An inquiry into the ACT's nomination processes for senators, prompted after questions into Senator Katy Gallagher's citizenship amid the wider federal political scandal, has been completed.
But the inquiry examined only the procedural issues, not Senator Gallagher's validity to sit in the Upper House, given the case is now before the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.
That case is one of a series of cases involving federal politicians, many of whom have been disqualified by the court after it found they were nominated despite being foreign citizens, in breach of the Constitution.
In hearings last month, the court heard Senator Gallagher took steps to renounce her British citizenship before nominating for the 2016 election, but it was not completed by the UK Home Office until after the poll.
But the court heard two experts set to be called disagreed on whether British authorities were under a duty to accept the initial registration, or could ask for more information, and further hearings were adjourned for a date to be set.
The inquiry by the Legislative Assembly's standing committee on administration and procedure examined the ACT's process for nominating people to fill casual senate seats and how they compared to other jurisdictions.
Committee chairman Shane Rattenbury told the Assembly on Thursday the inquiry found the ACT had the most robust nomination procedures in the country, noting the relevant federal legislation only required that the Assembly choose a senator "of the same political party" to fill such vacancies.
The inquiry report showed that only the ACT, Queensland and Tasmania also required that "an additional requirement [is] that a person is qualified to be a senator".
It said that two Clerks of state legislatures told the committee that "the issue of whether a nominee is disqualified by reason of section 44 of the Australian Constitution is not a matter for state or territory legislatures".
"Rather, the issue is properly a matter for the individual concerned, the party of which the nominee is a member and the High Court of Australia in the event that the Senate refers the matter of qualification to it," the report reads.
But the report also noted that being a foreign citizen was not the only criteria for potential disqualification under section, including issues such as holding an office of profit under the Crown and undischarged bankrupts.
The report said that for the Assembly to play a role in ascertaining whether all those requirements were met "other than by requiring the current statutory declaration, would place a heavy burden on [the Assembly]".
"It is not clear what further role the Assembly could undertake, given that we currently have the most comprehensive arrangements across the other states and territory," it reads.
The committee noted the Senate's referral of Senator Gallagher to the court, committee members took the view "that it should not further investigate" that specific nomination.
But the committee also noted that "one could argue that the only changes that need to be made to the process are for the individuals and parties involved to undertake more rigorous checks before that declaration is made".
It recommended the Assembly consider the court's findings during a wider review of the Assembly's standing orders and continuing resolutions.