PRIME MINISTER 131/ 95
STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON PJ KEATING MP
MARKS ROYAL COMMISSION
The Marks Royal Commission was unable to rise above its poisoned origins.
It was conceived In political malice. It was constituted with extravagance and
partiality. Consequently, it will be remembered, If at all, for the disrepute Into
which it has brought Royal Commissions as a proper and relevant institution
In Australian public life. And its findings will be rejected by all fair minded
people. Because the Royal Commission was conceived as an act of political
malevolence by the Court Government, aided and abetted by John Howard
and the Federal Coalition, basic principles of natural justice were ignored at
the very outset.
The terms of reference were deliberately narrow. They were drawn up to put
Dr Lawrence and the Labor Party on trial, while excluding from scrutiny the
actions of Premier Court and his colleagues, who were the first to make a
public issue of the private affairs of Penny Easton and her husband. This set
the tone for what followed.
In Perth, the Court Government was prepared to spend millions of dollars of
Western Australian taxpayers' money and to array the full force of the
executive power of the state against one decent woman.
In Canberra, John Howard and the Federal Opposition, having connived in
the establishment of the Royal Commission, launched a vicious political
onslaught against Carmen Lawrence. Long before it was over, they
clamoured for her resignation and dismissal.
They defamed her in Parliament in the most disgraceful manner. With the sly
encouragement of John Howard, Messrs Wooldridge and Tuckey and Mrs
Bishop accused her of causing Penny Easton's death.
In one ten day period in August, 31 of 37 Opposition questions without notice
to the Government In the House of Representatives concerned the Easton
affair.
In this period, John Howard asked 13 questions about it and did not ask a
single question about anything else, When I and the government defended
Dr Lawrence, the Opposition tried to silence us with bogus appeals to the sub
judice principle.
When the government was obliged to safeguard the fundamental principles
Involved and to enable Dr Lawrence to defend herself before the Royal
Commission, the Opposition sought, and is still seeking, to prevent this
elementary expression of natural justice.
Their behaviour throughout has been contemptible.
Premier Court continues to claim that the Commission was set up " to
establish the truth in relation to these serious matters". But the narrow terms
of reference meant this was not possible.
The fatal flaws and irrelevance of this Royal Commission are confirmed out of
the Royal Commissioner's own mouth. He pointed to the restrictive nature of
its terms of reference. He said that the sooner it came to an end the better.
He said that its results would probably be open to doubt.
In this he is absolutely right.
Mr Marks even said that the experience had demonstrated that the
usefulness of Royal Commissions was fast receding.
While the Government agrees with the Royal Commissioners implicit
judgment of the value of his own Royal Commission, we continue to believe
that there is a proper role for Royal Commissions, where they deal with
appropriate matters of public importance, are constituted properly and have
relevant terms of reference.
In this regard, the establishment of this Royal Commission was unique and
uniquely disreputable. It will stand as an example of the lack of principle,
propriety and decency of the Court Government and John Howard's Liberal
Party. I continue to have complete confidence in Carmen Lawrence and look
forward to her continued role as a senior and valued member of the
Government. CANBERRA 14 November 1995