There are a great deal of resources available on running effective public inquiries. However, despite remaining a regular feature in countries across the Commonwealth, there is relatively little written on their close cousin; royal commissions.
The following article explores what royal commissions are, how they differ from public inquiries, and how facilitators can improve public and stakeholder engagement.
What is a royal commission?
A royal commission is an independent public investigation with some extraordinary legal powers. Royal commissions find their origins in the power of the British monarchy to order large-scale inquiries, with some historians believing the first example of a royal commission was the Domesday Book, which was compiled on the orders of King William I. However, royal commissions only became a formal – and relatively common – process from the 16th century onwards.
In the United Kingdom, royal commissions continued to be one of the foremost ways to conduct large scale public investigations until the 1970s, thereafter they were largely (though not entirely) replaced by public inquiries. However, royal commissions have remained in use in other countries around the world, largely those who are members of the Commonwealth.
Royal commissions are usually only established in exceptional circumstances, in which there is a need to thoroughly determine:
- Why something happened, generally something that had a negative impact on the public at large.
- Who is responsible, including those who directly caused the issue and those who failed in their duties to prevent it.
- Perhaps most importantly, how to prevent a similar issue happening in future.
They can cover subjects ranging from institutional corruption to environmental disasters to government failures. Their powers are extensive: commissioners can summon witnesses, require the production of documents, and compel testimony.
How does a royal commission differ from a public inquiry?
Royal commissions and public inquiries share many similarities, and they are both used to investigate matters of public interest. In many cases, the terms are used interchangeably and there is no specific situation when one or the other must be used. However, there are some reasons one term may be used over the other:
- Public inquiries tend to investigate specific events or failures, whereas royal commissions more often cover broader issues and systemic failures.
- Royal commissions can be useful when the issue involves a government ministry or Prime Minister in a very direct way, as this distances the commission from parliament more so than a public inquiry.
- Public inquiries tend to be quicker, with more specific timescales than a royal commission, which can take its time to gather evidence over a longer period.
Where a public inquiry is commissioned by a government minister, a royal commission is – as the name suggests – commissioned by the head of state, the sovereign. Royal commissions have faced various criticisms for the perception that they take too long and don’t come to specific conclusions.
As Michael Foot once put it, “A royal commission is a broody hen sitting on a china egg”. However, they are also generally well regarded for their prestige, lending appropriate weight to matters of national significance.
How does a royal commission differ between countries?
Despite their common origins, royal commissions vary significantly from state to state.
Royal commissions in Canada
In Canada, all public inquiries including royal commissions are governed by the Inquiries Act, which empowers the federal government or provinces to establish inquiries on matters of national or regional importance. Canadian commissions put a very strong emphasis on research and evidence-based policy-making. They often combine public testimony with commissioned studies and expert panels.
Royal commissions in Australia
In Australia, royal commissions have their own unique legislation, established under the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Australian royal commissions are almost always national in scope. The Australian model is defined by transparency. Hearings are usually public, and submissions can often be made online via a purpose-built digital platform. Their recommendations are often detailed and lead directly to legislative or institutional reform.
Do royal commissions still exist in the UK?
Although Britain pioneered the use of royal commissions, they are used very rarely in the UK today. In fact, the last royal commission in the UK took place in 1999. Instead, the vast majority of public investigations now take place under the Inquiries Act 2005, which introduced standardisation for how public investigations must be conducted.
Other examples:
Other countries that use royal commissions include New Zealand, with the most famous recent example being the royal commission into the Christchurch terror attack. Also South Africa, where most royal commissions have focused on corruption and human rights scandals. Other commonwealth nations have used royal commissions to some extent, however the practice is increasingly rare outside of these examples.
Case Study: Royal commission into aged care in Australia
In October 2018, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was established following media exposure of widespread neglect and abuse in aged care. Letters Patent was issued by the Governor-General in December 2018, which set out the commission’s terms of reference, authorising it to investigate the quality, safety and sustainability of aged care services in Australia.
Over the course of two years, the Commission gathered evidence from aged care residents, providers, professionals and experts through a combination of submissions and public hearings. The final report was tabled in Parliament in 2021, which delivered 148 recommendations for reform, including improved staffing standards and stronger regulatory insights.
The royal commission was able to thoroughly investigate systemic failures, and lead to a more transparent consultation process. When the Australian Government Department of Health first drafted the charter outlining the rights of aged care consumers, they gave all affected parties the opportunity to give input. Having learned how dangerous an opaque and unaccountable system can be, the Government wanted to ensure the consultation was wide-reaching and accessible. They ran this consultation through our digital engagement platform, Citizen Space.
The importance of public input in royal commissions
Public input is vital to the credibility of almost any royal commission. While expert input and calls for evidence are essential, these inquiries are not only mechanisms for establishing facts. They are also a way of measuring the impact a given issue has had on the general public. Engaging citizens ensures that a commission captures the full complexity of an issue, beyond what may come across in data alone.
Submissions from citizens, advocacy groups, and affected stakeholders can provide unique perspectives that may otherwise be overlooked. Public testimony often drives a Commission’s direction and helps to shape recommendations.
A royal commission, much like a public inquiry, is often driven by public outcry when the trust of citizens has been broken in some way. It is therefore essential that the perspective of the public is taken into account, beyond a simple box-ticking exercise. A willingness to engage with citizens can have the effect of rebuilding public trust in both the commission process and the institutions being scrutinised.
The challenges of gathering public input
Collecting input for a royal commission is far from a simple process. The issues examined by the commission’s processes are often complex and controversial. They sometimes involve individuals and organisations who may be reluctant to participate due to a fear of reprisal or their own culpability.
A specific challenge to gathering public input are the negative perceptions citizens sometimes have about the commission process. For example:
- Citizens may feel that they do not have an adequate level of understanding of the commission process to participate.
- They may feel that their contribution would make no difference because the result is a foregone conclusion.
- They may feel that their viewpoint isn’t sufficiently unique to justify contributing.
For those who do want to contribute, accessibility is often a concern. Traditional consultation methods like in-person hearings and written submissions can exclude those with disabilities or without sufficient time or resources to attend. It may be difficult for people in specific areas or who work certain hours to contribute.
For facilitators, other challenges include the excessive administrative burdens often associated with inputting and analysing a large volume of responses. It is therefore necessary to design an inclusive and accessible engagement strategy that uses resources efficiently.
Improving engagement with royal commissions
Royal Commissions are often complex and conducted over a long period of time. They involve the collection and management of vast amounts of evidence, data, and testimony. Gathering witness statements, reports, research and public input has traditionally entailed a large resource burden.
Citizen engagement remains the biggest challenge for facilitators. Ensuring that the voices of all those affected by a given issue are adequately represented in a Commission’s findings is vital to making sure that:
- The findings of the Commission are reflective of the complete picture.
- The recommendations generally made by the Commission in order to make positive change are as effective as possible.
Engaging large groups of people from a diverse range of backgrounds and interests is never going to be simple. However, it has been possible to make the Commission process easier using technology built for purpose. While technology that can get the message out – like social media – has been useful for facilitators at reaching new audiences, real change has come from digitising Commission input. Using these tools:
- Digital engagement platforms and GovTech tools enable Commission teams to gather, analyse and understand evidence more effectively. By using these platforms, facilitators can:
- Gather and analyse large volumes of both qualitative and quantitative data, including various file types.
- Have an ongoing communication channel with participants, to share updates like changes to the terms of reference, calls for evidence.
- Feedback findings and subsequent recommendations in an accessible manner
Not only do these tools simplify existing processes, they have also created new ways for participants to share their insights. For example, geospatial data sharing has made it far more practical for participants to share geographical data. The new speed with which evidence can be gathered and fed back has made it much simpler to do follow-up consultations with previous participants, enriching data over time.
Citizen Space is the go-to govtech platform for engaging with citizens, managing large scale government consultations and simplifying statutory processes. If you’d like to learn more about how our software can be used to conduct Royal Commissions, book a free demo today.
Sign up for the Delib newsletter here to get relevant updates posted to your email inbox