Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay tabled the government's response to a Legislative Assembly committee's inquiry into the 2016 election on Tuesday, showing the government only "noting" the committee's recommendation to act on the loophole.

The CFMEU used the loophole, created just before the 2016 poll, to exceed the $40,000 spending cap, by channelling $35,000 through its own coffers and a further $38,000 through its training arm, Creative Safety Initiatives.

While the committee last year urged the government to tighten the loophole to prevent such things recurring, both government members of the committee, Bec Cody MLA and Tara Cheyne opposed the recommendation.

Ms Cody, who chaired the committee, told The Canberra Times last year that there was "no evidence" the cap was actually exceeded, despite acting electoral commissioner Ro Spence telling the committee the changes that created the loophole created "the ability to create multiple separate legal entities" able to exceed it.

While three other non-party campaigners directly exceeded the cap, and were penalised by the commission for it, it is understood the commission was unable to impose any penalty on the CFMEU due to the loophole.

The response noting the recommendation also suggested, as the government has previously argued, that closing the loophole may be subject to challenge in the High Court, though that claim has previously been rejected by a number of constitutional experts.

In the response, the government also responded to Elections ACT's own report on the 2016 election, indicating it will act on the commission's recommendation to increase the $40,000 cap, which was reduced from $60,000 after the 2012 poll, but it is unclear to what level it would be cut.

The government's response to the committee inquiry agreed in principle with either recommendations, agreed outright to six, noted seven recommendations and disagreed with two recommendations.

It showed the government agreed with keeping the minimum voting age at 18 years old, and including political party fundraising events raising at least $250 in the donations disclosure rules, which demand reporting of donations of $1000 or more cumulatively, as well as reviewing and updating ACT politicians' communications allowance rules

The government will also examine NSW's ban on property developers with a view to introducing a similar ban in the territory.

While that ban was an election commitment from both Labor and The Greens, it remains unclear what specific definition would be used, as political donors such as the Labor Club engage in property-related activities.

The government will also investigate year-round reporting of political donations within seven days of the donation being reported, rather than the current rules which only demand such reporting within the "election period" between July and the polling day in October.

It also rejected a committee recommendation to allow campaign material to be displayed on private property inside the 100 metre "exclusion zone" that surrounds each polling place, given concerns it could be used to circumvent that rule.

The government also appears unlikely to act on a committee proposal to allow voters to vote pre-poll without having to officially declare that they are unable to do on polling day, only noting the recommendation.

It follows Greens MLA Caroline Le Couteur voicing concerns such a change could affect the nature of campaigning in the territory and the amount of information voters would have when they made decisions in the polling booth.

Mr Ramsay told the Assembly the government would work to implement the recommendations agreed to over the next two years.