Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff faces mounting pressure from the crossbench, who have issued an ultimatum demanding he reveal precisely when he became aware that former minister Madeleine Ogilvie allegedly misled Parliament. The coalition of Greens and independent MPs has warned they are prepared to deploy “parliamentary options” to secure the answers they seek if the Premier fails to provide “direct and exact responses” by Friday morning.
Ms Ogilvie stepped down from her cabinet position on May 30, stating her intention to prevent government distraction after admitting to answering a question “poorly.” The controversy stems from a statement made to a parliamentary committee in November last year, where she asserted she had not been involved in any Supreme Court proceedings in the preceding 18 months. However, late last month, Ms Ogilvie confirmed she had indeed initiated legal action in the Supreme Court, sparking accusations of misleading Parliament.
During last week’s budget estimates hearings, the Premier and his ministerial colleagues faced rigorous questioning regarding the matter. However, they consistently declined to offer specific details about who possessed what knowledge and when, citing the complexity of the situation due to confidentiality requirements.
Crossbench Ultimatum: Demands for Transparency
In response to what they describe as stonewalling, four Greens MPs and three independent members – Kristie Johnston, Peter George, and Helen Burnet – have penned a letter to Premier Rockliff. The letter unequivocally accuses the Premier and his ministers of evading straightforward questions during recent budget estimates hearings in both the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council.
“There is no satisfactory explanation for your repeated refusal to answer straightforward questions during Budget Estimates hearings in the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council [last] week,” the letter states. “Your non-answers have shown profound disrespect to the Parliament and the Tasmanian people.”
Beyond the core allegations of misleading Parliament, the signatories have outlined what they deem “basic facts” surrounding the issue:
- Legal Fee Expenditure: Approximately $120,000 in taxpayer funds was allocated to Ms Ogilvie’s legal fees between 2023 and 2025, with these expenses directly linked to her ministerial responsibilities.
- Notification Protocols: Public officers, including ministers like Ms Ogilvie, who receive taxpayer funding for legal fees are obligated to inform the relevant responsible officer – in this instance, Premier Rockliff – of any ongoing legal proceedings.
- Premier’s Confirmation: During last week’s budget estimates, Premier Rockliff acknowledged that these established guidelines had been adhered to.
- Cabinet Approval: The decision to approve the quantum of funding provided to Ms Ogilvie for her legal costs rests solely with the Cabinet.
Based on these established facts, the crossbenchers contend that the Premier and his Cabinet were privy to the fact that Ms Ogilvie had misled Parliament before the matter was brought to public attention in May. Furthermore, they argue that once the issue was raised in Question Time on May 21, the Premier and likely his Cabinet colleagues would have been fully aware of the misleading statement.
“Despite this, you did not act at that time,” the letter asserts. “This is a clear failure of your duties under the Ministerial Code of Conduct, and of basic integrity standards.” The signatories emphasise that the Ministerial Code of Conduct places the ultimate responsibility for ministerial integrity “squarely with you as Premier.”
The letter concludes with a demand for Premier Rockliff to provide answers to a total of 20 questions by 9 am on Friday. Five of these questions specifically seek clarification on dates, including the precise moment Premier Rockliff first learned that Ms Ogilvie’s November parliamentary statement was inaccurate. The remaining 15 questions require simple “yes or no” responses to a range of critical matters, such as:
- Whether the Premier was aware of Ms Ogilvie’s involvement in a Supreme Court hearing prior to her November parliamentary appearance.
- Whether the Premier or any member of his office provided input to a written statement Ms Ogilvie read in Parliament on May 28, in response to questions concerning the issue.
- Whether the Premier sought legal advice regarding the scope of information he could and could not disclose during last week’s budget estimates hearings in relation to Ms Ogilvie’s situation.
“Should direct and exact answers to all these questions not be forthcoming, we reserve the right to use the parliamentary options available to us to pursue the required accountability owed to Tasmanians,” the letter warns.
Government Response and Internal Disagreement
Infrastructure Minister, Shane Broad, has refuted claims of “stonewalling” by government ministers. “I have no doubt that the premier will make more comments when he is legally allowed to on that subject,” he stated. “It’s a very complicated legal situation. It is within the policies that have been around for the last 20 years for MPs to work from.”
Independent MP David O’Byrne has expressed solidarity with the crossbenchers’ concerns about government transparency. “The government has handled this matter terribly and should have been more forthcoming with information when questioned,” Mr O’Byrne commented. However, he has opted not to sign the letter, explaining, “The reason I am not signing is that I believe the extent of the letter has the potential to cause great uncertainty and may trigger a series of events that could cause significant parliamentary turbulence.” He added that he has directly raised his concerns about the Ogilvie matter with the Premier.
Labor Calls for Broader Scrutiny
The Labor party has welcomed the crossbenchers’ letter but has also called for the investigation to be expanded to encompass Racing Minister Jane Howlett. It was revealed in March that Ms Howlett had incurred over $300,000 in legal fees, funded by the public purse, in connection with her ministerial duties since 2023. The government maintains these fees were paid “in line with indemnity protocols.”
During budget estimates hearings last week, Labor MP Dean Winter questioned Ms Howlett about her alleged involvement in an Integrity Commission investigation known as “Loyetea,” which reportedly pertains to conflicts of interest and misuse of information. Ms Howlett responded at the time, “These are complex matters, particularly given confidentiality requirements, and I won’t be commenting any further.”
Mr Winter has since declared it “untenable” for Ms Howlett to remain in her ministerial role. “We now have one minister gone and the other minister holding on for grim life and being unable to answer a single question,” he said. He drew a parallel to Ms Ogilvie’s resignation, noting her statement that she faced a choice between legal obligations under a suppression order and providing information sought by the Greens. Mr Winter argued that if Ms Howlett cannot provide answers regarding her Supreme Court involvement or Integrity Commission investigations, she should follow Ms Ogilvie’s example and resign.
In response to inquiries about Ms Howlett, government figures have indicated she has already addressed the matter. A government spokesperson reiterated that Ms Howlett had “dealt with the issue” and stated that Labor was engaging in “political games.” They further asserted that Labor “knows the circumstances are completely different to that involving Ms Ogilvie.” Ms Howlett was recently assigned some of Ms Ogilvie’s former portfolios, including Arts, Community, and Multicultural Affairs.
