has been promised are the things she is entitled to in any case: her return air transport to Australia, housing, medical attention, remedial therapy and a carer because her injuries have left her partially paralysed.

The Filipino community has been mobilising support in preparation for Vivian’s return and we would appreciate any help that you can offer.

We are organising within a coalition of individuals and groups with the Centre for Philippine Concerns acting as a Secretariat and you are very welcome to join in with us. Activities outside Brisbane include a community forum in Melbourne on June 11th and the group in Adelaide will soon announce their plans.

Commission secretary Datuk Abdullah Sani Abd Hamid said the three were lawyer Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Datuk V.K. Lingam’s former secretary identified only as Jayanthi and one of his former drivers, either Chandran or Mogan.

Abdullah Sani said four others — lawyer M. Manoharan, psychiatrist Tan Sri Dr M. Mahadevan, former High Court judge Datuk K.L. Rekhraj and Lingam’s sister Kanakalashimi — would be summoned to testify later in the week.

The names of these seven individuals were mentioned during the ongoing proceedings.

Shafee is allowed to testify as a statement from him to the commission appears to suggest that his evidence was relevant to the terms and reference of the inquiry.

The names of Jayanthi and the drivers surfaced last week when Lingam’s brother, Thirunama Karasu, gave evidence.

Jayanthi was said to have arranged the tour to New Zealand for Lingam and his family.

The drivers were said to have taken turns to drive Lingam to the house of former chief justice Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin.

Manoharan was accused of demanding payment from Lingam to withdraw a police report lodged against him. The report was lodged by Thirunama in March last year.

This allegation was made by Lingam when he was giving evidence two weeks ago.

Manoharan is one of the five Hindu Rights Action Force leaders detained under the Internal Security Act in Kamunting since December last year.

Dr Mahadevan was said to be one of the psychiatrists who examined Thirunama while Kanakalashimi was said to have pressured Thirunama into writing a statement, claiming he was of unsound mind and had revenge as motive when he lodged a report against Lingam to the Anti-Corruption Agency in 1998.

Rekhraj is being called to clear the air over a police report lodged against Shafee in 1996.

Thirunama, the 18th witness, is still on the stand and would be questioned by Bar Council lawyer Christopher Leong.

Abdullah said, barring any unforseen circumstances, the proceedings would go on until Friday.

He said the commission had up to March 11 to prepare a report on its findings before presenting it to the Yang di- Pertuan Agong.

Meanwhile, lawyers for Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim would apply to the commission to review its ruling barring Anwar from participating in the proceedings.

Counsel S.N. Nair said they would call on the commission to reconsider its ruling made on Feb 5.

“Failing which, we will go to the High Court to file for a judicial review against the commission’s ruling. At the same time, we will apply for a stay of the proceedings,” he said.

The commission last week barred Anwar and non-governmental organisation Aliran from taking part in the inquiry because they refused to apologise and retract their statements published on the Internet which was deemed to be on the verge of contempt.

Nair said Anwar could not be punished as the commission had not found him guilty for showing disrespect to the commission.

“They must follow contempt procedures and this includes calling Anwar to offer an explanation as to why he made the statement,” he said.

The inquiry started on Jan 14 and was supposed to have been completed by Jan 28.

So far, 17 witnesses have given evidence including Eusoff, Lingam, two retired chief justices, Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah and Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan.