A Royal Commission Is Not a Magic Bullet: Understanding Power, Process, and Reality in Australia

Calls for a Royal Commission have become a familiar refrain in Australian public debate. Whenever a major scandal emerges—particularly involving powerful institutions, media influence, or political failure—the demand for a Royal Commission is often framed as the ultimate solution.

However, while Royal Commissions are among the most powerful public inquiries available under Australian law, they are not a cure-all, not a criminal court, and not easily obtained. Understanding their constitutional foundation and practical limitations is essential if public advocacy is to remain credible, effective, and grounded in reality.

What Is a Royal Commission?

A Royal Commission is an independent public inquiry established by the executive government to investigate matters of significant public importance. Its primary function is to:

• Investigate systemic failures

• Examine institutional conduct

• Make findings of fact

• Recommend reforms to law, policy, or governance

Royal Commissions are investigative, not prosecutorial. They do not determine criminal guilt and cannot impose penalties. Where evidence of criminal conduct arises, it is typically referred to law enforcement agencies for further action.

What a Royal Commission Is Not

It is critical to be clear about what Royal Commissions cannot do:

• They do not prosecute criminal offences

• They do not replace police, prosecutors, or courts

• They do not automatically expose wrongdoing without political approval

• They do not exist independently of government will

This distinction matters, because many public calls for Royal Commissions are made in circumstances where the underlying issue is criminal conduct, which must be addressed through the criminal justice system, not a public inquiry.

The Constitutional Authority for Royal Commissions

At the Commonwealth level, the authority to establish Royal Commissions derives from a combination of constitutional executive power and statute.

Section 61 of the Australian Constitution

Section 61 vests the executive power of the Commonwealth in the Crown, exercisable by the Governor-General. This executive power includes the authority to inquire into matters affecting the governance of the Commonwealth.

It is this executive power that underpins the government’s ability to establish commissions of inquiry.

The Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth)

The Royal Commissions Act 1902 provides the statutory framework that gives Royal Commissions their coercive powers, including:

• Compelling witnesses to appear

• Requiring the production of documents

• Taking evidence under oath

The Act is supported constitutionally by section 51(xxxix) of the Constitution—the incidental power—which allows Parliament to legislate in support of executive powers under section 61.

Without this legislation, a Royal Commission would have no legal force.

The Reality: Royal Commissions Are Political Decisions

A critical but often overlooked reality is this:

Royal Commissions are established at the discretion of the government of the day.

They are not initiated by courts, not triggered automatically by petitions, and not compelled simply because misconduct is alleged.

Even where there is overwhelming public concern, a Royal Commission will not occur unless the executive government chooses to establish one.

This creates an unavoidable political dynamic—particularly where a proposed inquiry may scrutinise powerful institutions, entrenched interests, or long-standing relationships between political actors and other centres of influence, including major media organisations.

The Criteria That Typically Justify a Royal Commission

Historically, Royal Commissions are established only where several conditions coexist:

• Significant public importance affecting the broader Australian community

• Serious systemic or institutional failure, not isolated misconduct

• Inadequacy of existing oversight mechanisms

• Need for broad, coercive investigative powers

• Political acceptance that public inquiry is unavoidable

  
  

Absent these factors, governments tend to resist calls for Royal Commissions—often preferring reviews, audits, or narrower inquiries with limited scope.

Why Public Advocacy Must Be Precise

Demanding accountability is legitimate. But mischaracterising Royal Commissions as a universal solution weakens advocacy and risks misdirecting public pressure.

If the issue is criminal conduct, the demand should be for:

• Proper police investigation

• Independent prosecution

• Judicial oversight

If the issue is systemic failure, governance collapse, or institutional culture, then a Royal Commission may be appropriate—but only with sustained, informed public pressure that makes political refusal untenable.

Conclusion: Accountability Requires the Right Tool

Royal Commissions remain one of the most powerful transparency mechanisms available in Australia—but they are not magic bullets, and they are not beyond politics.

True accountability requires:

• Clear understanding of constitutional power

• Accurate identification of the problem

• Strategic use of public pressure

• Insistence on proper legal process

Only then can truth, justice, and reform move beyond slogans and into reality.

MYUNION

Advocating for truth, integrity, and informed public action.