May 5, 2026 – Cabinet submissions and briefing papers will be publicly available in July, the Premier said in question time today.
He was responding to my question following up on my successful March motion requiring these cabinet papers be proactively released.
The disclosure will be backdated to April 30 in accordance with the call of the House.
The motion was described by integrity experts as a gamechanger, delivering a level of transparency and accountability that Tasmanians want and need.
I welcome the Premier’s stated commitment today to the motion and accept his promise to have the necessary portal available for public access before the winter recess (July).
My motion required cabinet submissions and briefing papers be proactively released within 30 days of a final decision.
My motion passed: 30-day release of cabinet papers
March 18, 2026 – Proud to say my motion requiring cabinet submissions and briefing papers to be proactively released within 30 days of a final decision has passed the parliament today.
This is a gamechanger, delivering a level of transparency and accountability the community has been demanding for a long time.
It’s now up to the government to live up to these expectations.
It’s also a great example of how a minority parliament can lift standards of governance, transparency and accountability.
It shows how a strong crossbench and willing Opposition can work together to force the government’s hand.
At its heart, this motion addresses a simple democratic principle: when governments make major decisions involving public money, public risk and public consequences, the public should be able to see the information that informed those decisions.
It is worth reflecting on why this reform matters in the Tasmanian context.
Recent decisions have involved enormous financial commitments and long-term risk for the state.
The Macquarie Point stadium proposal.
The Spirit of Tasmania fleet replacement and berthing arrangements.
Major infrastructure commitments such as Marinus Link.
In each case, Parliament and the public have struggled to obtain the information needed to properly understand the assumptions and risks behind those decisions.
Even the Auditor-General has noted occasions where scrutiny was limited because Cabinet documents were withheld under claims of public interest immunity.
Earlier access to Cabinet submissions would not have prevented government from making those decisions.
That is not the point.
The point is that Parliament and the public would have been able to test assumptions, challenge reasoning and identify risks earlier before decisions are hardened and costs sunk.
Democracy works best when scrutiny happens while decisions are still live — not years later through audits or inquiries.