Integrity Commission Oversight Committee sets remit, flags 64 reports for review

Parliament’s Integrity Commission Oversight Committee has opened its work by confirming the minutes of its March 12, 2026 sitting and setting out how it will examine reports from the Integrity Commission without retrying individual cases.

In opening remarks, the chair said the committee’s task is to test whether the Commission’s work is practical, lawful and sound, and to flag issues that need Parliament’s attention. The chair drew a sharp line between prosecution and persecution, arguing that prosecution is bound by evidence and law, while persecution arises when power outruns proof or process. Where an agency holds both investigative and prosecutorial functions, the chair said, the standard of care must be higher. The committee would support zeal within the law and resist power exercised beyond it, while staying inside its own mandate: reviewing institutional performance and reporting findings to Parliament, not directing different outcomes in particular matters.

Members pressed for time to answer those remarks and raised procedural questions about when opening comments should be debated. The chair steered the meeting through the agenda, saying issues tied to the committee’s functions would arise under matters stemming from the minutes, with other items left for any other business. Member Marks asked the secretariat to correct the March 12 record, which listed her as absent without apology; she said she had not received notice of that meeting. The minutes were then confirmed page by page, with Member Campbell moving confirmation and Member Samuda seconding.

Under matters arising, members including Member Robinson and Member Chuck argued that Integrity Commission representatives should attend when reports are under review, so questions can be answered. The chair said the committee first needed to meet formally and would invite relevant officers going forward, with notice of who would appear. Members also sought clarity on discussing process where a subject of a report has gone to court; the chair said sub judice questions would be handled case by case and that legal advice would be sought.

Counsel advised that Standing Order 80(4)(c) allows a member who disagrees with a majority report, with the committee’s leave, to attach a concise written statement of dissent. Member Chuck also urged that future agendas separately cover Commission operations under Standing Order 73D, alongside report review.

Turning to the reports before the committee, the chair said 64 matters had been referred: 57 involving failure to file statutory declarations, five substantive investigations, and two annual institutional performance reports. Members discussed awareness campaigns, repeat non-filers, management failures in public bodies, and whether non-filing later leads to full investigation. Member Chuck criticised what he called intrusive questions about old property and company holdings; Member Robinson noted the Commission had raised the declaration threshold to $12 million and adopted a risk-based approach, with electronic filing and AI analysis still expected.

Under any other business, Member Samuda called for regulations under section 64 covering Commission staff and commissioners’ own filings, external review of those declarations, and research on oversight models in comparable jurisdictions. The meeting adjourned for a date to be fixed within about 48 hours, with Integrity Commission officers to be invited; hybrid meetings were noted as an option. Adjournment was moved by Minister Marks and seconded by Member Brown Burke.