The Federal Court held that parliamentary privilege does not disable a decision-maker from relying on a parliamentary statement (here, a Second Reading Speech) as a factual basis for an administrative decision, but it does prevent a judicial review applicant from challenging the probative value or truth of that statement in court proceedings. Because the applicant bore the onus of proving jurisdictional error and its case required critical examination of the parliamentary statement's reliability, the privilege meant the 'no evidence' ground could not succeed. The Court also found that while the Joint Authority denied procedural fairness by failing to disclose revised cost estimates that were credible, relevant, significant and adverse, this was not a jurisdictional error because it was not realistically possible the decision could have been different. The Court declined to follow Commissioner for Fair Trading v Bowes Street Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) to the extent it suggested that determining whether parliamentary material provides an objectively reasonable basis for a representation involves no inquiry into the truth of the material.
The full text is available to signed-in members.