In the Matter of the Board of Inquiry Into Disability Services

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard an application for declaratory relief in relation to findings and recommendations made by the first defendant, who had conducted an inquiry as a Board of Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 1991. The plaintiffs sought to impugn the findings and recommendations contained in the report of the Board of Inquiry. The issue before the court was whether parliamentary privilege prevented the copy of the report tendered by the plaintiffs' counsel from being admitted into evidence. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly sought to intervene to argue that the privilege did apply.

The legal issues the court had to decide involved the extent of parliamentary privilege as defined in the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) and whether it applied to the copy of the report tendered by the plaintiffs' counsel. The court considered whether the report was prepared for purposes of transacting the business of the Assembly and if so, whether privilege attached to the report and any copies for all purposes. The court also considered the implications of the privilege on the ability of the plaintiffs to maintain their proceedings.

Justice Crispin held that the privilege did not apply to the copy of the report tendered by the plaintiffs' counsel. The court found that the report was prepared in fulfilment of a statutory duty and not for purposes of transacting the business of the Assembly. Therefore, privilege did not attach to the report or any copies for all purposes. The court held that privilege applied only to the words used and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transaction of business of the Assembly, including the retention of a document for such a purpose. Hence, the tabling or retention of a copy of the report by a Member could not prevent the continued circulation of the paper or the receipt in evidence of another copy. The court admitted the copy of the report into evidence in both matters.

This ruling allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their applications for declaratory relief and did not prevent them from maintaining their proceedings. The court found that the privilege did not apply to the copy of the report tendered by the plaintiffs' counsel and that the plaintiffs could proceed with their applications.