18 December 2025
Hon Eric Abetz MP
Treasurer of Tasmania
Parliament House
Hobart TAS 7000
Dear Treasurer,
I am writing to confirm my withdrawal from the Multi-Partisan Budget Consultation Panel.
When the panel was established, its stated purpose was to provide a structured forum for consultation on long-term fiscal strategy, budget repair initiatives and development of the annual Budget, and to enable early consultation on fiscal strategy and Budget priorities. The functions include contributing to discussion of revenue and expenditure pressures, raising suggestions for the Treasurer, evaluating expenditure, and identifying mechanisms that support budget sustainability, including options for revenue growth and expenditure reduction.
These are substantial expectations. Although I held initial reservations about whether such a panel could navigate these responsibilities appropriately—particularly given the sensitivity of revenue and expenditure decisions—I was willing to set these aside and give the process an opportunity to work.
It has become clear, however, that the panel has not operated as a deliberative forum. In practice, it has been a venue for briefings rather than genuine engagement with the decisions that shape expenditure and revenue priorities. Crossbench members already have the ability to seek briefings directly from Treasury without the need for a panel, and my view is that we should be leaning more, not less, on Treasury’s considered advice. Secretary Swain and his team have long been sounding the alarm on our fiscal trajectory; they know what is required and are more than capable of providing the solutions without political complication.
I also remain concerned about being asked—as panel members—to canvass or propose new or increased revenue measures. Determining such measures is the responsibility of government, supported by Treasury. Members of Parliament already put forward views on spending or revenue matters through the normal democratic processes: Budget Replies, public commentary, correspondence, advocacy on behalf of constituents and community groups, and committee scrutiny. These activities are transparent, recorded, and accountable. The panel, by contrast, operates behind closed doors. There is no public record, and significant parts of the Parliament—the Legislative Council and Labor members—are excluded. That raises real questions about democratic legitimacy, especially where fiscal decisions benefit particular constituencies or where government decisions remain solely within Cabinet’s prerogative despite panel discussion.
The risk is that the panel offers no more influence than MPs already have through regular representations, while attaching panel members to decisions they neither shaped nor agree with. This concern was reinforced when the Budget Development Framework presented at the last meeting made no mention of the panel at all, indicating that the government considers its input discretionary.
At the same time, major fiscal decisions—such as proceeding with the stadium and the continuing approach to Marinus Link—carry profound implications for the State’s financial position. These choices make it difficult to credibly present the panel as part of a pathway to budget repair, and impossible for me to explain to my community how participation in the panel would meaningfully influence outcomes.
I would welcome a genuine whole-of-Parliament forum that receives briefings and supports all members—Legislative Council, Labor, and crossbench—to scrutinise our financial position and understand the pressures before us. That is consistent with the democratic role of the Parliament, and I would be pleased to contribute to any discussion about how such a model might work.
In the meantime, I expect and trust that Treasury will continue to provide detailed briefings to the crossbench to support informed scrutiny of the State’s finances. That work is vital and must continue.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate to date.
Yours sincerely,
