Contents

Executive Summary
Establishment and Composition of British Tribunals of Inquiry
Scope of Inquiries and Need for Parliamentary Approval
Conduct
General
Salmon Principles
Other Matters
Scope of Judicial Review
Absence of a Right of Appeal
Conclusions
SCHEDULE 1 Inquiries held under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 (UK)
SCHEDULE 2 Statistical Information
SCHEDULE 3 Australian Royal Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cwlth) 19012001
Endnotes

Executive Summary

Australian Royal Commissions and British Tribunals of Inquiry have been, and continue to be, used as accepted tools of government. They can investigate and report on major disasters or events that become matters of public concern as a result for example of some alleged maladministration in the workings of government. The current Royal Commissions on the collapse of HIH⁽¹⁾ and also into the building industry⁽²⁾ provide the most recent illustrations of the uses made of such inquiries at the federal level of government.

To be fully effective these kinds of public inquiries are often given coercive powers of summoning witnesses and compelling the production of documents. However, their undoubted utility has to be balanced against other considerations such as their potential to harm the reputations, and intrude on the privacy, of individuals. This gives rise to the need to adopt safeguards for witnesses who may be called upon to appear before them. A related issue concerns the effect of adopting such safeguards on the costs and duration of inquiries. A further underlying issue concerns the appropriateness of using safeguards developed in adversarial proceedings in the kind of inquisitorial proceedings that are necessarily involved in public inquiries.

The paper⁽³⁾ from which this brief is drawn attempts to assess the relevance of the experience generated by British Tribunals of Inquiry for Australian federal Royal Commissions especially when analysed against the background of judicial developments in some other jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Ireland. The experience of those countries may also provide insights into the law which governs the operation of Australian federal royal commissions and changes that might be considered to that law in the future.

Establishment and Composition of British Tribunals of Inquiry

Important questions arise regarding how public inquiries are established and what should be their composition.

The establishment of British Tribunals of Inquiry in 1921 in preference to parliamentary committees of inquiry was, in part, due to the inability of such committees to examine witnesses on oath. It was also due to the unhappy experiences which parliamentary inquiries had enjoyed in the past, essentially as a result of political partisanship. The former kinds of inquiries have frequently been conducted by senior judges. The appointment of members of the judiciary attracts significant advantages to the Executive branch of government since it bestows on those inquiries what has been described as the 'borrowed authority' of the judiciary. This is perceived as posing significant dangers for the independence of the judiciary and thus gives rise to serious questions of policy which in Australia are governed by constitutional and legal restraints founded on the separation of judicial powers.

The increased role of judges in the judicial review of governmental action under the recently enacted British Human Rights Act 1998 and the arrangements for the devolution of authority to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, may require a re-examination of the advisability of appointing existing judges to Tribunals of Inquiry. One way of maximising the preservation of the authority and prestige of serving judges both in the United Kingdom and Australia is to appoint retired judges.

Scope of Inquiries and Need for Parliamentary Approval

Significant issues arise concerning the scope of the investigations undertaken by public inquiries. What matters are appropriate for such investigation? To what extent should the inquiries be carried on without the approval of parliament?

British Tribunals of Inquiry have been appointed to investigate over a wide range of incidents and matters including allegations of misconduct against Ministers of the Crown, civil servants, local authorities and police. Examples have involved improper gifts to Ministers, the improper disclosure of budget secrets and the official bank rate, accusations of brutality against police, disorders in Northern Ireland ('The Bloody Sunday Affair') and mine disasters. In recent times they have also involved the shooting of innocent children in Dunblane Primary School, the abuse of children in North Wales and the numerous deaths of patients treated by a private doctor. This gives rise to the issue of which inquiries can legally be held, and with whose approval, given the implications such inquiries have for the potential intrusion into the privacy of individuals. A full list of all British inquiries to date is attached in Schedule 1. Some statistical information regarding the length of an inquiry, the number of lawyers and witnesses involved and the volume of recorded evidence, in relation to three of these inquiries, may be found in Schedule 2. Australian Royal Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cwlth) are listed at Schedule 3.

The suggestion put forward in the paper is that there is considerable merit in following the British model in two particular respects. The first is that of requiring parliamentary approval for the appointment of Tribunals of Inquiry. The second is to ensure that such inquiries are only permitted to inquire into 'definite matters' of 'urgent public importance' on the assumption that the primary judgment for forming an opinion on these matters is vested in the body which appoints the tribunal. The existing legal prohibition against the unauthorised delegation of the power to define the scope of a public inquiry operates as an important brake in limiting the extent to which Tribunals of Inquiry and Royal Commissions can be authorised to define their own terms of reference.

A related issue concerns the extent to which public inquiries can investigate questions of criminal liability given the serious implications such inquiries can pose for the holding of a fair trial since the findings of such inquiries are not legally authoritative and binding. Despite those implications, the analysis undertaken in this paper suggests that Tribunals of Inquiry and Royal Commissions can probably be appointed to inquire into whether individuals have committed criminal offences in the United Kingdom and Australia. This is subject to some restrictions which flow from the law of contempt once an individual is formally charged and put on trial. Although it was different before, the position is now probably the same in New Zealand as a result of statutory changes.

Conduct

General

The stages of an inquiry conducted by a Tribunal of Inquiry have been described in the following terms and would seem to be equally applicable to inquiries conducted by Australian Royal Commissions. These consist of:

To what extent should the conduct of a public inquiry be subject to legal regulation? Tribunals of Inquiry and Royal Commissions are, for the most part, legally free to determine their own procedures subject to the need to comply with the legally enforceable rules of procedural fairness developed by the courts. The extent of statutory regulation is for the most part quite small. The rules on procedural fairness have assumed a greater importance than might have originally been envisaged because of their evolving and dynamic character. In the United Kingdom a further constraint on the autonomy enjoyed by Tribunals, which has assumed a growing importance, flows from the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Salmon Principles

One of the important issues which arises from the creation of public inquiries relates to the rights of witnesses. What, if any, safeguards are needed to protect the rights of witnesses appearing before such inquiries? To what extent are the rights of parties and witnesses in ordinary legal proceedings appropriate for adoption in public inquiries vested with coercive powers to summon witnesses and require the production of documents?

The United Kingdom has seen in recent times the emergence of a debate as to how best to safeguard the rights of witnesses called to give evidence before public inquiries including Tribunals of Inquiry armed with coercive powers. The debate has been characterised by a difference between those who favour the adoption of the same kinds of safeguards enjoyed by witnesses in adversarial proceedings, as recommended in the Salmon Royal Commission Report in 1966⁽⁴⁾, and those who argue that such safeguards are not appropriate to inquisitorial proceedings, as argued in the Scott Report in 1996.⁽⁵⁾

The paper from which this brief is drawn analyses in detail the way in which both approaches diverge as regards the circumstances that justify the involvement of witnesses, giving witnesses notice of adverse matters raised against them, legal representation of witnesses, and the cross-examination, examination in chief and re-examination of witnesses. The Salmon Royal Commission recommended what were described as six cardinal principles.

(a)    S/he should be given an adequate opportunity of preparing her/his case and of being assisted by legal advisers.

(b)   Her/his legal expenses should normally be met out of public funds.

The approach of the Scott Report stressed the differences between the inquisitorial function of public inquiries and the adversarial nature of litigation. In the former:

Litigation, on the other hand, involves each party having a case to be placed before a court for its consideration and procedures. This is designed to ensure that the defendant knows the essential nature of the other party's case. In an inquisitorial inquiry there are only witnesses who have or may have knowledge of some matters under investigation.

In the view taken in the Scott Report, the Salmon principles failed to satisfy three principal objectives of a public inquiry. These were:

A recent report prepared by the British Council of Tribunals⁽⁶⁾ and endorsed by the then British Government seemed to significantly downplay the difference between the two approaches and appeared to avoid coming down clearly in favour of one or the other of those approaches. The hallmark of its approach was flexibility and it believed that it was wholly impracticable to devise a single set of model rules or guidelines that will apply to every inquiry.

Although originally intended as nonlegally enforceable guidelines, the extent to which the recommendations to adopt the Salmon principles will be followed in the future in the United Kingdom may now depend on the extent to which courts will recognise them as forming part of the common law rules of procedural fairness. It is true that the Salmon principles have received legislative and constitutional recognition in other countries apart from the United Kingdom⁽⁷⁾. However the writer of this paper believes that, overall, the arguments in favour of leaving the extent of their recognition in the hands of the courts outweigh those that favour their adoption as a statutory code.

Other Matters

The Salmon Report dealt with certain other matters which also deserve consideration for Australia. These included the importance of an inquiry explaining at the outset how it proposed to interpret the terms of reference of the inquiry and the procedures it proposed to adopt for the conduct of the inquiry. They also involved the desirability of avoiding where possible reliance on hearsay evidence and only relying on evidence that would have been admissible in ordinary court proceedings, when reporting on the conduct of individual witnesses. In addition Australian federal legislation is, with some exceptions, silent on whether inquiries should be conducted in public. The public nature of an investigation goes to the heart of one of the advantages of holding an inquiry, namely, securing the confidence of the public in the findings of the inquiry. The view expressed in the paper is that it is desirable to enact provisions similar to those enacted with respect to British Tribunals of Inquiry that would clarify the general obligation of Australian federal Royal Commissions to conduct their inquiries in public. The same applies to legislation that would define the period during which the law of contempt operates in relation to the proceedings of such Royal Commissions. The latter law protects the authority and ability of such inquiries to perform their appointed task.

Scope of Judicial Review

Public inquiries give rise to important questions concerning judicial review. In what circumstance are, and should, the proceedings of public inquiries be open to judicial review? What grounds are, and should, be available to challenge the conduct and findings of such inquiries in legal proceedings?

The essential assumption which underpins the overall desirability of leaving the protection of witnesses to the courts is that judicial review is available for that purpose. The historical and traditional obstacle in the way of reviewing their findings has always been the fact that the findings by bodies that are only appointed to inquire and report have not been seen as affecting the rights of individuals. It is suggested in this paper that the obstacle has now lost most of its force.

The courts in New Zealand have in recent times led the way in subjecting public inquiries to the operation of the normal principles of administrative law review. This allows challenges in the courts in relation to Royal Commissions that are based on the following grounds:

Experience so far suggests that judicial review in the United Kingdom is likely, and has already begun, to follow the same course. The enactment of the British Human Rights Act has expanded the scope of judicial review by reference to wider considerations related to the protection of human rights. Such expansion of judicial review has given rise to some concern. That concern can only be underlined by the many judicial challenges launched against the procedures adopted by the second Tribunal of Inquiry appointed to investigate the 'Bloody Sunday' affair. The concerns can only be heightened by the fact that the challenges were launched despite the eminent and distinguished judges who were themselves appointed to that Tribunal; and also the lengthy period of time which elapsed before the same Tribunal was able to commence hearing witnesses.

Developments in Australia in regard to the availability of judicial review for Royal Commissions are likely to parallel, if they have not already done so, those that have taken place in New Zealand. This is complicated by the existence of possible jurisdictional or procedural drawbacks which, however, are not thought to be insuperable. Ironically, the drawbacks stem from statutory reforms that were designed to streamline the availability of judicial review and overcome the complexities that attended use of the traditional means by which courts could provide a remedy for unlawful administrative action. The federal legislation in point is the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cwlth). In the view advanced in this paper, the significance of the potential gaps in the jurisdiction which exist under that legislation is likely to have been reduced, if not eliminated, by the recent expansion in the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal Court as a result of insertion of sub-s. 39B(1A) in the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cwlth). Under those provisions the Court is given the jurisdiction to deal with any matter arising under a law of the Commonwealth.

The substantive grounds for judicial review in Australia are likely to replicate in large measure those that exist in New Zealand. The Australian High Court has recognised that injury to reputation is now recognised as a sufficient interest to attract the operation of the rules of procedural fairness. There have been decisions of other courts in Australia that have affirmed the ability to prevent Royal Commissions from exceeding their authority by for example going beyond their terms of reference. Once it is accepted that courts can intervene on those grounds it seems difficult to see at first sight why courts should take any different view in relation to the similar availability of the other grounds of challenge under the principles of administrative law. One Australian judicial decision has, however, highlighted the difficulty of relying on some of those grounds, at least when it comes to challenging the establishment of Royal Commissions and the scope of their inquiries. The Australian courts have recognised that the application of the ordinary principles of administrative law to inquisitorial bodies cannot ignore the inquisitorial character of such bodies.

There remains in Australia the further ground of challenge in relation to federal Royal Commissions based on constitutional considerations. This, in theory at least, prevents Royal Commissions from inquiring into matters that lie beyond the reach of federal legislative powers. But given the wide reach of those powers, and the difficulty of showing that a matter can never have any relevance to those powers, the successful establishment of this ground is not without its difficulties.

Absence of a Right of Appeal

The final issue concerns whether there is a right to appeal against the findings of a public inquiry.

None of the jurisdictions considered in this paper make provision for a right of appeal from the findings of Tribunals of Inquiry in the United Kingdom (and Ireland) or Royal Commissions in Australia and elsewhere. This is not surprising given the non-legally binding status of such findings. It is suggested in this paper that the absence of a right of appeal, when combined with the immunity enjoyed by such public inquiries from liability in defamation, may serve as an inducement to find indirect legal means of challenging findings which damage the reputation of individuals. This was illustrated by the events that surrounded the Royal Commission⁽⁸⁾ into the crash of an Air New Zealand aircraft into Mount Erebus on 28 November 1979. This inquiry culminated with a landmark judicial decision which established the application of the rules of procedural fairness to Royal Commissions.

The Salmon Commission concluded against creating a right of appeal from the findings of a Tribunal of Inquiry. What emerges from the paper, however, is that both for policy and legal reasons, there will be occasions when it will be necessary to re-examine the findings of a public inquiry. The guiding objective should be to identify those occasions with the least possible judicial intervention. That intervention should be reserved as an option of last resort given the implications for cost and delay which that option necessarily involves.

With that in mind, it is suggested in the paper that a case can be made for improving the mechanisms for reviewing the findings of public inquiries which, for one reason or another, subsequently come under question in a way that will minimise the scope of judicial intervention. One such mechanism would take the form of suspending judicial review until governments are given the opportunity to obtain independent advice from a retired judge or senior practising lawyer on whether a new inquiry should be established to report on the whole or any part of the issues canvassed in the earlier inquiry.

Conclusions

SCHEDULE 1 Inquiries held under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 (UK)

 

Title	Members of Tribunal	Year	Command Number
Destruction of documents by Ministry of Munitions officials	Lord Cave Lord Inchape Sir W. Plender	1921	1340
Royal Commission on Lunacy and Mental Disorder given powers under the Act	H. Macmillan (Chairman)	1924	2700
Arrest of R. Sheppard, R.A.O.C. Inquiry into conduct of Metropolitan Police	J. Rawlinson	1925	2497
Allegations made against the Chief Constable of Kilmarnock in connection with the dismissal of Constables Hill and Moore from the Burgh Police Force.	W. Mackenzie	1925	2659
Conditions with regard to mining and drainage in an area around the County Borough of Doncaster.	Sir H. Monro (Chairman)	19268
Charges against the Chief Constable of St Helens by the Watch Committee.	C. Parry T. Walker	1928	3103
Interrogation of Miss Irene Savidge by Metropolitan Police at New Scotland Yard	Sir J.E. Banks H. Lees-Smith J. Withers	1928	3147
Allegations of bribery and corruption in connection with the letting and allocation of stances and other premises under the control of the Corporation of Glasgow.	Lord Anderson Sir R. Boothby J. Hunter	1933	4361
Unauthorised disclosure of information relating to the Budget	Sir J. Porter G. Simonds R. Oliver	1936	5184
The circumstances surrounding the loss of HM Submarine 'Thetis'	Sir J. Bucknill	1939	6190
The conduct before the Hereford Juvenile Court Justices of the proceedings against Craddock and others	Lord Goddard	1943	6485
The administration of the Newcastle upon Tyne Fire, Police and Civil Defence Services	R. Burrows	1944	6522
Bribery of Ministers of the Crown or other public servants in connection with the grant of licences, etc.	Sir J. Lynskey G. Russell Vick G. Upjohn	1948	7616
Allegations of improper disclosure of information relating to the raising of the Bank Rate	Lord Parker E. Holland G. Veale	1957	350
Allegations that John Waters was assaulted on 7 December 1957, at Thurso and the action taken by Caithness Police in connection therewith	Lord Sorn Sir J. Robertson J. Dandie	1959	718
The circumstances in which offences under the Official Secrets Act were committed by William Vassall	Lord Radcliffe Sir J. Barry Sir E. Milner-Holland	1962	2009
The disaster at Aberfan	Sir E. Davies H. Harding V. Lawrence	1967	H.C. 553
The events on Sunday, 30 January 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day ('Bloody Sunday')	Lord Widgery	1972	H.C. 220/72
The circumstances leading to the cessation of trading by the Vehicle and General Insurance Co. Ltd	Sir A. James M. Kerr S. Templeman	1972	H.C. 133
The extent to which the Crown Agents lapsed from accepted standards of commercial or professional conduct or of public administration as financiers on their own account in the years 1967/74	Sir D. Croom-Johnson Sir W. Slimmings Lord Allen	1982	H.C. 364
The shootings at Dunblane Primary School, 13 March 1996	Lord Cullen	1996	3386
Abuse of children in care in North Wales	Sir Ronald Waterhouse, M. le Fleming M. Clough	2000
A further inquiry into The events on Sunday, 30 January 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day ('Bloody Sunday')	Lord Saville Sir E. Somers W. Hoyt J. Toohey	Still sitting (began 1998)
Inquiry into the death of Dr Shipton's patients	Lady Janet Smith	Still sitting (began 2001)

 

SCHEDULE 2 Statistical Information

 

	Length	Number of lawyers	Number of witnesses	Volume of recorded evidence
Aberfan disaster 1966	26.10.66 17.7.67 76 days	31	134	4236 pages
Vassall 1962	15.11.62 5.4.63 29.5 days	25	142	552 pages
Dunblane school shootings 1996	21.3.96 30.9.96	17	178	1600 letters/33 739 petitions
Abuse of children in care in Wales	17.6.96 7.5.98 (witnesses heard between 4.2.97 12.3.98)	52	575	43 000 pages (examination of 9500 social services files)

Note: This information was compiled by the writer from the reports of the above randomly selected inquiries and also, in the case of the last inquiry, from material supplied by the Lord Chancellors Department.

SCHEDULE 3 Australian Royal Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry
under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cwlth)

19012001

 

Reports column: indicates the location of the report in the Parliamentary Papers Series, held at major libraries. The annotation 'tabled not printed' designates reports presented to Parliament which are not ordered to be printed. Whilst these are parliamentary papers, they do not form part of the Parliamentary Papers Series. Some of these items were published separately, and some have what is known as a List Number which is relevant only for Parliamentary Library staff. Some unpublished reports are held by the National Archives of Australia; in some of these cases, the location symbol NAA is used.

State column: indicates Royal Commissions which were appointed both by the Commonwealth and the States/Territories named.

Title	Date of Letters PatentDate Final Report Presented	Commissioners	Report (Year / Volume / Pages)	State
Royal Commission appointed to inquire into and report upon the arrangements made for the transport of troops returning from service in South Africa in the S.S. Drayton Grange	12 August9 October 1902	A. McLean (Chair), D. A. Gresswell, G. McGregor, D. Thomson, W. D. Williams	190102/II/11935
Royal Commission on sites for the seat of government of the Commonwealth	14 January17 July 1903	J. Kirkpatrick (Chair), A. W. Howitt, H. C. Stanley, G. Stewart	1903/II/211320
Royal Commission on the Bonuses for Manufactures Bill	15 January 19032 March 1904	C. C. Kingston (Chair), E. N. C. Braddon, J. Cook, S. W. Cooke, G. W. Fuller, L. E. Groom, W. M. Hughes, J. W. Kirwan, J. W. McCay, S. Mauger, D. Watkins, J. C. Watson	1904/II/14071620
Royal Commission on the butter industry	11 April 190427 July 1905	G. C. Morison (Chair), G. Graham, H. G. Turner	1904/II/162131, 1905/II/121991
Royal Commission on the Navigation Bill	29 June 190414 June 1906	W. M. Hughes (Chair), G. B. Edwards, L. E. Groom, R. S. Guthrie, W. Knox, H. de Largie, J. Macfarlane, S. Mauger, D. Thomson	1906/III/11036, 190708/IV/159
Royal Commission on the affray at Goaribari Island, British New Guinea, on the 6th of March, 1904	25 July 190413 September 1904	C. E. R. Murray	1904/II/67175
Royal Commission on customs and excise tariffs	12 December 19049 August 1907	J. Quick (Chair), F. Clarke, J. S. Clemons, J. M. Fowler, G. W. Fuller, W. G. Higgs, G. McGregor, T. Playford, G. W. Wamsley	1905/II/22367, 1906/IVV (whole vols), 190708/IV/5291673
Royal Commission on old-age pensions	27 February 190519 June 1906	A. Chapman (Chair), F. W. Bamford, L. Bonython, C. E. Frazer, J. P. Gray, H. W. Lee, K. OMalley, J. Page, G. F. Pearce, T. Skene, S. Smith, J. Styles	1906/III/14351805, 190708/II/12511253
Royal Commission on the tobacco monopoly	30 December 190514 June 1906	G. F. Pearce (Chair), E. Findley, J. P. Gray, J. H. Keating, J. C. Stewart, W. H. Story, J. Styles	1906/III/18072234
Royal Commission on ocean shipping service	11 January29 June 1906	J. Thomas (Chair), J. M. Chanter, J. Gibb, C. McDonald, H. Mahon, S. Smith, W. G. Spence, D. Storrer, H. Willis	1906/III/10371433
British New GuineaRoyal Commission of inquiry into the present conditions, including the method of government, of the Territory of Papua, and the best means of their improvement	27 August 190620 February 1907	J. A. K. MacKay (Chair), C. E. Herbert, W. E. Parry Okeden	1907/I/137463
Royal Commission on secret drugs, cures, and foods	11 December 19068 August 1907	O. C. Beale	190708/IV/61527
Royal Commission on postal services	22 June 19085 October 1910	J. H. Cook (Chair), H. de Largie, E. Mulcahy, C. C. Salmon, D. Storrer, W. Webster, W. H. Wilks	1910/IVV (whole vols)
Royal Commission on insurance	15 December 19081 July 1910	J. H. Hood (Chair), G. H. Knibbs	1909/II/139394, 1910/II/10431346
Royal Commission on stripper harvesters and drills	15 December 190830 July 1909	A. Poynton (Chair), J. M. Chanter, G. W. Fuller, J. K. McDougall, S. Sampson	1909/II/14771874
Royal Commission on Tasmanian customs leakage	30 December 19103 October 1911	J. A. Jensen (Chair), F. W. Bamford, J. Forrest, W. J. Lyne, W. J. McWilliams, E. A. Roberts, A. Wynne, W. N. Hedges, S. Sampson	1911/III/8531238
Royal Commission on the sugar industry	24 October 19114 December 1912	J. H. Gordon (Chair 191112), W. J. Brown (Chair 1912), R. M. M. Anderson, T. W. Crawford, A. Hinchcliffe, M. R. Shannon	1912/III/10351125, 1913/IV/11692316
Royal Commission on the pearl-shelling industry	3 April 191230 August 1916	F. W. Bamford (Chair), T. Givens, W. E. Johnson, W. J. McWilliams, H. Mahon, W. Maloney	1913/III/577803, 191417/V/83141
Royal Commission on the fruit industry	12 April 19128 October 1914	F. J. Foster (Chair), W. F. Finlayson, D. J. Gordon, P. J. Lynch, R. K. Ready, S. Sampson, J. Thomson	1913/IV/11167, 1914/II/22345, 191417/V/193211
Royal Commission appointed to inquire into certain charges against Mr. Henry Chinn	4 January27 November 1913	H. Hodges	1913/III/12451252
Royal Commission on Northern Territory railways and ports	28 March 191324 June 1914	F. Clarke (Chair), D. Lindsay, A. Combes.	1914/II/677731
Royal Commission on powellised timber	19 December 19138 October 1914	H. Gregory (Chair), J. Bennett, R. J. Burchell, W. J. McWilliams, K. OMalley, A. Poynton, H. Sinclair	1914/II/65556, 191417/V/84390
Royal Commission upon the Commonwealth electoral law and administration	20 January 191414 July 1915	H. Sinclair (Chair), R. W. Foster, W. Maloney, W. H. Laird Smith, R. Patten	1914/II/21112, 191415/II/43554
Royal Commission on meat export trade	5 June2 December 1914	P. W. Street	191417/V/563609
Royal Commission on food supplies and trade and industry during the war	31 August16 December 1914	A. Deakin (Chair), G. H. Knibbs, D. Thomson	191417/V/14386
Royal Commission on mail services and trade development between Australia and the New Hebrides	31 March28 July 1915	F. W. Bamford (Chair), W. E. Johnson	191417/V/665724
Royal Commission on Liverpool Military Camp, New South Wales	12 July20 August 1915	G. E. Rich	191417/II/27397
Royal Commission on the charges made by D. L. Gilchrist concerning the construction of the western section of the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway	23 March13 September 1916	J. G. Eagleson	191417/IV/13411400
Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon certain charges against the Administrator and other officers of the Northern Territory Administration	11 May13 September 1916	A. N. Barnett	191417/I/484 (reference only, tabled not printed)
Royal Commission on Federal Capital Administration	14 June 191614 June 1917	W. Blacket	191417/II/10671112, 1917/II/178
Royal Commission on Java and the East Indies, Singapore and the Straits Settlements	7 February 191710 May 1918	J. J. Long	191719/V/106397
Royal Commission on Navy and Defence Administration	2 July 19174 July 1919	W. G. McBeath (Chair), J. Chalmers, P. T. Taylor, F. A. Verco	191719/IV/175463
Royal Commission on the warAustralian Imperial Force. Report as to number of members fit for active service and number of reinforcements and enlistments required	6 March4 April 1918	S. W. Griffith	191719/IV/64750
Royal Commission on Public Service administration, Commonwealth of Australia	2 October 191828 July 1920	D. C. McLachlan	192021/IV/15251620
Royal Commission upon the public expenditure of the Commonwealth of Australia with a view to effecting economies	21 November 19186 April 1921	R. Gibson (Chair), G. G. Haldane, G. H. Turton	191719/V/15251615, 192021/IV/12971517
Royal Commission on taxation of leasehold estates in Crown lands	18 December 19189 October 1919	G. H. Knibbs (Chair), H. O. Allan, H. A. G. Curry	191719/VI/102772
Royal Commission on the sugar industry	31 March 191918 March 1920	A. B. Piddington (Chair), N. C. Lockyer, S. Mills	192021/IV/90560
Royal Commission on industrial troubles on Melbourne wharfs	7 June 19196 May 1920	G. J. Dethridge	192021/IV/68792
Royal Commission on late German New Guinea	12 August 191921 May 1920	J. H. P. Murray (Chair), A. A. Hunt, W. H. Lucas	192021/III/15391621
Royal Commission to inquire into complaints by the munition worker passengers to Australia by the transport Bahia Castillo	15 October 191924 December 1919 [date report completed]	P. Cohen (Chair), C. R. W. Brewis, H. W. Lloyd	NAA A11803, control symbol 1919/89/670
Royal Commission on Northern Territory Administration	12 November 191921 May 1920	N. V. Ewing	192021/III/165369
Royal Commission on the basic wage	6 December 191923 November 1920	A. B. Piddington (Chair), R. Cheney, H. C. Gibson, W. D. Gilfillan, E. E. Keep, T. C. Maher, A. C. Morley, G. M. Allard, J. A. Harper	192021/IV/529645
Royal Commission on taxation	10 September 192013 June 1923	W. W. Kerr (Chair), M. B. Duffy, J. G. Fairleigh, J. J. Garvan, J. Jolly, S. Mills, W. T. Missingham, J. Thomson	192021/III/11511243, 1922/II/10231177, 192324/III/21932304	QLD, TAS, WA
Royal Commission on the increase of the selling price of coal	30 September 192020 October 1920 [date report completed]	C. Hibble (Chair), A. Jobson, H. H. Ling	NAA A460, control symbol A5/42
Royal Commission on the matter of uniform railway gauge	8 February12 October 1921	J. J. Garvan (Chair), R. Blake, F. M. Whyte	192021/V/75798
Royal Commission on pillaging of ships cargoes	12 February12 July 1921	W. M. MacFarlane	192021/IV/797826
Royal Commission on Cockatoo Island Dockyard	25 April14 July 1921	M. Reid (Chair), W. J. McWilliams, W. G. Mahoney, W. M. Marks, C. W. C. Marr, T. J. Ryan, R. V. Wilson	192021/IV/116
Royal Commission upon the loyalty to the British Crown of German Nationals resident in Australia whose property is liable to a charge created by the Treaty of Peace Regulations made under the Treaty of Peace (Germany) Act 19191920	7 July 192111 November 1921 [date report completed]	W. M. MacFarlane	NAA A6006, control symbol 1921/12/31
Royal Commission on the circumstances attending the supposed loss at sea of the steamship Sumatra	25 July3 August 1923	J. J. Cohen (Chair), H. Chudleigh, J. Vine-Hall	192324/I/113 [reference only; tabled not printed]
Royal Commission in connection with sugar purchases by the Commonwealth through Mr. W. E. Davies in September and October, 1920	24 August 192327 March 1924	E. F. Mitchell	192324/II/164757
Royal Commission in connection with joinery supplied to the War Service Homes Commissioner in March, 1920	7 September 192327 March 1924	H. H. Henchman	192324/IV/35359
Royal Commission on the Navigation Act	7 September 192313 August 1925	J. H. Prowse (Chair), F. Anstey, W. L. Duncan, H. E. Elliott, C. S. McHugh, A. C. Seabrook, G. E. Yates, H. J. M. Payne	192324/II/10191120, 1925/I/129 (reference only), 1925/II/132343
Royal Commission on national insurance	7 September 19235 October 1927	J. D. Millen (Chair), B. Benny, J. Francis, J. Grant, A. E. Green, R. F. H. Green, J. F. Guthrie, J. A. H. Hunter, A. McDougall, W. G. Mahony	1925/II/12691321, 192628/IV/141186
Royal Commission on the method for determining the unimproved value of land held under Crown leases	12 July 192410 June 1925	W. W. Kerr (Chair), M. B. Duffy, J. Jolly	1925/II/9731033
Royal Commission on the assessment of war service disabilities	27 August 192410 June 1925	C. B. Blackburn (Chair), A. V. M. Anderson, W. W. Giblin, E. S. Jackson, H. S. Newland	1925/II/6772
Royal Commission to inquire into extracts from the reports in Parliamentary Debates of speeches made by Mr. Scullin in the House of Representatives on 7th and 19th August, 1924, in relation to land tax matters	9 September 192410 June 1925	D. S. Edwards	1925/II/103561
Royal Commission on the finances of Western Australia, as affected by Federation	5 November 192423 September 1925	W. G. Higgs (Chair), J. Entwistle, S. Mills	1925/II/14631641
Royal Commission on health	7 January 192514 January 1926	G. A. Syme (Chair), J. S. Greig, F. S. Hone, S. R. Innes-Noad, R. H. Todd	192628/IV/12471370
Royal Commission on Norfolk Island affairs	20 January13 August 1926	F. Whysall	192628/IV/14871563
Royal Commission on certain matters in connexion with the British Phosphate Commission	13 June11 August 1926	A. Robinson	192628/IV/106784
Royal Commission on wireless	28 January5 October 1927	J. H. Hammond (Chair), C. E. Crocker, J. A. M. Elder, A. J. B. McMaster	192628/IV/15651603
Royal Commission on the Edie Creek (New Guinea) leases	2 March5 October 1927	P. B. MacGregor	192628/IV/121334
Royal Commission on the moving picture industry in Australia	28 May 192726 April 1928	W. M. Marks (Chair), W. L. Duncan, F. M. Forde, J. Grant, H. Gregory, H. Hays, L. W. Nott	192628/IV/13711409
Royal Commission on the Constitution	18 August 192721 November 1929	J. B. Peden (Chair), P. P. Abbott, T. R. Ashworth, E. K. Bowden, H. P. Colebatch, M. B. Duffy, D. L. McNamara	192931/II/8971296
Royal Commission on child endowment or family allowances	28 September 192718 March 1929	T. S. OHalloran (Chair), J. Curtin, I. Evans, S. Mills, F. M. Muscio	1929/II/12811405
Royal Commission of inquiry into fatalities at Bundaberg	1 February13 June 1928	C. H. Kellaway (Chair), P. MacCallum, A. H. Tebbutt	192628/IV/10851211
Royal Commission appointed to inquire into statements in the press in regard to offers alleged to have been made to members to resign seats in the Federal Parliament	28 May4 September 1928	E. Scholes	192628/IV/123545
Royal Commission on the finances of South Australia, as affected by Federation	28 July 192822 August 1929	J. Cook (Chair), A. E. Barton, H. R. Brookes	1929/II/220148
Royal Commission on the coal industry	3 June21 November 1929	C. G. W. Davidson (Chair), H. W. Gepp, L. K. Ward	192931/II/88188
Royal Commission appointed to inquire into allegations affecting members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts in connexion with claims made by broadcasting companies against the Commonwealth Government	15 May8 August 1930	G. J. Dethridge	192931/III/62938
Royal Commission on Jacob Johnson	29 August 19311 October 1931 [date report completed]	G. S. Beeby	NAA A432, control symbol 1929/170 Part 8 Attachment 2
Royal Commission on performing rights	19 September 193224 May 1933	L. Owen	193234/IV/11631220
Royal Commission on taxation	6 October 193228 November 1934	D. G. Ferguson (Chair), E. V. Nixon	193234/IV/224996, 193437/III/19172118
Royal Commission on mineral oils and petrol and other products of mineral oils	6 April 19338 April 1935	S. E. Lamb (Chair), J. Gunn, A. J. Hancock	193437/III/457820
Royal Commission on the wheat, flour and bread industries	25 January 19341 April 1936	H. W. Gepp (Chair), T. S. Cheadle, C. W. Harper, E. P. M. Sheedy, S. M. Wadham	193234/IV/242567, 193437/IV/1690
Royal Commission appointed to inquire into and report upon the circumstances associated with the retirement of Lieutenant-Commander Alan Dermot Casey from the Royal Australian Navy	11 July23 October 1934	J. M. Napier	193437/III/89103
Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the monetary and banking systems at present in operation in Australia	15 November 193524 August 1937	J. M. Napier (Chair), J. P. Abbott, J. B. Chifley, R. C. Mills, E. V. Nixon, H. A. Pitt	193437/V/15571964
Royal Commission on doctors remuneration for national insurance service and other contract practice	18 July 1938	G. J. Dethridge (Chair), G. M. Allard, R. D. Mulvey	Commission lapsed, no report issued; NAA AA1969/10, control symbols 2A2D
Royal Commission regarding the contract for the erection of additions to the General Post Office, Sydney	7 June7 September 1939	A. V. Maxwell	193740/IV/102551
Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the contract or contracts with Abbco Bread Co. Pty. Limited for the supply of bread to the Department of the Army, and other matters	28 March21 August 1941	A. V. Maxwell	194043/III/944
Royal Commission to inquire into circumstances under which certain public monies were used and to whom, and for what purposes such moneys were paid	27 September25 November 1941	P. H. Rogers	194043/III/241 [reference only; tabled not printed]
Royal Commission in the matter of an inquiry into a statement that there was a document missing from the official files in relation to The Brisbane Line