3 September 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I rise today to speak to the Integrity Commission Amendment (Mandatory Notifications) Bill 2025. The bill is obviously a considered response to recommendation 11 of the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government's Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings and the 2016 Independent Review of the Integrity Commission Act 2009, otherwise known as the Cox Review.

The commission of inquiry exposed profound failures in reporting and accountability within parts of our public sector. In examining those failures, the Cox Review resolved that Tasmania must strengthen its mandatory notification framework to ensure that suspected misconduct can no longer be ignored, minimised or left unaddressed.

This bill delivers that reform. It strengthens the duty to notify, clarifies expectations, and ensures that the Integrity Commission receives timely and reliable information on which it can determine its next course of action. At the same time, it embeds safeguards to ensure the system operates fairly and free of bias. It also contains inherent safeguards in its operation to pre-empt any attempt to misuse the reporting process in a vexatious manner.

Going back to the review, recommendation 11 of the Cox Review is clear, and I quote it here in its succinct entirety:

Strengthen mandatory reporting obligations to the Integrity Commission so that senior officers must notify suspected misconduct or serious misconduct.

The review concluded that Tasmania's existing framework, in laypersons' term, was a complete muddle. It found that senior officers were often uncertain about when to report, how to report, or whether they were even required to report at all. In some cases, concerns were mishandled and not raised at all in the appropriate manner. In others, matters were handled informally or internally when they should have been referred to the commission for an independent determination.

The bill introduces a clear statutory duty for prescribed public officers to notify the Integrity Commission when they suspect, on reasonable grounds, that misconduct or serious misconduct has taken place. It ensures that senior officers cannot simply choose whether to report. Where there are reasonable grounds, they must act; they must ensure that their concerns reach the body empowered to properly assess them.

The phrase 'reasonable grounds' is central to this reform. It is an objective legal standard and was subject to debate in the other place. Whilst it is at a lower threshold than what might be termed a 'reasonable belief', it still requires evidence, not speculation.

I would like to share an excerpt of the Attorney-General's contribution on the matter, one in which he quoted a threshold example from the Western Australian guidelines. Those guidelines are Notifying Misconduct - A Guide for Principal Officers of Notifying Authorities, which could equally be applied here in Tasmania and in other jurisdictions. It states:

'Suspicion on reasonable grounds' is not a high threshold. It means a Principal Officer has formed a suspicion of the existence of serious or minor

misconduct after making an assessment that is fair, sensible and based on sound judgment.

Information about the alleged misconduct does not have to be in the direct knowledge of the Principal Officer, who should give consideration to the reliability of the information sources.
Suspicion on reasonable grounds requires some factual basis but does not require definitive proof, it merely requires a stronger level of knowledge than mere speculation, rumour, gossip or innuendo.
Mr President, I'd like to think that that definition can help to define the essential guidelines that will become part of the bill's enactment - guidelines that the Integrity Commission will be required to issue under section 32F. They will provide additional clarity on how suspicions should be formed, what information is relevant, and how notifications must be made and will hopefully clarify any uncertainty that may arise. I'd like to think they will be the first point of reference to ensure any prescribed public officer can get it right first time and avoid any misinterpretation of the intent of the legislation. I would like to think that they will be available at the commencement date and perhaps the honourable Leader can advise us accordingly.

Mr President, it is important to emphasise whilst the commission of inquiry revealed failures in reporting misconduct relating to child sexual abuse, the Cox Review concluded that the underlying problem was structural and a system-wide issue across the public sector.

The review found that Tasmania's reporting framework lacked clarity. It found that senior officers were uncertain about their obligations in a range of different contexts. It found that the absence of a clear statutory duty created inconsistency, hesitation and, in some cases, complete inaction. The bill therefore applies to all forms of misconduct and serious misconduct as defined under the Integrity Commission Act 2009. That includes breaches of codes of conduct, misuse of authority or position, improper or corrupt decision-making, misuse of information, serious neglect of duty, conduct that undermines public trust, and criminal conduct. By strengthening mandatory reporting across all these categories, the bill can hopefully rebuild public trust in the integrity of our public sector - and that perhaps includes all of us in parliament as politicians too, be they the government, opposition, the crossbench and Independents.

Mr President, the bill has come to us with an amendment, and I'd like to note that the Greens amendment that makes a member of parliament a mandatory notifier of another member of parliament. Perhaps it was a simple oversight in the initial draft, but it's an essential amendment if the goal is to restore public trust in us as politicians.

I'd also like to note the amendment moved by an Independent member in the other place. It's one that removed the exemption for mandatory notifiers to make a report if they knew that the misconduct had already been notified to the Integrity Commission. It removes the possible risk of a delay in reporting in case one person is waiting for another to act first. It also allows the Integrity Commission to have a more fulsome background on which it can deliberate. Both amendments strengthen the bill that's before us today.

I would add that while the bill strengthens the obligations around mandatory reporting, it also strengthens safeguards. It ensures that the system operates fairly and responsibly.

Mr President, we cannot ignore the other context in which this bill arrives. In recent and not so recent times, Tasmania has seen both government ministers and opposition members resign or step down from their roles due to ongoing legal matters or allegations of possible misconduct. I would like to think that the bill can provide an objective framework in which reasonable concerns can be addressed properly and fairly by the Integrity Commission, ideally long before an unfair trial by media or to stymie a possible political vendetta. I have to ask if the government has factored these considerations into its drafting of the bill. On the other side of the coin, would I be right in understanding that a finding after the Integrity Commission assesses a notification can be subject to review or an appeal?

However, Mr President, I assume the commission itself retains full authority to assess notifications. It can dismiss matters that do not meet the reasonable grounds threshold. It can determine whether further action is required. It can ensure that the system operates fairly and independently. These safeguards will ensure that the clarified and strengthened reporting framework is effective and appropriate.

Mr President, the bill is one more step in implementing the recommendations of the Cox Review. Whilst I understand there's further legislation on its way to address more of those recommendations, the bill before us today does what it says on the tin. It fully implements recommendation 11 of the Cox Review. In the current febrile climate of rapidly dissolving public trust in the government and political processes, and one that's concurrent with the rise of populist opportunists that's not a bad thing.

Mr President, I fully support the bill and congratulate the government and those people who've worked on the legislation.