A draft bill based on the findings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse will be debated when the ACT Legislative Assembly sits on Tuesday.

The bill was introduced into the Assembly in November and makes "grooming" a child a crime.

It also creates a new offence for engaging in a "sexual relationship" with a child, and ensures an accused person's "good character" cannot be used to reduce their sentence, if that reputation was why they had contact with children in the first place.

However ACT Bar Association president Ken Archer said the grooming offence could outlaw some "benign" contact, such as showing students a video of sexual activity in sex education classes, and should be linked to intent.

He also raised concerns about the retrospective elements of the bill.

A spokeswoman for ACT Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay said the bill had been changed to address concerns raised by the Bar Association.

"The government has addressed those concerns through a series of amendments that provide more explicit, clear definitions, so that there is no retrospective criminalisation of behaviour and so that innocent behaviour is not caught by the grooming offence," she said.

However Mr Archer said the changes made the bill "worse than before".

"It's a shocker. They've left the drafting as it was before, which captured innocent behaviour, but added this preamble 'without reasonable excuse'," Mr Archer said.

"Legally it's now up to the accused person to bring forward evidence to prove they're not guilty of the offence. They are of the view it makes it better [but] it captures behaviour regardless of consent."

New anti-fortification laws are also set to be debated on Tuesday.

The laws would make it a crime to fortify outlaw motorcycle gang clubhouses and allow police to get court orders to tear down walls, fences and other defences at bikie strongholds.

However a Legislative Assembly scrutiny report said it wasn't clear whether the laws would give the owner of the premises the chance to be heard, thus denying them procedural fairness.

This could be a breach of the ACT's Human Rights Act.

The ACT Greens will also call for the ACT to properly define "consent" in law, after their failed revenge porn legislation last year (although a Liberal bill addressing the problem passed with help from the Greens and Labor).

Greens crossbencher Caroline Le Couteur has released a discussion paper which builds on last year's exposure draft and the #MeToo movement, and includes a different definition of consent which would not reverse the onus of proof.

The ACT's Crimes Act is the only Australian jurisdiction without a statutory definition of consent.

In 2001, the ACT Law Reform Commission recommended the ACT enact a statutory definition of consent.

Ms Le Couteur said coupled with more education, an affirmative definition of the term in law would reinforce that consent should never be assumed.

"We need this positive definition because every day it's clear not everyone understands what we mean by consent," Ms Le Couteur said.

"If #MeToo showed anything it was that almost everyone is affected by this."

Meanwhile the Canberra Liberals have placed a target on the back of Greens minister Shane Rattenbury over his handling of his corrections portfolio.

Corrections spokeswoman Giulia Jones will move a motion calling on Chief Minister Andrew Barr to say whether he had full confidence in Mr Rattenbury, after a prisoner was accidentally released from the Alexander Maconochie Centre last year.

"There is no excuse for accidentally releasing a dangerous prisoner into the community. We don't know if this was the result of procedural policies or simply a reckless mistake. That's why there must be a review to ensure that Minister Rattenbury's policies will not put the community in harm's way," Mrs Jones said.

"The Chief Minister needs to explain why he keeps Minister Rattenbury in a portfolio which he is clearly failing in."