Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 3)

[2025] ACTSC 424

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 3)

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 424

Hearing Date: 

29 April 2025

Decision Date: 

18 September 2025

Before:

Mossop J

Decision: 

(1)    The report entitled Special Report – Operation Luna (Part One) at Tab 12 of Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence.

(2)    The proceedings are dismissed.

(3)     Unless the parties provide proposed consent orders in relation to costs to the chambers of Mossop J by 4pm on 24 September 2025, the proceedings are listed for the determination of costs at 9:15am on 29 September 2025 and the parties have leave to provide written submissions on costs limited to not more than three pages by email to the Associate to Mossop J by 4pm on 26 September 2025.

Catchwords: 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE – Whether special report by ACT Integrity Commission (Report) is protected by parliamentary privilege – where Commissioner is an independent officer of the ACT Legislative Assembly – where Report prepared “for” the Legislative Assembly – where Report not produced at Legislative Assembly’s direction – where Report published under Commission’s statutory obligation to do so – where the Commission’s legislation otherwise deals with parliamentary privilege – Commissioner is an outsider to the Legislative Assembly – Report not protected by parliamentary privilege

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE – Purpose of parliamentary privilege – where statutory functions performed by statutory entity independent of the Legislative Assembly – where no legislative command extending parliamentary privilege – artificial to extend parliamentary privilege to the performance of such statutory functions – admitting Report in judicial review proceedings does not detract from the Legislative Assembly’s freedoms of speech and action

STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Integrity Commission Act 2018 (ACT), ss 9 and 10 – where “serious corrupt conduct” is “corrupt conduct that is likely to threaten public confidence in the integrity of government or public administration” – whether “serious” imports a requirement of seriousness beyond “likely to threaten public confidence in the integrity of government or public administration” – it does not

STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Integrity Commission Act 2018 (ACT), s 10 – whether “likely” imports the Briginshaw standard of “more likely than not” – where “likely” is combined with the imprecise concept of “threaten” – usage of “likely” as meaning “a real and not remote chance or possibility” well established – improbable that the legislature combined a precise standard of “more likely than not” with the imprecise concept of “threaten”

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – STATUTORY DUTIES AND POWERS – Functions – whether functions of CEOs, board chairs and board members of public entities are duties which must be performed – where, in generally-applicable statutes, drafters are careful to use the interpretive rulebook that is the Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) – where “function” includes “authority, duty and power” – no contrary intention to displace the operation of the Legislation Act

Legislation Cited:

Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 2004 (ACT), s 7A

Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), ss 7,…