INQUIRY COMMISSIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.37 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, a number of Commissioners who have sat on Inquiry Commissions constituted under the Inquiry Commissions Ordinance have commented on the fact that the powers of the Commissioners to require persons to give evidence before them are inadequate.

Under section 7 (e) of the present Ordinance, Mr Speaker, Sir, any person who is required by the Commissioners to give evidence on oath or affirmation or to produce a document or other thing and refuses to do so is only liable to a fine not exceeding $100. And his failure to do so, Mr Speaker, does not constitute in law a contempt of the authority of the Commission. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is therefore proposed to provide that a person who refuses to give evidence on oath or affirmation or to produce a document or other thing required to be produced before the Commission will be guilty of contempt under the amendment which we have proposed. It is also proposed to increase the punishment for contempt, which is at present a fine not exceeding $200 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. This amendment, Sir, will bring the punishment for contempt in line with that for obstruction and threats to witnesses under section 11 of the Ordinance, which is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

It is also proposed, Sir, to give the Commissioners power to determine the order in which witnesses are to be examined and to give them the powers of a Judge of the Supreme Court for the purpose of recovering costs or fines, or to give effect to a warrant of arrest or an order of imprisonment. The power of the Commissioners to require evidence to be taken is related in section 7 of the Ordinance to that of the High Court, and it is felt that the position should be placed beyond doubt by giving the Commissioners the powers of a Judge of the Supreme Court.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.40 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on some aspects of this Bill not in so far as they relate to an Inquiry Commission or to the Commissioners as set out in the Bill, but particularly with regard to the effect that these amendments have on the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, No. 33 of 1955.

Under the existing Inquiry Commissions Ordinance, Mr Speaker, the question of contempt of the Commissioner or Commissioners relates itself to the items set out in clause 3 (a) and clause 3 (b). There has been a new paragraph (c) inserted which says:

"[If any person] being required by the Commissioners to give evidence on oath or affirmation or to produce a document or other thing, refuses to do so, shall be guilty of contempt.".

So that once the Commissioner has subpoenaed a person to appear before him and if that person refuses to give evidence on oath or affirmation or to produce a document, he shall be guilty of contempt and he may be punished under the relevant section. Let us examine that section in relation to the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. The first section I would draw your particular attention to, Mr Speaker, in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance is section 3. Section 3 relates to freedom of speech in this Assembly, and it says:

`No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any person while a member of the Assembly-

(a) in respect of words spoken before the Assembly or a committee thereof; or

(b) in respect of words written in a report to the Assembly or to any committee thereof or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion or question brought or introduced by him therein.' In other words, Mr Speaker, Sir, section 3 gives absolute privilege to a Member of the Assembly in respect of statements made by him in this Assembly. I myself am doubtful what the effect of the proposed amendment to the Inquiry Commissions Ordinance will have on section 3 of this Ordinance. There is no doubt that this amendment is going to be later in time. Therefore, this amendment is being made in the full knowledge of the existence of section 3 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

Whether being later in time would have the effect of over-riding section 3 of this 1955 Ordinance, Mr Speaker. Sir, it is not for me to say. I think the Minister must advise the House on that. If it does over-ride the provisions of section 3, what then is the protection which an Assemblyman has for statements made by him in this Assembly? The Government could quite easily institute a Commission of Inquiry in respect of certain statements made by him in this Assembly, as has already been done, and the Commissioner will then call upon this person to come along and give evidence. And if he fails to give evidence under this proposed new clause, the Commissioner can then commit him for contempt and fine him. If that is correct, and if those are the powers intended that the Commissioner or Commissioners should have, then section 3 loses any value that it has. That is the first point, Mr Speaker.

The second point also relates itself to other provisions in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. May I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, Sir, to section 23? Section 23 is a long section but perhaps I had better read the whole of it.

No evidence relating to any of the following matters, that is to say

(a) debates or other proceedings in the Assembly;

(b) the contents of the minutes of evidence taken or any documents laid before a committee of the Assembly or any proceedings or examinations held before any such committee, by any member or officer of the Assembly or any shorthand-writer employed to take minutes of any such evidence or proceedings or in respect of any of the matters specified in paragraph (b) of this section by any person who was a witness before the committee shall be admissible in any proceedings before a court'-

Mark the words, Mr Speaker-

`or person authorized by law to take evidence'-

That, I take it, will include the Commissioner-

`unless the court or such last-mentioned person is satisfied that permission has been given by the Speaker or the Chairman of the committee (as the case may require) for such evidence to be given.'

I ask the Minister again what the effect of the proposed new clause in the Inquiry Commissions Ordinance will have on section 23 of the existing Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

Even more important than that, Sir, I draw your attention to section 24 (1) (e) which reads as follows:

`Any person who-

(e) publishes any report of a committee of the Assembly or of any evidence given or any documents presented to such committee or extracts from such documents, before such committee has presented its report to the Assembly;

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment.'

Sir, imagine a situation where a Select Committee is in session. It has not concluded its sittings. Certain evidence has been given in the Select Committee. An Inquiry Commission is started which relates itself to matters before that Select Committee, and the Commissioner then exercises his powers under the Inquiry Commissions Ordinance, summons a Member of the Select Committee before him and then says, "I want you to tell me what has taken place in Select Committee." Now that Member is in a nice fix, is he not? He is between the devil and the deep sea. Supposing he refuses, is the position then this? The Commissioner may commit him for contempt and fine him. If that is the position, and he accedes to the powers of the Commissioner and he gives evidence, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will have something to say about it and probably get him prosecuted under section 24 (1) (e) of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and have him convicted. Is that the position? Similarly with section 24 (1) (f) (i) and (ii) which reads:

`publishes any report or statement purporting to be a report of the proceedings of the Assembly in any case-

(i) where such proceedings have been conducted after exclusion by order of the Assembly of the public; or

(ii) where such publication has been expressly prohibited by order of the Assembly;'.

If anything is revealed in respect of those two matters set out therein, that person "shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment." Here again, he is between two fires - between the fire of the Speaker and the fire of the Commissioner. So the position seems a bit ticklish for some gentleman who should be so foolhardy as to contest an election, get himself elected, and say something in the Assembly which incurs the disapproval of the Government; whereupon the Government institutes a Commission of Inquiry and the Commissioner under his new powers seeks to get at the truth of things. The ultimate result is that the Assemblyman is between the two fires of the Speaker and the Commissioner. Is that the intention of this Bill?

Mr Speaker: Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Byrne: In reply, Sir. The Member for Farrer Park doubtless knows that civil and criminal proceedings cannot be instituted against persons for words spoken before this Legislative Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park will remember that in the time of the former Government, a Commission of Inquiry was appointed to look into the Mayor's handling of the affairs of the City Council. He will also remember that the leaders of the P.A.P. moved the High Court for a writ of prohibition in an effort to get the High Court to stop the proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry which was then appointed. The hon. Member will remember that the High Court held that a writ of prohibition does not lie, for the simple reason that the Commission is not a Court within the legal definition of the meaning of a Court.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, the Government is giving consideration to the introduction of a new Ordinance setting out the powers and privileges of this Legislative Assembly. A Committee of Privileges has already been set up by this House.

The points that the Member for Farrer Park has raised in this Assembly are matters which are at present actively receiving the attention of the Government. In due course, we will be introducing a Bill which will help to resolve these difficulties.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.- [Mr Byrne].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.