The Commission publishes more than most observers credit it with. Its 2024-25 annual report gives referrals received by type and year, referrals assessed, assessment timeliness against target, preliminary investigations closed by outcome, investigation status by year of commencement, outcomes of finalised investigations, and briefs referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

It also answers the central question at the top level. Of the more than 4,700 referrals assessed since commencement, the Commissioner states that about 90 per cent were excluded at the triage stage because they did not raise a corruption issue within the Commission's jurisdiction, the jurisdiction being confined to serious and systemic corrupt conduct. And for the 244 corruption issues actually dealt with in 2024-25, the report gives the statutory decision for each: 13 NACC investigations, 6 joint investigations, 13 referred to an agency for investigation, 8 referred to an agency for consideration, and 204 no further action.

That last figure is where the reporting stops. Two hundred and four decisions that a corruption issue within jurisdiction warranted no action are published as one number, with no breakdown of why -- insufficient evidence, better handled elsewhere, remedied already, too minor to warrant the Commission's resources. Those are different findings about the integrity system and they are reported as the same one.

This matters more than it normally would because the Commission has held no public hearing since it began, on the view that the Act sets an exceptional-circumstances threshold. Where hearings are closed, aggregate reporting carries the weight, and the last bucket in the chain is the one that carries none.

The annual report is the source and repays reading in full; the tables listed above answer a good deal more than the Commission is usually credited with. Parliamentary committee hearings occasionally draw out further detail on particular classes of matter.

Nothing available breaks down the no-further-action decisions by reason.

Marked verified on 2026-09-03: the annual report was downloaded and searched. Table 2.11 and the Commissioner's review carry the figures relied on here, including the statement that about 90 per cent of referrals were excluded at the triage stage as outside jurisdiction.

Checked against the annual report on 2026-09-01, and the check cut this entry down substantially.

The earlier version claimed there was no published taxonomy of outcomes at all, and that a reader could not tell whether referrals were closed for want of jurisdiction, because another body was better placed, or on the evidence. Most of that is published. Table 2.11 gives the statutory decision breakdown and reconciles exactly to its total of 244. The Commissioner's review states the 90 per cent triage exclusion figure and gives the reason for it. Table 2.14 reports preliminary investigations closed by outcome. The entry as written would have told a reader to go looking for something that was on page 27.

not_published has been dropped and aggregated now stands alone, which is the honest description of what is left: a real reporting chain that terminates in one undifferentiated bucket. The ask has shrunk accordingly, from a taxonomy of everything to a breakdown of the final category, and it requires no new collection because the Commission necessarily records a reason when it decides to take no action.

The register keeps a second, smaller point on this entry. Assessment timeliness is reported only as a percentage within 90 days. A median and a distribution would be more informative and no more revealing of any individual matter.

Statutory secrecy over individual matters is real and this entry does not ask about any of it. Recording that carefully matters for the register's credibility: an anti-corruption commission is where a transparency project is most tempted to overreach, and this entry has now overreached once already.

Related: Which Senate orders for documents has the government refused, and on what public interest immunity ground?, Which agencies refuse the most FOI requests, and on what grounds?.