David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move items (1) to (7) on sheet 8195 in my name together:

(1) Schedule 5, item 4, page 9 (line 20), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".

(2) Schedule 5, item 7, page 10 (line 4), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".

(3) Schedule 5, item 10, page 10 (line 12), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".

(4) Schedule 5, item 11, page 10 (line 19), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".

(5) Schedule 5, item 13, page 11 (line 6), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".

(6) Schedule 5, item 15, page 11 (line 11), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".

(7) Schedule 5, item 16, page 11 (line 14), omit "2 years", substitute "6 months".

The bill before the Senate, the Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, is largely uncontroversial, dealing with things like annual reporting rules. It also includes a schedule dealing with royal commissions. This schedule adopts a recommendation from the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program to empower a royal commission to compel the provision of a statement by a potential witness. This is reasonable. After all, royal commissions already have powers to compel the giving of a document and the giving of oral evidence.

However, the schedule also seeks to adopt a recommendation from the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption to increase the penalties for various failures to comply with directions from royal commissions from a maximum of six months imprisonment to a maximum of two years imprisonment. There is no case for such an increase. People aren't being imprisoned for failing to comply with the directions of royal commissions let alone being imprisoned for six months. So, there is no evidence that the current six-months rule is a constraint that needs loosening. Increasing the penalty will not deter people from ignoring the directions of royal commissions, because people are not being convicted of ignoring those directions in the first place. If there is to be deterrence there need to be convictions.

We should also remember that failure to comply with a direction of a royal commission is less serious than failure to comply with a direction of a court. It is the judiciary that considers individual violations of the law of the land, and it is the judiciary that ensures that justice is done. By contrast, a royal commission is essentially advisory. It is neither necessary to ensure that justice is done nor directly involved in ensuring that justice is done.

Indeed, as a creation of executive government, a royal commission can be created to serve a partisan purpose, and every party in this place knows it.

My amendments ensure that for the existing offences of failing to comply with various directions of royal commissions the maximum penalties remain at six months imprisonment, instead of being lifted to two years imprisonment. The amendments also ensure that for the new offence of failing to provide a statement requested by a royal commission the maximum penalty is set at six months imprisonment, rather than two years imprisonment. I commend my amendments to the Senate.