The formidable Fred Nile prevails: premier concedes

They have already have found that the executive is accountable to Parliament and not just to the lower house.

If the matter were to come before them it is unlikely that faced with the Standing Orders they will seek refuge in a narrow reading of the constitution to delegitimize the Nile inquiry.

Just as the American Supreme Court did when the President actually argued that the doctrine of executive privilege made him a latter day Louis XIV: United States v Richard Nixon (1974)

There was a time once when Parliament was dissolved on the death of a monarch. This today would serve no good purpose.

Should prorogation stop inquiries today? As we observed here, it is certainly not going to stop the formidable Rev. Fred Nile.

Neither illegal nor unconstitutional

Even if his inquiry does not enjoy the powers and privileges of a parliamentary inquiry - and on one interpretation of the Standing Orders it does- to say it is “illegal” or even “unconstitutional is not helpful.

When there were allegations that around $5 billion dollars had been lost in the management of the federal government’s Building the Education Revolution ( “BER”) , the federal government appointed an inquiry under Brad Corgill. This was criticised at the time because the inquiry could not compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents, and it could give no protection to witnesses. The opposition has foreshadowed the appointment of a Royal Commission if they are called to form a government.

But nobody said the Corgill inquiry was illegal or unconstitutional. Critics merely said it was inadequate.

The solution

In our modern system of governance, the executive - from whatever party- must be accountable. It is unacceptable that any inquiry not be empowered and witnesses protected.

The solution is in the Premier’s hands. That is to recall Parliament. And its first task should be to pass legislation providing that parliamentary committees are not affected by a prorogation.