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.

Patrick Hossack

On the outskirts of Hobart Airport, where Holyman Avenue and Cranston Road meet the Tasman Highway, construction is set to begin on a new interchange. A Parliamentary Committee has considered and reported on the plans, clearing the way for work to begin. An aggrieved resident, claiming an interest in land adjacent to Cranston Parade, alleges that the works to be undertaken are not in fact the works that were considered by the Committee—the costs don’t add up, the roundabouts are absent, the works are in fact unlawful. This resident takes action against the contractors to prevent them proceeding. The State intervenes, seeking in turn to prevent the Court interrogating the contents of the Committee report to ascertain if the works contained within it are those same works currently taking place on the outskirts of Hobart Airport. The Committee has reported, and there can be no assessment of the contents of that report to contrast with the actual bitumen being laid under its auspices—even if the roundabouts are missing.