Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library BILLS DIGEST Information analysis and advice for the Parliament 7 June 2006, no. 149, 2005–06, ISSN 1328-8091 Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 Sue Harris Rimmer Law and Bills Digest Section Contents Purpose.............................................................. 2 Background........................................................... 2 Legal Professional Privilege ........................................... 2 The Cole Inquiry.................................................... 4 The Federal Court finding ............................................. 5 ALP policy position ................................................. 6 Main provisions........................................................ 7 Schedule 1 – Amendment of Royal Commissions Act 1902 ....................7 Concluding Comments.................................................. 10 Endnotes............................................................ 11 www.aph.gov.au/librarwww.aph.gov.au/library www.aph.gov.au/library 2 Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 Date introduced: 25 May 2006 House: House of Representatives Portfolio: Prime Minister Commencement: Sections 1 to 3 commence on the day of Royal Assent. Schedule 1 commences the day after Royal Assent. Purpose This Bill is to amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (the Act) to clarify the operation of the Act in respect of claims of legal professional privilege (LPP). Amendments were requested by the Commissioner of the current Inquiry into Certain Australian Companies in relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Programme (the Cole Inquiry), the Hon Terence Cole AO RFD QC, following the Federal Court decision in AWB Limited v Honourable Terence Rhoderic Hudson Cole [2006] FCA 571. The Bill intends to put beyond doubt that any current and future Commissioner appointed under the Act may require the production of a document in respect of which LPP is claimed, for the limited purpose of making a finding about whether to accept or reject it. The decision is still finally reviewable by the courts. The Bill was debated on 30 May and passed the House of Representatives on 31 May 2006. It is listed for debate in Senate on 15 June 2006. The urgency of the Bill’s passage and early commencement date is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum: This is a relatively early commencement, due to the urgency of the powers to be provided by the Bill being available for the benefit of the current Inquiry into Certain Australian Companies in relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Programme.1 Background Legal Professional Privilege Certain communications between a lawyer and his/her client are privileged and neither the client nor the lawyer can be compelled to disclose details of the communication. The rationale for this privilege, as identified by the High Court in 1976 in Grant v Downs, is that: Warning: This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill. Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 3 it promotes the public interest because it assists and enhances the administration of justice by facilitating the representation of clients by legal advisers, the law being a complex and complicated discipline. This it does by keeping secret their communications, thereby inducing the client to retain the solicitor and seek his advice, and encouraging the client to make a full and frank disclosure of the relevant circumstances to the solicitor. The existence of the privilege reflects, to the extent to which it is accorded, the paramountcy of this public interest over a more general public interest, that which requires that in the interests of a fair trial litigation should be conducted on the footing that all relevant documentary evidence is available. As a head of privilege legal professional privilege is so firmly entrenched in the law that it is not to be exorcised by judicial decision. 2 The common law in so far as it relates to privilege protects certain communications in the context of the confidential relationship of lawyers and clients but not communications in other confidential relationships such as accountants and clients. LPP is not merely a rule of evidence, it is a substantive common law right. Unless expressly abrogated by statute, it applies beyond judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings to statutory forms of compulsory disclosure. LPP essentially has two limbs. LPP attaches to confidential communications between a legal adviser and a client (or in some circumstances between one of those entities and a third party) if those communications were made for the dominant purpose of: • enabling the client to obtain, or the lawyer to give, legal advice; or • litigation that is actually taking place or reasonably anticipated at the time the communication was made. The litigation must at least be contemplated or anticipated. Legal proceedings are anticipated where there is a reasonable probability or likelihood that such proceedings will be commenced. Whether such a probability or likelihood exists is determined by an objective view, not the subjective view of the person making the communication. A vague apprehension, or the mere possibility that litigation might occur, is not sufficient. LPP extends to communications made with the intention to obtain or give legal advice or for the conduct of actual or contemplated litigation even though it is not in fact used in the litigation. LPP may also cover the following (non-exhaustive): • notes, memoranda, minutes or other documents made by the client or officers of the client or the lawyer of the client: − of communications which are themselves privileged; − which contain a record of those communications; or Warning: This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill. 4 Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 − which relate to information sought by lawyers to enable them to advise the clients or conduct litigation for them; − knowledge, information or belief of clients derived from privileged communications made to them by their lawyers or lawyers' agent. The Cole Inquiry On 14 April 1995, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council adopted resolution 986, establishing the ‘Oil-for-Food’ Programme, providing Iraq with an opportunity to sell oil to finance the purchase of humanitarian goods, and various mandated United Nations activities concerning Iraq. The Programme, as established by the Security Council, was intended to be a ‘temporary measure to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, until the fulfilment by Iraq of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including notably resolution 687 of 3 April 1991’. Although established in April 1995, the implementation of the Programme started only in December 1996, after the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United Nations and the Government of Iraq on 20 May 1996 (S/1996/356). The Programme was funded exclusively with the proceeds from Iraqi oil exports, authorised by the Security Council. The first oil was exported under the Programme in December 1996 and the first shipment of supplies arrived under the Programme in March 1997. The oil-for-food arrangement was not finalized, however, until early December 1996, after six months of negotiations between the Iraqi government, the Security Council and the Secretary-General. The final plan permitted Iraq to sell $2 billion worth of oil over six months to raise funds to buy food, medicines and other humanitarian goods. Funds earned from the oil sales were to be placed in an escrow account in New York administered by the United Nations. About $260 million was to be reserved for the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, and $600,000 placed in a special fund established to compensate victims of the Iraqi 1990 invasion. The UN Special Commission charged with monitoring Iraq’s destruction of its weapons of mass destruction was to receive $20 million to cover operating expenses, with the remainder of the money to be distributed in Iraq. The Security Council could renew the oil-for-food plan after six months if Iraq complied with conditions. Finding no major violations, the Council extended the plan for a second six- month term in June 1997. At the time of its termination on 21 November 2003, some $31 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment had been delivered to Iraq under the Oil-for-Food Programme, including $1.6 billion worth of oil industry spare parts and equipment. An additional $8.2 billion worth of supplies were in the production and delivery pipeline.3 The US-led military action began on 20 March 2003. Since its implementation, the oil-for-food scheme has been criticized for chronic administrative delays. Allegations were made that the program was directly benefiting 4 Saddam Hussein. Warning: This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill. Royal Commissions