Integrity Commission Amendment (Mandatory Notifications) Bill 2025 (No 69)
Thursday 3 September 2026
[5.24 p.m.]
Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - I thank the honourable Leader for bringing forward the bill.
The bill seeks to implement and legislate recommendations made by the commission of inquiry, which we all know was a watershed moment in Tasmanian policy and law. As part of its role, the commission of inquiry considered the role of oversight bodies, noting potential gaps in a reportable conduct scheme for some departments and organisations. It was therefore considered that the Integrity Commission could have a role in overseeing the management of allegations of child sexual abuse in some situations.
Recommendation 18-11 of the final report for the COI stated that the Tasmanian Government should implement recommendation 11 of the Cox review, obliging public authorities to notify the Integrity Commission of any allegations of serious misconduct. The commission of inquiry was a broad and comprehensive review of existing systems, procedures, structures and institutions. The commission of inquiry revealed both the depth of abuse which occurred against children and vulnerable people in public institutions, and it's been our mandate to ensure that the recommendations of the commission of inquiry are implemented. This bill addresses one of them.
Recommendation 11 of the Cox Review recommends that the Integrity Commission Act be amended to require mandatory notification by public authorities of serious misconduct and misconduct by designated public officials to the Commission in a timely manner. As the Leader mentioned, designated public officers are specified in the act and include things like Commission police officers, senior executive officers, statutory office holders, principal officers of public authorities, members of parliament and council members. To this end, the bill introduces a mandatory requirement on principal officers of public authorities to notify the Integrity Commission of any matter or information that the principal officer suspects on reasonable grounds involves or may involve either misconduct or serious misconduct of a designated public officer or serious misconduct by a public officer. This requirement captures a number of matters of conduct and doesn't limit notification requirements to issues of things like abuse against children. It includes a broad definition of misconduct, which encompasses a wide range of matters including sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and other matters.
Principal officers are already defined within schedule 1 of the act, and includes heads of agencies, the commission of police, the general manager of a council and the CEO of a government business enterprise or state-owned corporation. The obligations which this bill replace on a mandatory notifier are important and necessary to ensure our systems and institutions robustly and proactively detect and deter misconduct. The honourable Leader stated that notifications must be made, even if there are other existing confidentiality notifications, and whether or not the matter has been referred to another person or public authority. Moreover, it operates historically and captures events or conduct which have occurred in the past.
I further note that a mandatory notifier is also not required to make a mandatory notification if they know that legal, disciplinary, administrative or investigatory proceedings or actions in relation to the misconduct were concluded prior to the commencement of the amendments contained in this bill.
The bill provides that the Integrity Commission will be able to issue guidelines in relation to mandatory notifications to provide guidance on the form, content and method of making a notification and the types of matters they involve. The bill further contains ways in which the Integrity Commission can exercise its powers, which the honourable Leader has already spoken on.
I'd be appreciative if the honourable Leader could please advise how the commission will be resourced to ensure these requirements are met. I note they have considerable requirements. These are additional tasks and obligations which are being placed on what I believe is an already under resourced organisation, which has already undertaken a lot of important work, and if the mandatory notification scheme contained in this bill is to be implemented, it needs to be done properly.
Mr President, I note that this bill further addresses two other Cox review recommendations in order to facilitate the operation of the mandatory notification provisions. While the honourable Leader has already gone through these, I note the additional recommendations of the Cox review are incorporated into this bill. This includes adding a definition of 'offence of a serious nature' to the Interpretation section of the principle act as an offence punishable by imprisonment of a term of 12 months or longer, which provides clarity and certainty from mandatory notifiers, and a decision which certainly makes a lot of sense.
The bill also makes the Vice Chancellor of the University of Tasmania the principal officer for the university and is another clause which will help to clarify and facilitate the bill. Mr President, this bill represents another step forward into fully implementing the recommendations made by the commission of inquiry. It's the result of the hard work of many who took the time to make submissions and provide their expertise and experience and will improve Tasmanian law and help to ensure that institutional abuse and misconduct are identified and stopped.
I thank the honourable Leader for bringing the bill forward and I certainly indicate my support for it. I noticed the member for Nelson also mentioned proclamation and as I have said - many bills - I have an answer from this House that one bill from 1997 still hasn't been proclaimed. It is something that is really worth noting now and it would be really important to know the timeline of when this is likely to be proclaimed. As I said, it's great to actually pass these bills. But it's really important to make sure that they actually are proclaimed and the acts do come into effect. I would really be interested in the timeline when it's likely. I do appreciate Leader, that sometimes it can take some time, particularly if regulations have to be put in place, but I think it's really important as well that we do have a timeline. I would hate to ask this question in a couple of years time to find out what acts haven't been proclaimed and find that this was still one of them. Thank you.
