The integrity commission bill is one of four major items the government will try and tick off its list before the end of the sitting year.

Two different versions of the legislation have been considered by a select committee chaired by Greens leader Shane Rattenbury - an exposure draft put up by the government, and a private members bill from ACT Opposition leader Alistair Coe.

Both would allow the integrity commissioner to investigation corrupt cops - something ACT Policing has been fighting tooth and nail to stop, and that has been held up by turmoil in the federal government.

Mr Coe's bill would create a specific definition of corrupt conduct for ACT politicians, that would mean breaches of the code of conduct that threaten to bring the Legislative Assembly into disrepute could be referred to the commissioner for investigation.

It would also include judges and private building certifiers in its definition of public official.

The government's bill has a tighter criteria for who can be the integrity commissioner (the committee heard concerns it was so strict it excluded everyone except a few elderly judges applying).

Mr Coe's bill would allow a lawyer with more than 10 years of experience to fill the position, although his version stops anyone who's ever been a member of a political party becoming commissioner (in the government's version, the commissioner can't have been a member in the past five years).

There's also nothing in Mr Coe's bill stopping someone convicted of a serious crime becoming commissioner. The government's bill precludes anyone convicted of a crime punishable by a year in prison from applying.

The select committee must report back by next Wednesday on the competing bills.

The government must also bring forward its new third party compulsory insurance scheme bill in the next few weeks.

ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr has said he wants the final version of the bill to be introduced by the end of the year, so the scheme can be introduced in mid-2019.

An exposure draft of the legislation is being scrutinised by the ACT's Justice and Community Safety Committee.

Submissions closed 11 days ago, and the committee is yet to announce whether it will hold public hearings.

Under the new scheme anyone injured in a motor vehicle accident will be able to access treatment, care and income support for up to five years, with the most seriously injured and the not-at-fault able to access additional benefits.

However the ACT's legal fraternity is strongly opposed to the no-fault scheme, which they say will hand too much power to insurance companies.

The costings for the scheme are also yet to be finalised, although Canberrans are expected to save between $91 and $171 on their yearly premiums.

It's also yet to be determined whether there'll be a refund like that offered in NSW for people who renew their CTP insurance before the transition next year.

The government is also said to be bringing forward legislation to overhaul the compulsory community contributions clubs with poker machines must pay.

Clubs will forced to pay an extra percentage of their net gaming revenue to the Chief Minister's Charitable Fund under the shake-up of the scheme, Gaming Minister Gordon Ramsay said in August.

The new scheme comes after the ACT Auditor-General found there was little oversight of the scheme and the definition of contributions was "ambiguous".

However Clubs ACT blasted the proposal as a cash grab that would remove funding that sporting organisations and community groups relied on.

It's still unclear how much extra clubs would have to pay on top of their community contributions, but it comes as the government looks to tax clubs for each poker machine licence they own.

It is also understood the government will bring forward legislation related to the loophole in the ACT's discrimination laws that could allow religious schools to reject gay students and teachers.

Mr Barr strongly rejected recommended changes to federal anti-discrimination laws to enshrine that right in Commonwealth legislation, saying it represented an "outrageous attack on the human rights of thousands of Australians".

When asked about the ACT's loophole, he said the exemptions were not intended to "licence students being kicked out of school because of their sexuality" and he was not aware of any cases where the legislation had been used in that way.

"We are reviewing the legislation and if there is any possibility of a loophole of interpretation of the act that would allow this kind of discrimination, the government will quickly move to close it," Mr Barr said at the time.

It's unclear at this stage what changes will be made, especially as it is uncertain how the changes proposed by the Ruddock review would interact the ACT’s anti-discrimination and human rights laws.