Alford v Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services

The plaintiffs, Mr Alford and Ms Atkinson, sought an interlocutory injunction or stay to restrain the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services from compelling their attendance to give evidence. The Committee was conducting an inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the Franchising Code of Conduct, and had directed the plaintiffs, former executives of Retail Food Group Limited, to appear before it. The plaintiffs contended that the Committee's exercise of power was invalid, but the court, constituted by Gordon J, was required to determine whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for relief and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting such relief.

The central legal issues involved the scope of the Parliament's power to inquire and summon witnesses, particularly in light of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, and the extent to which such powers are preserved by the *Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987* (Cth). The plaintiffs argued that constitutional principles constrained the conferral of inquiry powers on parliamentary committees, suggesting that such inquiries might be restricted to those necessary to aid legislative functions. The court also considered whether the Committee's directions to appear constituted an exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, and whether the court should review the Committee's exercise of its powers.

Gordon J reasoned that the Corporations and Financial Services Committee possessed the power to direct witnesses to attend before it, a power derived from s 49 of the Constitution, which preserves the ancient powers, privileges, and immunities of the Houses of Parliament. The court found that the Committee's directions did not represent an exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, as the Committee's role was to inquire and report, not to make legally binding determinations. Furthermore, the court held that a legislative body requires information to legislate effectively, and that the separation of powers does not require a restrictive interpretation of Parliament's inquiry powers, including its contempt powers. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not identified any valid reason for the court to review or find invalid the Committee's exercise of its power to summon witnesses, and that their concerns were hypothetical and ill-defined.

The plaintiffs' summons filed on 19 November 2018 was dismissed with costs. The matter was relisted for directions to address the future management of the plaintiffs' substantive application, with the parties and the intervener, the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, to participate.