Well, we should probably enjoy discussing this here…..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/what-is-a-royal-commission-and-why-does-labor-want-one/7312216

It is a form of public inquiry. It has the legal powers to demand or seize documents, to summon witnesses and compel them to give evidence under oath even if they don’t want to. People risk jail time if they don’t comply.

Basically to inquire into things that people are doing either illegally, or against the public good. To shine a light into dark places that people don’t want a light shone.

party_pants said:

It is a form of public inquiry. It has the legal powers to demand or seize documents, to summon witnesses and compel them to give evidence under oath even if they don’t want to. People risk jail time if they don’t comply.

Basically to inquire into things that people are doing either illegally, or against the public good. To shine a light into dark places that people don’t want a light shone.

Probably what occurred during the famed Howard era that Abbott and his ilk still refer to, didn’t necessarily mean to shine that light there or rather, allow us to envisage that.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

It is a form of public inquiry. It has the legal powers to demand or seize documents, to summon witnesses and compel them to give evidence under oath even if they don’t want to. People risk jail time if they don’t comply.

Basically to inquire into things that people are doing either illegally, or against the public good. To shine a light into dark places that people don’t want a light shone.

Probably what occurred during the famed Howard era that Abbott and his ilk still refer to, didn’t necessarily mean to shine that light there or rather, allow us to envisage that.

No, I am answering the first part of your question “what is a royal commission” literally, without offering any political comment or opinion. A royal commission is set up with certain legal powers, more powers than a normal judge in court has in terms of what evidence they can summon and examine.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

It is a form of public inquiry. It has the legal powers to demand or seize documents, to summon witnesses and compel them to give evidence under oath even if they don’t want to. People risk jail time if they don’t comply.

Basically to inquire into things that people are doing either illegally, or against the public good. To shine a light into dark places that people don’t want a light shone.

Probably what occurred during the famed Howard era that Abbott and his ilk still refer to, didn’t necessarily mean to shine that light there or rather, allow us to envisage that.

No, I am answering the first part of your question “what is a royal commission” literally, without offering any political comment or opinion. A royal commission is set up with certain legal powers, more powers than a normal judge in court has in terms of what evidence they can summon and examine.

Ok my OP really suggested that we move on from there.. or so I thought that was my intent.

OK, in answer to the second part, if the Libs can have a RC into unions, then the Labs should be allowed to have a RC into banks.

Seems reasonable.

I had a small chuckle at some lib today saying that it’s a very political stunt.

I’d like to see a federal ICAC. But the Big 2 are squashing that idea.

Not just banks, but financial advisors as well.

“ compel them to give evidence under oath even if they don’t want to”

To which my fourth form English teacher would have replied “No-one can make anyone to anything. But they can make the alternative unattractive.”

I wonder why I have always remembered that. I guess she probably said it once, in 1975. And I still hear it in my head.

Not so long ago the Greens put forward a bill for a Royal Commission into the banking sector.
The ALP voted against it.

dv said:

Not just banks, but financial advisors as well.

And this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/asic-hauls-westpac-into-court-on-rate-rigging-regulations/7302340

Peak Warming Man said:

Not so long ago the Greens put forward a bill for a Royal Commission into the banking sector.
The ALP voted against it.

Yet again our tax money funds arguing the point back and forth into ridicule.

Peak Warming Man said:

Not so long ago the Greens put forward a bill for a Royal Commission into the banking sector.
The ALP voted against it.

Very disappointed with the ALP lately.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Not so long ago the Greens put forward a bill for a Royal Commission into the banking sector.
The ALP voted against it.

Very disappointed with the ALP lately.

They are waiting until your despair with the performance of the Libs increases.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Not so long ago the Greens put forward a bill for a Royal Commission into the banking sector.
The ALP voted against it.

Very disappointed with the ALP lately.

You would have to read the full wording of the bill. Often nasties are thrown in with no relation to the subject.

So if summoned to a royal commission you’d need to be a top notch liar not just your average joe/jill liar who appears in court.

A key feature of Royal Commissions is that evidence gathered in one can’t be used in evidence in another legal case. So if you’re summoned to appear at a RC, you can incriminate yourself for all you’re worth, and nobody can touch you with that evidence. In practice, police or others can investigate and find other evidence of your crimes and guilt, and use that to prosecute, though.

>>A key feature of Royal Commissions is that evidence gathered in one can’t be used in evidence in another legal case.

You sure about that, pilgrim.
Evidence is evidence, it just needs to be represented.