[5] Ms Lawrie claims that Mr Lawler's Report contains adverse findings and recommendations which damage her reputation. On 30 July 2014 she filed an Originating Motion in the Supreme Court claiming the following relief.
-
A declaration that, in reporting adversely to the plaintiff in his report entitled "Inquiry into Stella Maris - 2014" ("the Report") purportedly pursuant to s 4A (3) of the Inquiries Act, the defendant failed to observe the requirements of procedural fairness.
-
An order in the nature of certiorari to quash the Report.
[6] Ms Lawrie says that she is entitled to the relief claimed because she was denied an opportunity to respond to the adverse findings about her before Mr Lawler finalised his Report. It is common ground between the parties that Ms Lawrie had standing to make an application for a declaration.[1]
[7] Counsel for Ms Lawrie, Mr Young, submitted that as the Inquiry was an inquisitorial inquiry with quite wide terms of reference, Mr Lawler's potential findings were open ended. In the circumstances, Mr Lawler was required to define the issues[2] and give Ms Lawrie (1) adequate notice of any adverse findings which he tentatively reached,[3] and (2) a further opportunity to show why the findings should not be made.[4] Mr Lawler failed to do so and Ms Lawrie was left in the dark as to the risk of the adverse findings being made and thus deprived of the opportunity to make further submissions which might have deterred him from making those findings.[5]
[8] In particular, Mr Young says that Mr Lawler failed to give Ms Lawrie notice of his findings about (1) Ms Lawrie's preference for Unions NT over another community group; (2) Ms Lawrie was biased in favour of Unions NT; (3) Ms Lawrie's or her office's failure to inform the Department of Lands and Planning clearly and in writing of her decision that a Crown lease of the Stella Maris site should be granted to Unions NT without an expression of interest; (4) the manner of Ms Lawrie's intervention and influence over Cabinet; (5) Ms Lawrie's failure to justify the decision to grant a Crown lease to Unions NT without an expression of interest; (6) Ms Lawrie's intervention was not proper and unfair; and (7) Mr Lawler's recommendation that the Legislative Assembly consider whether Ms Lawrie's conduct amounted to a breach of the Members Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.
[9] Mr Young submitted that Ms Lawrie's predicament was aggravated by the neutral manner in which Mr Lawler asked her questions and his failure to specify the above matters before Mr Wyvill and Ms Lawrie made their final statements to the Inquiry. I do not accept this submission. Mr Lawler's questioning style was assertive without being aggressive and it was persistent. Further, it is apparent from the closing submission of Ms Lawrie and Mr Wyvill that they understood what the issues were.
[10] In my opinion, for the following reasons which are developed in full below, Ms Lawrie's claim that she was denied procedural fairness cannot be sustained. I find that she was accorded procedural fairness.
[11] I accept the submission of junior counsel for Mr Lawler, Mr McLure that the content of the duty to provide procedural fairness depends on all of the circumstances of the case. There are no immutable rules about the content of the duty to provide procedural fairness. In most cases, a decision maker is not required to define issues which are obvious to a party who may be affected by any decision. Nor is a decision maker obliged to invite comment on his evaluation of a potentially affected party's case. Further, a person who may be affected by a decision to which the requirements of procedural fairness apply cannot complain if the argument that they have contended for is not accepted by the decision maker.[6]
[12] The issues in the Inquiry were very clear and must have been obvious to Ms Lawrie. It must not be forgotten that Ms Lawrie is a very senior and experienced politician who would naturally be acutely aware of the kinds of issues referred to in [8]. The manner in which the decision was made to grant a Crown lease of the Stella Maris site to Unions NT without an expression of interest was inherently unfair. It completely favoured Unions NT at the expense of other community groups. They were not even given the opportunity to compete for the site. The Cabinet decision meant that, unlike other community groups, it was not necessary for Unions NT to go through the 'proper' process for applying for a community land grant. Unions NT's proposal was not subject to the 'proper' Departmental assessment processes. Further, the Cabinet decision making process was not transparent.
[13] Ms Lawrie was integral to all matters leading up to Cabinet decision and the making of the Cabinet decision on 10 July 2012. For all intents and purposes, Ms Lawrie was the Minister who sponsored the Cabinet decision. When the Cabinet decision was made she had been involved in the Stella Maris site for a period of five years. She was aware that the Department of Lands and Planning had a procedure for processing applications for community land grants. The decision to grant the lease to Unions NT was made in the way it was because Ms Lawrie and her office mishandled Union NT's concept proposal for the future development of the Stella Maris site. Ms Lawrie was warned by the Department of Lands and Planning a number of times that she and the Labor Government would be criticised if a decision was made to grant a Crown lease of the Stella Maris site to Unions NT without an expression of interest.
[14] If Ms Lawrie had forgotten any of the details of how the Cabinet decision came to be made, Mr Lawler gave her an opportunity to refresh her memory by providing her with all relevant documents. Those documents, which form part of exhibit P1 in this proceeding, largely and clearly defined the issues. They raised all of the issues referred to in [8]. It is only necessary to see what occurred to understand the issues. Mr Lawler had a preliminary conference with Ms Lawrie during which he raised the key documents and the issues they gave rise to. At all times Ms Lawrie was represented by Mr Wyvill SC who is an experienced senior counsel. He was present at the preliminary interview and during the taking of Ms Lawrie's evidence before the Inquiry. During the taking of her evidence before the Inquiry, Mr Lawler painstakingly went through the relevant documents and asked Ms Lawrie questions about the issues set out in [8]. The documents defined the issues.
[15] Ms Lawrie and Mr Wyvill elected to deal with the issues which obviously arose in the Inquiry by putting forward a considered and well developed justification for Ms Lawrie's conduct based on Unions NT's attachment to the site, their capacity to maintain the site, and the rapidly approaching caretaker period of government. Ms Lawrie and Mr Wyvill were granted a fair opportunity to articulate that justification. The fact that Mr Lawler did not accept that justification does not mean that Ms Lawrie was denied procedural fairness.