“The Canberra community should appreciate that the work of the Integrity Commission has demonstrated its ability to hold people in high office to account,” writes MICHAEL MOORE.

Challenging the ACT Integrity Commission has become commonplace for people whose actions come under scrutiny.

The latest is former Queensland Supreme Court Justice Walter Sofronoff KC. 

Mr Sofronoff, who has also been a Queensland Solicitor-General, is familiar enough with legal proceedings and has already stated that he will challenge the findings.

The Integrity Commission’s Operation Juno is an extensive examination of Mr Sofronoff’s actions after he was appointed under the ACT Inquiries Act to investigate whether the aborted Lehrmann trial in 2023 had been affected by political influence or interference. 

The ACT Integrity Commission pulls no punches in a report that is thorough and damning. Even judicial officers are not above the law. Although it will be challenged, a close reading of the report reflects an approach that prepared for a legal challenge.

The Juno Report finds not only “corrupt conduct”, but “serious corrupt conduct”. Arguments by Mr Sofronoff around public interest, do not stand up to serious scrutiny. 

The corruption issues considered an approach of channelling information through Janet Albrechtsen, of The Australian. And later, early copies being made available to her and the ABC’s Elizabeth Byrne. These journalists are not the subject of any adverse findings.

The key findings of “four connected but distinct areas of concern” include: “This impugned conduct constituted the exercise of Mr Sofronoff’s official functions in a way that was not impartial, significantly compromised the integrity of the Inquiry constituting a breach of public trust and, in respect of his communications with Ms Albrechtsen, gave rise to an apprehension of bias that affected his findings about Mr Drumgold”.

The fact that this report is so strident, that it involves a high-level lawyer, and that the report is so carefully framed builds confidence in the work of the Integrity Commission. 

Corrupt conduct. According to the report, “in making the communications to Ms Albrechtsen and (in respect of the report) to Ms Byrne, Mr Sofronoff acted to favour their interests as journalists to the detriment of the countervailing interests of the participants and the chief minister. Accordingly, this element of the definition of corrupt conduct is also satisfied”.

There was always a smell about channelling information to a particular journalist, and most importantly, doing so in secret. The attempts at self-justification fall on deaf ears. Mr Sofronoff has been too long in the public sphere to not understand the ramifications of what he was doing.

Serious corrupt conduct. The report went further. “The Commission has concluded that this is likely to have threatened public confidence in the integrity of that aspect of public administration constituted by the Inquiries Act as well as the particular assessments and judgements made in the Board’s report concerning the administration of criminal justice. Accordingly, the corrupt conduct is serious”.

It is appropriate that the ACT Assembly and the machinery of government operates, and is seen to operate, with integrity. This is why an Integrity Commission was established.

At a time when the separation of powers is under threat in many democracies, it is timely that the community is reminded of the importance of this separation and the role that it plays in protecting our freedoms. Laws are made by the legislature. The government is responsible for the implementation and the arms of the judiciary are there to review and ensure fair application to individuals. 

Current assessments of democracy in the US, as an extreme example, reflect the challenge to these principles and are a cause for concern in that country and internationally.

This issue is addressed by the report when it argues: “The inevitable effect, both legally and practically, of Mr Sofronoff’s action was to substitute, in place of the chief minister, who had specific legislative authority and was answerable to the Legislative Assembly, employees of media organisations whose undertakings were uncertain in scope and legally unenforceable and who were effectively answerable to no-one without an interest”. 

We now await the outcome of Operation Kingfisher regarding the Campbell Primary School modernisation. This has also been a case of a legal challenge by the head of the Education Directorate. It is notable that the courts recently refused to award costs to the complainant.

The Canberra community should appreciate that the work of the Integrity Commission has demonstrated its ability to hold people in high office to account.

Michael Moore is a former member of the ACT Legislative Assembly and an independent minister for health. He has been a political columnist with “CityNews” since 2006.