Marinus Contract Questioned While Stadium Steals Spotlight

While the controversial Macquarie Point stadium continues to dominate public debate, the largest infrastructure project in Tasmanian history has slipped under the radar with potentially disastrous consequences.

Independent MLC Michael Gaffney has revealed legal advice suggesting the Marinus Link agreement signed by Minister Nick Duigan may be constitutionally compromised and legally invalid, raising urgent questions about whether Tasmania is bound by a contract worth billions that was signed during the caretaker period without proper authority.

Editors note: Marinus estimate is $3.8 billion [stage one] to $6.5 billion+ to include full transmission upgrades, Macquarie Point Stadium estimate $1.13 billion to $2.5 billion+ and Bridgewater Bridge roughly $786 million.

Media release – Tas Power Democracy, 4 December 2025

Marinus Contract Invalid?! Urgent Investigation Needed

On 2 December 2025, Michael Gaffney (MLC) introduced a motion in the upper house of Tasmanian Parliament calling on the government to release immediately:

(1) the full, unredacted Project Marinus Whole-of-State Business Case;

and

(2) the Project Marinus agreement signed by Minister Duigan and the Federal government.

In his accompanying speech, Gaffney spoke of the “strong public backlash to the government’s handling of the Marinus business case and final investment decision” because “Tasmanians had expected to receive considerably more information than they were allowed to read.”

In addition, Gaffney raised concerns regarding whether the Marinus contract is even legally valid, and questioned “whether all the proper processes were followed when Duigan, as Minister for Energy and Renewables, signed a new agreement to advance the Marinus Link project with the Federal Government […] and what effect potential errors might have on the validity of the Marinus contract.”

“Legal advice from counsel has been obtained which confirms this concern. If that advice is correct, then the validity of the agreement could be constitutionally compromised.

“It leaves open the possibility the State of Tasmania may not be legally bound under the agreement and that obligations purportedly entered into could be unenforceable. This is not a mere technicality. It goes to the heart of constitutional compliance in the integrity of government decision making.”

Gaffney then went on to quote excerpts from the legal advice he had received:

On 31 July 2025, Duigan declared that he personally signed a new agreement with the Commonwealth Government to advance the Marinus Link project. No publicly available copy of the agreement Duigan signed on 31 July 2025 has been disclosed or released. News reports confirm the deal was struck and announced that the Tasmanian Government has only issued press releases and media statements summarising its terms, not the full contract text.

The new agreement, signed by Nick Duigan as the current Minister for Energy and Renewals on 31 July 2025, purportedly raises Tasmanian’s financial commitment to $103 million, marking the final investment decision for Stage 1.

There is no indication as to whether Duigan signed merely a political commitment or he signed a binding agreement contract committing Tasmania to legally binding financial obligations with another party or parties. This signing occurred during the caretaker period without tabling of the business case and without evidence of statutory delegation or governor’s authority. If he signed a binding agreement in his own name or ministerial title, it could be said that Duigan acted outside the scope of lawful power and in direct contradiction to administrative frameworks. This could place Duigan in having signed major public funding agreements without lawful authority in defiance of statutory and constitutional requirements. To assist in determining Tasmania’s liability and whether the Marinus Agreement legally binds Tasmania, it would be prudent to obtain copies of the agreement Duigan signed. Hence it remains uncertain if Tasmania is legally bound or whether it is party to a non-binding political commitment only.

Gaffney’s motion on Marinus did not succeed in Parliament.

However, the issues he raised in his speech are extremely serious and require urgent attention.

The Australian Energy Regulator is due to make a final decision on Marinus on 6 February, yet we do not know whether the agreement signed by Energy Minister Nick Duigan with the Federal Government is even valid.

Marinus is the largest proposed investment in Tasmania’s history. It must not be allowed to proceed to the construction phase on the basis of a potentially invalid contract.

There are billions of dollars at stake, not to mention the future of over half a million Tasmanians.

The public must have certainty regarding the legality of the Marinus contract. The project is already on rocky ground, with landholders affected by the NWTD transmission project declaring in a Joint Statement that the proposed NWTD and Marinus development “is not in Tasmania’s best interests and does not have Social Licence”. They have further said that they will not permit the construction of transmission infrastructure on their land and are prepared to take legal action. As Gaffney pointed out in his Parliament speech, this “could make it difficult for the North West Transmission Developments project to be delivered on time and on budget, even if it eventually ends up going ahead.”

The new information that has surfaced regarding potential issues with the Marinus contract signed by Nick Duigan could exacerbate the situation even further. Public trust in Marinus Link and associated energy projects is fast deteriorating.

In Gaffney’s closing statement in Parliament, he asked the Government “to reconsider and to support the Marinus motion after all; otherwise there is a risk of losing not only what remains of public confidence in Project Marinus but also in the Tasmanian government itself.”

Unfortunately, Gaffney’s warning fell on deaf ears. The Government chose the path of secrecy.

The Tasmanian people deserve truthful answers to the unanswered questions that remain.

Exactly who signed the Marinus agreement during the Caretaker period, and what was the person’s title? Did the party signing the contract on Tasmania’s behalf have the legal right to do so, and if not, what are the consequences?

Is the contract legally binding on Tasmania?

With construction on Project Marinus one step away from commencing, we need urgent answers to these questions.

Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse presentation of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.

Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians. 

 New initiatives on the way include … what our contributors and readers suggest! Please get in touch with your suggestions.