I wrote to the Premier on 3 June 2026 seeking clear and direct answers regarding the leaking of an email sent on my behalf as Chair of Estimates Committee A, and to ask how his handling of the matter aligns with his stated commitment to leadership, accountability and a respectful workplace culture.
In particular, I asked the Premier to do three simple things:
- first, to confirm or deny whether the leak originated from his office;
- second, if not, to explain what steps he had taken to satisfy himself that no member of his office was responsible; and
- third, to acknowledge the seriousness of the incident and offer a public apology for what had occurred.
The Premier’s response I received on 11 June 2026 does not address these requests. I have written back to him requesting a direct response to the matters raised in my 3 June 2026 letter. The Premier’s response and my reply are included below.
In his 11 June response, the Premier has focused on expressing regret that I have been distressed and has suggested that the email was expected to be broadly shared. He has also stated that he cannot account for how the information reached the media. At no point does he confirm or deny whether his office was involved, nor does he outline any action taken to investigate the matter.
That is not sufficient.
This issue is not simply about distress. It is about the leaking of a communication that contained personal health related information, sent in my capacity as Chair of a Parliamentary Committee. It raises serious questions about accountability, the handling of confidential correspondence, and the standards expected of those in positions of leadership.
The Premier’s response does not indicate that any investigation has been undertaken. It does not explain why, unlike other Ministers, he has declined to make even basic inquiries within his own office. Nor does it provide any reassurance to Members of Parliament that their correspondence with Government will be treated with appropriate confidentiality in the future.
Importantly, the response reframes the issue as one of general distribution rather than addressing the central concern – that information was provided to the media when the request was clear it was intended only for those attending Estimates hearings. That distinction matters. Parliamentary correspondence, particularly on sensitive matters, must be handled with care, and there must be confidence that such material will not be improperly disclosed.
I also raised broader concerns about the implications of this incident, including whether the possibility of parliamentary privilege was considered, and the chilling effect this may have on Members who may now hesitate to raise important matters in writing. None of these issues have been addressed.
Finally, I sought a public apology – not for the distress this may have caused me, but for the circumstances that gave rise to it – the leaking to the media of personal information – and the failure to properly respond when the matter was first raised. That has not been provided.
This matter goes beyond an individual disagreement. It speaks to the standards of accountability, transparency and respect that underpin our parliamentary system and workplace culture. Those standards require more than general statements of regret. My letter requested clear answers, a willingness to investigate, and leadership that demonstrates responsibility.
This response does not meet that standard.