Liberals warned against further attempts to probe around legal case brought against Integrity Commission

The Canberra Liberals will need to decide whether they want to try again to force an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the unprecedented legal case brought by Education Directorate head Katy Haire against the Integrity Commission.

Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee tried during the first June sitting week to get a standing committee to inquire into whether Education Minister Yvette Berry had “misled the public” when she told media she had “no knowledge of the [court case] matter and the government has no knowledge of the matter”.

She also wanted it to look into the cost of Ms Haire’s legal fees (which are being paid by taxpayers), whether there had been a breach of the Law Officers Legal Services Directions 2023, and the impact, if any, of the Supreme Court action on the active Integrity Commission investigation.

But Speaker Joy Burch ruled the Canberra Liberals would need to amend the motion, stating one section was a contravention of standing orders as it breached the principle of sub judice between the Assembly’s powers and the Territory’s judicial system: the last point about whether the court case had had an impact on the commission’s investigation.

“[The orders state] matters awaiting adjudication in a court of law should not be brought forward to any debate, motion or questions,” Ms Burch said.

She went on to explain other sections of the orders outlined that when sub judice arises (subject to the discretion of the chair and the right of the Assembly to legislate on or discuss any matter), the Assembly still couldn’t refer to active proceedings in the court and couldn’t be referred to in any debate, motion or question.

That is, court proceedings (including civil) cannot be referred to a committee or referred to in Assembly procedures until a judgment or discontinuance of the case has been made by the court.

“I note that a trial date has been set for [Ms Haire’s] matter in the Supreme Court,” Ms Burch said.

“Accordingly, I believe the motion is in breach of the resolution, and I’m ruling that the notice is out of order and shall be removed from the notice paper.”

This means Ms Lee and the Canberra Liberals would need to lodge an amendment motion without reference to the active court case and give notice of its existence if they want this issue to be debated by the Assembly.

Ms Lee had moved dissent in Ms Burch’s ruling, stating she had not gone to the issues before the court in her motion.

“What we’re talking about is a matter of serious public importance … I drafted this [motion] incredibly carefully,” she said.

“[My questions in the motion] do not go to the substance of the matters and questions that are being sought for determination by either the Supreme Court action brought by Ms Haire against the Integrity Commissioner, or before the Integrity Commission’s investigation.”

Ms Lee also pointed out that the standing orders allowed for references to court proceedings in Assembly in instances where a “ministerial decision” is in question or a case contains issues of “national importance”.

“There is clearly an allowance under the standing orders … about this very circumstance.”

Chief Minister Andrew Barr argued in favour of Ms Burch’s ruling, stating Ms Lee had been “skirting the grounds of quite defamatory comments” during the debate on this issue.

“Were she to repeat [her remarks] outside of this chamber, [they] would find her subject of considerable legal action,” he said.

He pointed to what he described as a “wilful misrepresentation” of Education Minister Yvette Berry’s involvement in the Integrity Commission’s investigation, as she has been called as a hearing witness rather than someone who is under investigation.

“All the Leader of the Opposition needs to do is re-lodge her motion without transgressing into the area [where] perhaps she is most keen to smear the reputation of individuals, whether they are public servants or ministers,” he said.

“[The standing orders are clear] on when matters are before the Integrity Commission or … before a court, they should not be subject to political debate in the way that the Leader of the Opposition has been pursuing this week.”

Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury also took the chance to clarify that while Ms Haire’s legal fees were being covered by the Territory, the government reserved the right to recover those costs if it was found action had been launched in bad faith or that it covered matters that had occurred outside of a public servant’s role.