Parliamentary privilege questions raised in Leanne Cover's case against Integrity Commission

A court has heard parliamentary privilege may apply to a report that is the subject of a legal battle the former Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) CEO has launched against the ACT Integrity Commission.

Last June, an Integrity Commission Special Report found Leanne Cover was “guilty of serious corrupt conduct”.

This related to her actions regarding CIT contracts worth $8.5 million being awarded to consultant and “complexity and systems thinker” Patrick Hollingworth.

Ms Cover then began to sue the Integrity Commission in the ACT Supreme Court over the report, seeking declarations and relief from a judicial review.

During a directions hearing on Monday (3 March), the court heard a question would be raised of whether the Integrity Commission’s report would be covered by parliamentary privilege.

This would mean the report is covered by legal immunities.

The court also heard that Mark Parton, the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly, had applied to either be heard as an amicus curiae on the issue of parliamentary privilege or to join the case as a legal party.

Being an amicus curiae means providing information to the court for a matter, but not becoming a legal party.

Part of Mr Parton’s role as Speaker was protecting the rights of parliamentary privilege, and he argued he was well-placed to assist the court in answering the question of such privilege, Justice David Mossop said.

Justice Mossop ultimately said he thought it was appropriate that Mr Parton be heard in the matter as an amicus and that issues relating to costs should be dealt with at the conclusion of the case.

The matter was listed for a hearing on 29 April.

Ms Cover attended court in person on Monday and watched the proceedings from the courtroom’s gallery.

She has resigned from her position as CEO of CIT.

In a separate matter, one of Mr Hollingworth’s companies, Redrouge Nominees, has sued CIT for almost $3.4 million after claiming it broke a $5 million contract between them.

While it had been paid $1.6 million, it argued CIT was liable for the entire $5 million.

Late last year, the Supreme Court awarded Redrouge Nominees $2.4 million, which meant the company won about $1 million less than what it sought.

The Integrity Commission’s report made no findings against Mr Hollingworth.