The Tasmanian premier, Will Hodgman, has declared he has a mandate for about 200 policies that were released to interest groups and not made available for public scrutiny during the state election campaign.



But he promised the Liberal government’s controversial guns policy – released to shooting groups and farmers and not uncovered until the day before the election – would not breach the national firearms agreement, suggesting it may be changed before it is introduced to parliament.



After the plan to relax some gun laws came to light on Friday, Hodgman said it was not unusual for policies to be released directly to interested organisations. He said the Liberals had made about 300 commitments. Only 85 were listed on its website.



In his first press conference since being comfortably returned to power in Saturday’s poll, the premier said the remaining 200 policies would be made public soon. Asked if he believed the government had a mandate to deliver all of them, he said “yes”.



All parties announced policies via media release, he said, and others by direct commitments to groups.



“For the communities that are affected by them, or have an interest in that subject matter, there has been consultation as far as we are able to within the context of an election campaign,” he said.



Hodgman said he would not rush through changes to gun laws, acknowledging it remained a sensitive issue for Tasmanians 22 years after 35 people were killed in the Port Arthur massacre. “This is my firm guarantee – we will not do anything to compromise the national firearms agreement,” he said. “Nothing will be done to prevent people from expressing their views. We will extensively consult and we’ll be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.”

Asked about sections of the policy written by the police minister, Rene Hidding, that were at odds with the national firearms agreement – including pledges to increase the extent of the maximum gun licence duration and to reduce the penalties for minor firearm storage breaches – Hodgman said: “I am guided by the advice of my minister ... [we will] ensure there is no breach of the national firearms agreement.”



The guns policy was spelt out in a letter to a firearms consultation group on 9 February. It said the government would extend the limit on gun licence duration for some firearms categories from five to 10 years, abolish mandatory weapon removal for minor breaches of storage laws and consider introducing a new firearms category covering all banned guns that would allow “certain specialists” to use them.

Hidding also promised the government would ask the national Council of Police Ministers to consider expanding access to Category C firearms – pump-action and rapid-fire shotguns – to make them available to a greater range of sporting shooters.

The federal law enforcement minister, Angus Taylor, told Guardian Australia the national firearms agreement, introduced after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, was one of the greatest legacies of the former prime minister, John Howard, and the Turnbull government would not support changes to it.

Port Arthur survivors have criticised the government’s plan.

Hodgman said he believed the state’s gun laws could be improved for farmers and law-abiding gun owners without watering down the national agreement or putting safety at risk.

“I stand by our policy intent. I don’t believe we’ve done anything improper or inappropriate. It is not dissimilar to what the Labor party has done either,” he said.

It is unclear whether the government will have parliamentary support for its guns policy. While it has a clear majority in the state’s lower house, having received more than 50% of the primary vote and winning at least 13 of the 25 seats, it has only one representative in the 15-member upper house, which was not up for election on Saturday. Labor has four, 10 are independents. Labor has also promised to reduce penalties for minor breaches of firearms storage laws, but criticised other changes proposed by the government.

The guns policy may face internal resistance. Sue Hickey, a newly elected Liberal MP, told the ABC on Saturday that the proposed changes came “as a bit of a shock” and would need to be discussed.

An independent upper house MP, Rob Valentine, questioned whether the government had the right to put issues not discussed during the campaign on the agenda in the new parliament.

“They go into these things at their peril if they haven’t properly consulted. To consult with just the sector affected is just not good enough. On the issue of gun control, that affects the broader populace and they have views on this,” he said.

Much of the Tasmanian election debate was dominated by Labor’s pledge to remove gaming machines from pubs and clubs. Labor and the Greens have both accused the Liberals of buying seats in parliament, citing the widespread belief the government’s campaign was heavily bankrolled by the gaming and hospitality industry.

Hodgman denied the government had spent $5m on advertising, but said he was not aware how much had been spent. He said it was patronising to suggest the election had been bought.

“Tasmanians know exactly who they are voting for and the reasons for doing so,” he said. “To tell anyone that they could be so stupid as to not know why they are making their vote, for what reasons, I think demonstrates political parties are out of touch with the voters they seek to represent.”

But the premier said the government would look at proposals for the state to introduce campaign finance disclosure laws.

Tasmania is covered by federal laws that require annual disclosure of total donations and individual donations of more than $13,500. Under these laws, the details of who donated to the political parties in the campaign is not due to be released until 2019.

The government will need to legislate to introduce its pokies policy of directly licensing pubs and clubs to operate gaming machines from 2023, ending hotel company Federal Group’s monopoly. It is unclear if the upper house will back the change.

Valentine said it was ridiculous for the government to suggest it had a mandate for its gaming policy. “They’ve got a mandate to put it on the agenda,” he said. “The upper house is not a rubber stamp.”