Media Release: Premier Must Clarify When He Knew Ogilvie Misled Parliament
Premier Must Clarify When He Knew Ogilvie Misled Parliament
2 June 2026
Independent Member for Nelson Meg Webb today said Estimates Committee questioning confirmed Premier Jeremy Rockliff must have known former Minister Madeleine Ogilvie was about to commence legal action last year, raising serious questions regarding when he was first aware that Parliament had been misled on the matter.
“In response to my questioning the Premier did confirm that under the current Guidelines for Legal Assistance, Ministers seeking their legal fees to be paid by the taxpayer must notify the Premier,” Ms Webb said.
“The Premier also stated it is his understanding all requirements under the Guidelines have been complied with by Ms Ogilvie.
“For Ms Ogilvie to have fully complied with these Guidelines, she would have needed to have notified the Premier of her legal fee assistance request prior commencing legal action.
“Therefore, when Ms Ogilvie denied on November 17 last year she was a party to any Supreme Court matters, the Premier would have known the State had already undertaken to pay those legal bills.
“This raises serious and concerning questions over when the Premier first became aware the former Minister had misled the parliamentary budget estimates committee hearings last November, and whether he allowed the parliament to remain misinformed for a protracted period of time.
“This Premier continuously trumpets he leads the ‘most transparent’ Government ever, but now he is clearly failing to walk that talk.”
Premier Rockliff declined to answer the following questions put to him by Ms Webb during Legislative Council Budget Estimates Committee Scrutiny hearings this morning:
- Premier, it is now recognised that former Minister Ogilvie misled the Parliament on November 17 when she responded during that session of Budget Estimates hearing with “no” when asked if she had “been a subject or party to any Supreme Court matters” in the prior 18 months. Premier, when were you first aware that the Minister had misled the Parliament?
- Were you aware of Ms Ogilvie’s subsequent ‘clarification note’ dated November 20 at the time it was submitted via the Budget Estimates committee process in which she sought to address the error, but in a less than transparent manner as it still failed to disclose any legal proceedings she initiated?
- If you were aware in November last year of Ms Ogilvie’s attempt to clarify the situation, when did you become aware that clarification still failed to correct the record fully?
While it is not that unusual for the Court to issue suppression and non-publication orders, but the fact such an order exists is usually disclosed, along with the basic details such as dates, the presiding judge etc, on the court portal as a matter of routine consistent with the principle of open and transparent justice.
- Premier, did your Government apply for the existence of any suppression order or non-publication order relating to these specific proceedings, to not be disclosed by the court?
- Has the Government seen the Court order relating to this case?
- Premier, can you confirm whether the government sought or received legal advice regarding the release of procedural information, surrounding the public notification regarding former Minister Ogilvie’s current legal action?
And please note, Premier – I am not asking you to release or divulge any legal advice which may have been received – instead on behalf of the taxpayer, I am requesting the factual and procedural clarification of whether any such legal advice was sought or received by the government regarding what could or could not be disclosed publicly, when it comes to disclosing the dates of knowing who knew what when in relation to Parliament being informed or misinformed, of dates decisions were made, or which portfolio the legal action relates to?
“I understand how frustrating this stonewalling is for Tasmanians interested in transparency and accountability,” Ms Webb said.
“There are two serious matters of non-transparency here: one is the former minister’s misleading of Parliament, and the other is the Premier’s refusal to disclose when he first became aware she had misled Parliament.
“These matters go to the heart of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and parliamentary transparency which are not being examined by the current Supreme Court proceedings and as such there should be no impediment to the Premier disclosing to the Parliament, what he knew, when and what action was taken.”
