← All decisions

1. What was proposedLeanne CastleyLiberal · Opposition
   Read the original wording (210 words)

   That this Assembly: (1) notes that the: (a) Integrity Commission is undertaking essential work to safeguard the ACT from corruption and misconduct; and (b) Commission was established with tripartite support and retains the support of all Members, including newly elected MLAs; (2) further notes that: (a) the Commission does not have sufficient resourcing to properly investigate all matters referred to it in a timely manner; (b) these limited resources are further depleted by the cost of defending actions brought by persons of interest, who may seek to delay or obstruct the Commission’s work; and (c) the Commission makes recommendations in its annual report but there is currently no mechanism by which the ACT Government publicly responds to these recommendations; and (3) calls on the Government to: (a) provide the Integrity Commission with sufficient funding to investigate potential integrity, misconduct and corruption issues in a timely manner; (b) provide the Integrity Commissioner with additional funding, as required, to defend legal actions being brought against the Commission, in relation to its investigations and reports; (c) table the Government’s response to the Integrity Commission’s budget submission, as part of the ACT Budget; and (d) commit to tabling a formal response to any recommendations of the Integrity Commission, including those made in its annual report.

2. Proposed changeAndrew BarrLabor · Minister3 December 2024

   Grouped by key words as: rewrote the proposal, changed a number or target, added reporting or consultation, turned an action into a review.

   The exact wording of this change

   Omit all text after paragraph (1)(b), substitute: “(2) further notes that: (a) provision of increased funding to attract and retain expert staff resourcing will assist the Commission to properly investigate all matters referred to it in a more timely manner; (b) the Commission has publicly indicated there are a range of factors that have caused delays in investigating matters, including legislative restrictions on employment eligibility, mandated consultation periods, legal challenges to rulings, and particular resourcing requirements; (c) some structural causes of delays were addressed through legislative reform passed by the Assembly in September 2024; (d) in the 2023-24 Budget the Government allocated an additional $940,000 over two years to increase investigative and legal resources to meet its immediate needs; (e) the Government has committed to bringing forward legislation this term to appropriately shorten mandated periods of consultation with affected parties, among other changes; (f) commission resources have necessarily been redirected to defend legal action brought by persons of interest in investigations; (g) the Government is currently legally required to formally respond to Integrity Commission reports in certain circumstances, as set out in sections 191 and 215 of the Integrity Commission Act 2018; and (h) the Commission has made recommendations in its annual report but there is currently no mechanism by which the ACT Government is required to publicly respond to all such recommendations; and (3) calls on the ACT Government to: (a) provide the Integrity Commission with sufficient funding to investigate potential integrity, misconduct and corruption issues in a timely way; (b) actively consider any Commission proposals submitted to Government via the Speaker for Budget consideration; (c) provide the Integrity Commissioner with additional funding to defend legal actions being brought against the Commission in relation to its investigations and reports, if requested and through proper Budget processes, with appropriate independent oversight established to allow spending beyond budgeted levels; (d) provide a public statement, as part of the Budget tabling process, if the Integrity Commission’s Budget funding request differs from the funding granted in that financial year; and (e) commit to publicly responding to and tabling any formal recommendations made by the Integrity Commission, where such a response is not already legislatively required, including any made in its annual report.”. Debate continued.

   Agreed on the voices. No individual votes were recorded. Agreed. The Minutes don't print the final text, so we can't check the wording.

3. What the Assembly decidedAgreed

   Decided on the voices: no individual votes were recorded, so this doesn’t show that every MLA agreed.

   The Minutes don’t print the final text for this one, so we can’t show the agreed wording.