DOCSLIB.ORG

Making Inquiries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Making Inquiries MAKING INQUIRIES REPORT A New Statutory Framework REPORT 111 October 2009 This Report reflects the law as at 9 October 2009. © Commonwealth of Australia 2009 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Requests for further authorisation should be directed by letter to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Copyright Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton, ACT, 2600 or electronically via www.ag.gov.au/cca. ISBN 978-0-9804153-9-1 Commission Reference: ALRC Report 111 The Australian Law Reform Commission was established on 1 January 1975 by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 (Cth) and reconstituted by the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 25, 135 King Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. All ALRC publications can be made available in a range of accessible formats for people with disabilities. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. Telephone: within Australia (02) 8238 6333 International +61 2 8238 6333 TTY: (02) 8238 6379 Facsimile: within Australia (02) 8238 6363 International +61 2 8238 6363 E-mail: [email protected] ALRC homepage: www.alrc.gov.au Printed by Ligare The Hon Robert McClelland MP Attorney-General of Australia Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 30 October 2009 Dear Attorney-General Review of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and related Issues On 14 January 2009, you issued terms of reference for the ALRC to undertake a comprehensive review of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and related issues. On behalf of the Members of the Commission involved in this Inquiry—including Justice Berna Collier and Justice Susan Kenny—and in accordance with the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996, we are pleased to present you with the final report in this reference, Making Inquiries: A New Statutory Framework. Yours sincerely Emeritus Professor David Weisbrot AM President Professor Les McCrimmon Professor Rosalind Croucher Commissioner in charge Commissioner Contents Contents Terms of Reference 7 List of Participants 9 List of Recommendations 11 Executive Summary 29 Part A – Introduction 37 1. Introduction to the Inquiry 39 Background 39 Scope of the Inquiry 40 Terminology 42 Law reform process 44 Organisation of Report 46 Further processes 49 2. History and Role of Public Inquiries 51 Introduction 51 Historical background and trends 51 Characteristics of public inquiries 53 Functions of public inquiries 55 Policy and investigatory inquiries 57 Types of public inquiries in Australia 58 3. Overview of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) 65 Introduction 65 Establishment 65 Jurisdiction 67 Membership 67 Coercive powers 68 Methods of taking evidence 69 Privileges and immunities 69 Offences 70 Communication of information 71 Contempt 72 Concurrent Commonwealth and state inquiries 72 Custody and use of records 73 2 Making Inquiries: A New Statutory Framework 4. Comparative Forms of Public Inquiry 75 Introduction 75 Models of inquiry in Australian states and territories 75 Other models of inquiry in Australia 81 Models of inquiry in overseas jurisdictions 83 Part B – A New Statutory Framework 89 5. A New Statutory Framework for Public Inquiries 91 Introduction 91 The current arrangements for public inquiries 92 Options for reform 97 Titles of inquiries and new inquiries legislation 105 Nature of inquiries in the recommended model 108 Selecting powers and associated privileges for each inquiry 110 Relationship between tiers of inquiry 114 Accountability mechanisms for inquiries 117 6. Establishment 119 Introduction 119 Inquiries Handbook 120 Factors for consideration before an inquiry is established 122 Establishing authority 129 An inquiry’s terms of reference 134 Appointment of inquiry members 136 Multi-member inquiries 144 Legal practitioners assisting an inquiry 146 Expert advisors 151 7. Reports and Recommendations 155 Introduction 155 Inquiry reports 156 Tabling reports in Parliament 156 Government responses to public inquiries 162 Implementation of recommendations 165 8. Administration and Records 173 Introduction 173 Administrative assistance for inquiries 174 Inquiry records 184 Part C – Funding and Cost of Inquiries 193 9. Funding and Costs 195 Introduction 195 Types of costs and expenses 195 Costs of inquiry participants 196 Contents 3 Other inquiry costs 211 Method of funding inquiries 221 10. Minimising Costs 227 Introduction 227 Sources of information about costs 227 Costs of public inquiries 233 Publication of budgets or expenses 236 Role of inquiry members 241 Jurisdiction to award costs 244 Other methods of minimising costs 246 Part D – Inquiry Powers 249 11. Powers 251 Introduction 251 Overview of powers of Royal Commissions and Official Inquiries 252 Coercive information-gathering powers 257 Other investigatory powers 277 Other issues 286 12. Protection from Legal Liability 295 Introduction 295 Current protection from legal liability 295 Need for protection from legal liability 297 Protection for inquiries 298 Electronic publications 308 Compellability 310 13. National Security 313 Introduction 313 Royal Commissions and inquiries in cases of national security 314 Overview of the use of national security information by inquiries 322 Special powers in cases of national security 325 Security clearances 338 Existing permanent bodies 343 Expert role for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security 345 Government policies and protocols 349 Technical assistance 350 Part E – Conduct of Inquiries 353 14. Inquiries and Courts 355 Introduction 355 Judicial review 356 Referral of questions of law 362 Related legal proceedings 366 4 Making Inquiries: A New Statutory Framework 15. Procedures: General Aspects 371 Introduction 372 Methods of inquiry 372 Procedural fairness 376 The Salmon Principles 383 Leave to appear and be represented 387 Examination and cross-examination 392 Publication of responses to adverse findings 396 16. Procedures: Specific Aspects 401 Introduction 401 Information about procedures 401 Public access to inquiries 405 Inquiries affecting Indigenous peoples 420 Correction of the public record 429 17. Privileges and Public Interest Immunity 433 Introduction 433 Privileges under the Royal Commissions Act 434 Client legal privilege 435 Privilege against self-incrimination 439 Pending charges or penalty proceedings 447 Scope of use immunity 449 Privilege against spousal incrimination 456 Parliamentary privilege 457 Public interest immunity 460 Statutory privileges 463 18. Statutory Exemptions from Disclosure 467 Introduction 467 Secret processes of manufacture 467 Secrecy provisions 469 Part F – Offences and Penalties 481 19. Offences 483 Introduction 483 Civil or administrative sanctions 484 Offences of non-compliance 490 Strict liability 491 Scope of conduct 494 Notice requirements 495 Reasonable excuse 497 Relevance 504 Continuing offence 505 Contravention of directions 508 Interference with evidence or witnesses 510 Contents 5 Offences relating to Commissioners or staff 513 Disclosures by Commissioners or staff 514 20. Contempt 517 Introduction 517 Contempt of court 518 The prohibited conduct 521 Form of sanction 527 21. Penalties, Proceedings and Costs 541 Introduction 541 Setting penalties 542 Present penalties 544 Submissions and consultations 545 Penalties for Official Inquiries 546 Penalties for non-compliance 547 Unauthorised publications 550 Offence of substantial disruption 553 Proceedings 555 Costs 558 Appendix 1. List of Submissions 563 Appendix 2. List of Agencies, Organisations and Individuals Consulted 565 Appendix 3. List of Abbreviations 571 Appendix 4. Federal Royal Commissions established since March 1983 577 Appendix 5. Non-Royal Commission Federal Public Inquiries established since 579 March 1983 Appendix 6. Table of Consequential Amendments 601 Index 609 Terms of Reference REVIEW OF THE ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 AND RELATED ISSUES I, ROBERT McCLELLAND, Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, having regard to the need to ensure that the executive government has available to it forms of inquiry on matters of public importance which are effective and efficient in the context of contemporary requirements, refer to the Australian Law Reform Commission for inquiry and report, pursuant to subsection 20(1) of the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996, the operation and provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (the Act) and the question whether an alternative form or forms of Commonwealth executive inquiry should be established by statute. 1. In carrying out its review, the Commission is to consider: (a) whether there is any need to develop an alternative form or forms of Commonwealth executive inquiry, with statutory foundations, to provide more flexibility, less formality and greater cost-effectiveness than a Royal Commission (particularly whether there would be any advantage in codifying special arrangements and powers that should apply to such alternative forms of inquiry); (b) whether there is any need to develop special arrangements and powers for inquiries involving matters of national security; (c) the appropriate balances between powers for persons undertaking inquiries and protections of the rights and liberties of persons interested in, or potentially affected by, inquiries;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Malaysia 2019 Human Rights Report
    MALAYSIA 2019 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy. It has a parliamentary system of government selected through regular, multiparty elections and is headed by a prime minister. The king is the head of state, serves a largely ceremonial role, and has a five-year term. Sultan Muhammad V resigned as king on January 6 after serving two years; Sultan Abdullah succeeded him that month. The kingship rotates among the sultans of the nine states with hereditary rulers. In 2018 parliamentary elections, the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition defeated the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, resulting in the first transfer of power between coalitions since independence in 1957. Before and during the campaign, then opposition politicians and civil society organizations alleged electoral irregularities and systemic disadvantages for opposition groups due to lack of media access and malapportioned districts favoring the then ruling coalition. The Royal Malaysian Police maintain internal security and report to the Ministry of Home Affairs. State-level Islamic religious enforcement officers have authority to enforce some criminal aspects of sharia. Civilian authorities at times did not maintain effective control over security forces. Significant human rights issues included: reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government or its agents; reports of torture; arbitrary detention; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; reports of problems with
    [Show full text]
  • Justice and Efficiency in Mega-Litigation
    Justice and Efficiency in Mega-Litigation Anna Olijnyk Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Adelaide Law School The University of Adelaide October 2014 ii CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ix Declaration .................................................................................................................................. x Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... xi Note on Referencing Conventions ......................................................................................... xii Part I: The Problem .................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3 I Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 II Significance and Limits of the Study ........................................................................... 6 III Methodology and Structure ......................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Justice and Efficiency as Aims of Civil Procedure ....................................... 12 I Introduction ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Merchants of Menace: the True Story of the Nugan Hand Bank Scandal Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    MERCHANTS OF MENACE: THE TRUE STORY OF THE NUGAN HAND BANK SCANDAL PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Peter Butt | 298 pages | 01 Nov 2015 | Peter Butt | 9780992325220 | English | Australia Merchants of Menace: The True Story of the Nugan Hand Bank Scandal PDF Book You They would then put it up for sale through a Panama-registered company at full market value. We get a close-up of his fearsome Vietnam exploits in interviews with Douglas Sapper, a combat buddy from the days of Special Forces training. Take it, smoke it, give yourself a shot, just get rid of it. No trivia or quizzes yet. With every sale Mike and Bud earned a tidy 25 per cent commission. In fact, throughout military training the thing you noticed about Michael was that he was driven. But he dropped out and took a position 22 2 Jurisprudence is crap with the Canadian public service, giving him an income with which he could feed his penchant for fast cars, girls and gliding lessons. Sapper had contacts all the way up and down the Thai food chain; he warned Hand of the obvious perils of setting up business in that part of the world: Chiang Mai is the Wild West, the hub of good and evil, but mostly evil. It was evident that the embryonic bank had been outlaying far more money than it was earning: It became very clear to me that Nugan Hand had the trappings of a bank, but it was so much window dressing. During the Vietnam War, he dished out drugs, legal and illegal, to his military colleagues and friends, including Rolling Stone journalist Hunter S Thompson.
    [Show full text]
  • The Environment of International Business
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-67546-9 - Dynamics of International Business: Asia-Pacific Business Cases Edited by Prem Ramburuth, Christina Stringer and Manuel Serapio Excerpt More information Part I The Environment of International Business 1 AWB and the Iraqi Oil-for-Food scandal: Just a cost of doing business? Peter K Ross ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Walking the blurry line in China: Negotiating deals and staying out of jail Cheryl Rivers ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • I. the Royal Malaysia Police
    HUMAN RIGHTS “No Answers, No Apology” Police Abuses and Accountability in Malaysia WATCH “No Answers, No Apology” Police Abuses and Accountability in Malaysia Copyright © 2014 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-62313-1173 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org APRIL 2014 ISBN: 978-1-62313-1173 “No Answers, No Apology” Police Abuses and Accountability in Malaysia Glossary .......................................................................................................................... 1 Map of Malaysia .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Inquiries and the Limits of Justice in Northern Ireland
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 26, Issue 4 2002 Article 10 The Government of Memory: Public Inquiries and the Limits of Justice in Northern Ireland Angela Hegarty∗ ∗ Copyright c 2002 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The Government of Memory: Public Inquiries and the Limits of Justice in Northern Ireland Angela Hegarty Abstract The purpose of this Article is to examine the exercise and the usefulness of the public inquiry model, in the Northern Ireland conflict. This Article examines its role as both an accountability mechanism and a truth process, and in doing so I consider the proposition that public inquiries are employed by governments not as a tool to find truth and establish accountability for human rights violations, but as a way of deflecting criticism and avoiding blame. THE GOVERNMENT OF MEMORY: PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND THE LIMITS OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND Angela Hegarty* INTRODUCTION That States commit violations of human rights is an undeni- able, if much denied, truth. These violations are often not offi- cially acknowledged until some time after they have been carried out, and the complete account of such violations may not emerge until the regime responsible has been removed from power. The events and the acts complained of are often denied by the State responsible until it is obliged, sometimes as a result of a political settlement, to submit to an investigation. Much of the dialogue about how to address such violations has therefore been in the context of transitional justice or of societies emerg- ing from conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • [1989] Reform 48 with Maori Needs
    [1989] Reform 48 with Maori needs. (NZH, 30 November * * * 1988) The most controversial recommendation, personalia according to the NZH (30 November 1988) is: Sir Ronald Wilson its advocacy of more culturally based rem­ Sir Ronald Wilson will retire from the edies. It pushes for a centre of cultural re­ High Court with effect from 13 February search and various tribal organisations 1989. Sir Ronald was appointed to the High which could increase acknowledgement of Court on 21 May 1979 as the first Justice of the relevance of Maori values and make the court to be appointed from Western Aus­ culturally based penalties for Maori of­ tralia. Prior to his appointment Sir Ronald fenders effective’. had been Solicitor-General of Western Aus­ essays on legislative drafting. The Adel­ tralia. It is understood that he will now de­ aide Law Review Association at the Univer­ vote his energies to his other roles as Pres­ sity of Adelaide Law School has published a ident of the Uniting Church in Australia and book in honour of Mr JQ Ewens, CMG, Chancellor of Murdoch University. CBE, QC, the former First Parliamentary The Hon Justice Michael McHugh Counsel of the Commonwealth. The book, entitled Essays on Legislative Drafting, is Justice McHugh will fill the vacancy on edited by the Chairman of the Law Reform the High Court created by the resignation of Commission of Victoria, Mr David St L Kel­ Justice Wilson. His appointment will take ef­ ly. John Ewens, now 81, has also been ad­ fect from 14 February 1989. Justice McHugh, visor to the Woodhouse Inquiry into Nation­ formerly of the New South Wales Court of al Rehabilitation and Compensation, drafts­ Appeal and Supreme Court, was elevated to man and advisor to the Norfolk Island Ad­ the Bench in 1984.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Commission Into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability
    FACT SHEET Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability On 5 April 2019, the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, and Minister for Families and Social Services, the Hon Paul Fletcher MP, announced the establishment of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Why set up a Royal Commission? In Australia, royal commissions are the highest form of inquiry on matters of public importance. Recent inquiries and reports have shown that people with disability are more likely to experience violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation than people without disability. What we learn from the Royal Commission will help to inform Australian governments, institutions and the wider community on how to prevent, and better protect, people with disability from experiencing violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation in the future. Who was consulted on the draft Terms of Reference? The Australian Government ran a public consultation on the draft Terms of Reference for a Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability from 13 to 28 March 2019. The Government also consulted with disability peak bodies, advocates and with state and territory governments. The Government received over 3,700 responses to the online survey on the draft Terms of Reference. Thirty per cent of respondents were people with disability. The Terms of Reference for a Royal Commission define the scope of the Royal Commission’s inquiry. Ninety six per cent (96%) of respondents agreed the Terms of Reference should cover all forms of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability, in all settings where they occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Health Volume 3
    Productivity Commission Inquiry Report Mental Health Volume 3 No. 95, 30 June 2020 Commonwealth of Australia 2020 ISSN 1447-1329 (print) | 1447-1337 (online) ISBN 978-1-74037-699-0 (Set) ISBN 978-1-74037-700-3 (Volume 1) ISBN 978-1-74037-701-0 (Volume 2) ISBN 978-1-74037-702-7 (Volume 3) Except for the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and content supplied by third parties, this copyright work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au. In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Productivity Commission (but not in any way that suggests the Commission endorses you or your use) and abide by the other licence terms. Use of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms Terms of use for the Coat of Arms are available from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s website: https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/commonwealth-coat-arms Third party copyright Wherever a third party holds copyright in this material, the copyright remains with that party. Their permission may be required to use the material, please contact them directly. Attribution This work should be attributed as follows, Source: Productivity Commission, Mental Health, Inquiry Report. If you have adapted, modified or transformed this work in anyway, please use the following, Source: based on Productivity Commission data, Mental Health, Inquiry Report. An appropriate reference for this publication is: Productivity Commission 2020, Mental Health, Report no.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Judith Hazel Howell 2011
    Copyright by Judith Hazel Howell 2011 The Report Committee for Judith Hazel Howell Certifies that this is the approved version of the following report: Waiting for the Truth: A Re-examination of Four Representations of Bloody Sunday After the Saville Inquiry APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE: Supervisor: Elizabeth Cullingford Wayne Lesser Waiting for the Truth: A Re-examination of Four Representations of Bloody Sunday After the Saville Inquiry by Judith Hazel Howell, B.A. Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts The University of Texas at Austin May 2011 Abstract Waiting for the Truth: A Re-examination of Four Representations of Bloody Sunday After the Saville Inquiry Judith Hazel Howell, M.A. The University of Texas at Austin, 2011 Supervisor: Elizabeth Cullingford On January 30, 1972, in Derry, Northern Ireland, British soldiers opened fire on Irish citizens participating in a peaceful civil rights march, killing thirteen men and injuring as many others. This event, called “Bloody Sunday,” was the subject of two formal inquiries by the British government, one conducted by Lord Widgery in 1972 that exonerated the British soldiers and one led by Lord Saville, which published its findings in June 2010 and found the British troops to be at fault. Before the second investigation gave its report, a number of dramatic productions had contradicted the official British version of events and presented the Irish point of view. Two films and two plays in particular—the drama The Freedom of the City (1973), the filmed docudramas Bloody Sunday and Sunday (both 2002), and the documentary theater production Bloody Sunday: Scenes from the Saville Inquiry (2005)—were aimed at audiences that did not recognize the injustices that took place in Derry.
    [Show full text]
  • British Tribunals of Inquiry: Legislative and Judicial Control of the Inquisitorial Process— Relevance to Australian Royal Commissions
    INFORMATION, ANALYSIS AND ADVICE FOR THE PARLIAMENT INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES Research Paper No. 5 2002–03 British Tribunals of Inquiry: Legislative and Judicial Control of the Inquisitorial Process— Relevance to Australian Royal Commissions DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY ISSN 1328-7478 Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2003 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the public. Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2003 I NFORMATION AND R ESEARCH S ERVICES Research Paper No.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Speech 2014 Symposium Thursday, 7 August 2014 Aerial Function Centre, Sydney
    Free Speech 2014 symposium Thursday, 7 August 2014 Aerial Function Centre, Sydney Starts Ends Theme Format Topic Speakers 08.00 08.50 Registrations 08.50 09.00 Speech Attendees asked to be seated Conference Chair: Jana Wendt 09.00 09.10 Presentation Welcome to country Aunty Norma Ingram - Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council 09.10 09.20 Speech Introductory remarks Professor Gillian Triggs - President, Australian Human Rights Commission Opening session 09.20 09.50 Keynote address Free speech reflections Senator the Hon George Brandis QC - Attorney-General 09.50 10.10 Speech Free speech stocktake Tim Wilson - Australian Human Rights Commissioner 10.10 10.30 Speech ALRC Inquiry into Freedoms Professor Rosalind Croucher - President, Australian Law Reform Commission 10.30 10.50 Morning tea Free speech in a liberal democracy Chris Berg - Director of Policy, Institute of Public Affairs Accommodating rights Speeches & Does defamation law deserve ridicule? Dr Roy Baker - Macquarie School of Law 10.50 11.55 (Session 1) questions Vilification laws Dr Augusto Zimmermann - School of Law, Murdoch University The commercial environment Dr Kesten Green - University of South Australia Business School Combating online harassment Dr Monika Bickert - Head of Global Content Policy, Facebook Free speech in the digital Speeches & 11.55 12.50 Reforming intellectual property Trish Hepworth - Australian Digital Alliance age questions Free speech & the internet Professor Julian Thomas - Swinburne Institute for Social Research 12.50 13.30 Lunch Dr Gary Johns
    [Show full text]