Transparency, independence and public participation in decision-making are critical for a healthy democracy. They promote accountability, integrity, trust and good governance, combat corruption, and ensure less influence by special interests.

However, Tasmania’s democracy is failing.

• The Tasmanian Government is the most secretive in Australia/Change the government culture from one of secrecy to one of openness

• 2023 Analysis by the Environmental Defenders Office of the administration of Tasmania’s freedom of information (FOI) laws found Tasmania is the most secretive in Australia: 

‘The highest rate of refusals of FOI applications. Tasmanians are more likely to have their freedom of information applications refused than citizens elsewhere in Australia.

An unacceptably high rate of errors. Tasmanian Government agencies routinely misinterpret the Right to Information (RTI) Act when assessing applications. Up to 70% of refusals over the past five years have been overturned on review by the state Ombudsman.

Unacceptably slow review times. Citizens have had to wait almost three years on average to have refused RTI Act applications reviewed. When information is finally released, it is often too old to be of use.

 A large and growing backlog of unresolved reviews. Funding for external reviews has flatlined over the past decade while the number of reviews requested has increased steadily, creating a large and growing backlog.

A low level of government accountability. In any democracy, access to government information is a critical component of government accountability. Currently, the RTI Act is not being administered in a way that allows for the efficient public scrutiny of government decisions.’

The EDO’s excellent report recommends 12 reforms to enhance transparency and efficiency in the administration of the Act by:

1. Changing the government culture from one of secrecy to one of openness;
2. Limiting legitimate reasons for withholding government information;
3. Improving the quality of initial assessments;
4. Reducing assessment and review times; and
5. Enhancing transparency and efficiency.

• Ensure Tasmania’s Integrity Commission goes from one of the weakest anti-corruption bodies in Australia to one of the best.

• Research by The Australia Institute from March 2022, Tassie Corruption Body a Toothless Tiger: Research shows the Integrity Commission Tasmania is one of the weakest anti-corruption bodies in Australia. 

• The research reveals Tasmania’s anti-corruption body is one of the lowest funded in Australia, with some of the weakest powers, fewest investigations, and most restricted jurisdictions. 
• The Integrity Commission Tasmania needs boosted funding, a broader jurisdiction and the power to hold public hearings. 
• The Integrity Commission Tasmania needs to broaden its mandate to allow investigation of third parties – those that may be seeking to influence impartial public administration. This is not currently provided for in the Act. 
• The Australia Institute’s March 2022 Submission: Giving Our Watchdog Teeth: Response to the Tasmanian Integrity Commission Act Legislative Reform Discussion Paper concludes:

‘Tasmania’s Integrity Commission is weak and is losing public trust. It has never held a public hearing. It cannot investigate politicians’ conduct during election campaigns, nor can it investigate corrupt conduct of third parties seeking to influence public administration. It has the second lowest per capita budget of a state/territory commission. It has only ever referred two people for prosecution, the lowest number for any state. Tasmania’s Commission needs public hearings, more publicly released reports and more funding. Its jurisdiction needs to expand to include Members of Parliament during election periods, corrupt conduct of third parties and matters covered by Parliamentary privilege’. 

• Unregulated Political donations/Ban property developer donations

• Political donations, including from property developers, are unregulated in Tasmania, despite a government review on the issue.
• Tasmania must prohibit property developers and their associates from making political donations as they have done in NSW, ACT and QLD. Tasmania also needs to ensure there are no loopholes such as donating through charitable structures. 
• Banning property developer donations to political parties and candidates will reduce the risk of corruption.

• Improve access to planning information

• The community needs better access to planning information. Effective public participation in planning relies on access to information.

• Access to planning information must be improved by:

• • ensuring adequate resources are available to local governments to develop planning scheme maps such as for planning scheme biodiversity mapping;
  • requiring councils to make development application material available electronically and in hard copy until the appeal period ends;
  • establishing an online, easily searchable register of planning permits; and
  • resourcing Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT), the Tasmanian Planning Commission and the Environmental Defenders Office to prepare practical, user-friendly guidance on the operation of the planning system.

• The community’s right of say is being removed/Ensure the community has a meaningful right of say with access to planning appeals

The Tasmanian Planning Scheme

The former head of the powerful and influential Property Council chaired the process that created our Statewide planning scheme. This is a fundamental reason why it is out of balance, favoring the development sector over local communities. 

The Tasmanian Planning Scheme reduces the community’s right to have a say and, in many instances, removes planning appeal rights, weakening democracy. The one size fits all  Tasmanian Planning Scheme makes it very difficult to protect local character and significantly fails to meet community expectations on a vast amount of issues.

On of PMAT’s founding concerns is that the Tasmanian Planning Scheme removes opportunities for councils and communities to have a say on future developments. Increasingly, uses and developments are able to occur without public consultation or rights of appeal. Too many uses and developments are characterised as permitted and therefore, are not subject to public comment or appeal rights. 

Public participation (including rights of planning appeal) is critical to best practice decision-making.

Public participation improves the information available to decision makers, holds decision makers to account, improves community support for assessment processes and has been recognised as an important protection against corruption.