Dane Luo

In Sofronoff v ACT Integrity Commission, a former Queensland judge, Walter Sofronoff KC, is seeking judicial review of findings made by the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Integrity Commission (Commission) that he engaged in ‘serious corrupt conduct’. As the Commission’s findings are set out in a report tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly (Assembly), the Commission argues that judicial review of its findings would contravene parliamentary privilege.

This issue is not unique to the ACT. Indeed, all Commonwealth and State legislation establishing integrity or anti-corruption bodies include provisions that provide for its reports to be delivered to the presiding officers or clerks of the Houses of Parliament to be formally tabled to those Houses. The argument is that, because reports are prepared for tabling to Parliament and are required to be tabled in Parliament, the making and contents of those reports attract parliamentary privilege. This post explains the factual background in Sofronoff and critically evaluates the Commission’s argument. It argues that the report is a ‘proceeding of Parliament’ and can thus be protected from actions such as defamation. However, it argues that the legislative provisions for parliamentary privilege should be read purposively so that they do not preclude judicial review of the report.

Paul Daly

Before situating the Kerr Report in what I consider to be its historical context, let me begin with a quibble. The Kerr Report considered comparative materials in some detail. This must have taken considerable effort in days where information from the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand …